|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 21:38:00 GMT
I've never come across anyone who doesn't know what "always" means, or what "now" means, or what any of the other commonly used terms and concepts relating to time mean. This is why I find it so strange that you're asking me to explain them to you. So I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that next time you use one of those terms that you pause for a moment and ask yourself what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:01:03 GMT
I've never come across anyone who doesn't know what "always" means, or what "now" means, or what any of the other commonly used terms and concepts relating to time mean. This is why I find it so strange that you're asking me to explain them to you. So I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that next time you use one of those terms that you pause for a moment and ask yourself what you meant. Lol. It is a simple question. How long is "always" ? or How much time qualifies as "now" ? I am guessing you are not familiar with scientific concepts relating to time?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 22:06:33 GMT
Maybe you could ask someone who like you has found themselves wondering what these everyday words mean. So, what first made you start wondering what they mean, or have you always been unsure?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:19:58 GMT
Maybe you could ask someone who like you has found themselves wondering what these everyday words mean. So, what first made you start wondering what they mean, or have you always been unsure? I just think about these things when I am by myself. They are vague concepts, filler words. They don't have any meaningful information. What does i'll be back in a jiffy mean? How much time is in a jiffy? Watch the video I provided.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:24:26 GMT
I've never come across anyone who doesn't know what "always" means, or what "now" means, or what any of the other commonly used terms and concepts relating to time mean. This is why I find it so strange that you're asking me to explain them to you. So I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that next time you use one of those terms that you pause for a moment and ask yourself what you meant. Finally you are admitting a basic truth. Your experience is limited. Everyone's experience is limited. That is why it is so important to at least hear out other people's experiences and viewpoints. You haven't come across someone who thinks so differently from you. It doesn't mean their thinking is wrong. After all, who knows who is right? I hope I changed your mind regarding different people and differing views. There are no absolutes. Its all subjective.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:28:35 GMT
To be honest, I have forgotten why we started having this discussion about always and now in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:29:29 GMT
Oh wait, I remember now. You implied that there is a possibility that the universe always existed. I asked you what you meant by "always".
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 22:36:08 GMT
Hold on, you're getting confused. I haven't even posted in the thread about mormons.
Yes, I suggested exploring the theoritical (if you can call it that) possibility that the universe never actually came into being. When I use the word always in this sense, I mean a universe that doesn't have a beginning. I was just posing the question, not necessarily making a point.
Then we got onto the topic of time, and related concepts.
The whole thing started because I responded to what you said before, to someone else, which was :
"You are presupposing that the universe was created in the first place. We do not know how the universe came into existence. The act of creation means that there was a thinking being behind it.
Also, to answer your question, both statements are equally illogical, given that we do not know how the universe came into existence. The second argument is particularly offensive to logic since it effectively asks " Something that was not in existence in the first place decided to create itself." If something (the universe) is not in existence, it can hardly be capable of decisions."
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:38:43 GMT
Oops, sorry, my mistake. I have modified my earlier post accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:43:06 GMT
Yes, I suggested exploring the theoritical (if you can call it that) possibility that the universe never actually came into being. When I use the word always in this sense, I mean a universe that doesn't have a beginning. I was just posing the question, not necessarily making a point. Then we got onto the topic of time, and related concepts. Well, in your question, did you stop to think what always meant? If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then time loses all its meaning, since we are measuring time in relation to something, i.e, outward light propagation.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 23:25:11 GMT
I don't know about all this stuff to do with light, but the way I think of time is the way most people think about it, and I mean that in the everyday sense. If you're suggesting that maybe, just maybe, there's no such thing as time, then I have to say that this is my view (not in the everyday sense). I think that time is our construct. I think in terms of time because I'm a human in this universe, but ultimately, I don't think time really exists.
So when I say that maybe the universe never came into being, I mean that it has no beginning. It has "always" been. There was never a point in "time" when it started to exist.
From my experience with atheists on forums (ie those who feel strongly enough about their views to want to debate about it), most of them are very face-value orientated and can't understand certain concepts outside of that. I'm starting to think that you're not like that. Which if true, is good.
Anyway, let's talk about consciousness (I started a thread elsewhere). I'd be interested in your thoughts about that.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 16, 2012 21:34:40 GMT
Anyway, let's talk about consciousness (I started a thread elsewhere). I'd be interested in your thoughts about that. Sure, why not?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 19, 2012 11:14:11 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. Actually, that is not what most atheists say. They don't believe there is a god, which is different from they believe there isn't a god.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 19, 2012 11:20:17 GMT
Atheists believe in the lack of gods. It's agnostics that don't believe in god (or in the absence of gods). Atheism is a belief system, agnosticism is a disbelief system. Lol what? I wish more people referred to wikipedia or a dictionary before rushing to these forums to display their ignorance. Its not asking for much. Just know what the hell you are talking about. Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. As you can see from the definitions, atheism is a response to a claim, and agnosticism deals with knowledge, not beliefs. Also, atheists lack a belief in gods, not believe in the lack of gods. You cannot jumble up the definition to suit your purposes.
|
|
|
Post by jtp56 on Jan 28, 2012 1:54:48 GMT
Atheists believe in the lack of gods. It's agnostics that don't believe in god (or in the absence of gods). Atheism is a belief system, agnosticism is a disbelief system. Lol what? I wish more people referred to wikipedia or a dictionary before rushing to these forums to display their ignorance. Its not asking for much. Just know what the hell you are talking about. Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. As you can see from the definitions, atheism is a response to a claim, and agnosticism deals with knowledge, not beliefs. Also, atheists lack a belief in gods, not believe in the lack of gods. You cannot jumble up the definition to suit your purposes. Let me understand your definition (assuming you didn't jumble it up to suit your purpose): So Christians lack a belief in the lack of God, and so not believe in a lack of God?
|
|