OK sorry ...
I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?
- Thread starter Jadebrain_Prime
- Start date
- Status
OK sorry ...
Yes, once outside of time existence should be static in the place where God truly exists.....
However I have heard many accounts of multiple levels of existence outside of this one leading up to that point.
Places where people can exist and interact in physical bodies, and yet remain seemingly ageless, while describing the place where God exists as still being "higher still" and out of sight from even there, and they were actually told they couldn't go there at that time.
This would make sense.
Also there is the reference that God is described as a Spirit, yet may take physical form in this and other possible dimensions.
Maybe not only this world is moving through time at a certain rate, but other dimensions exist which are moving at other rates, which compared to this might seem "forever" but are not completely static.
This is hinted at in the Greek definition of words like "evermore", or "everlasting" which are used in scripture but are not the same as "eternal".
Even hell is not described with words meaning eternal, but has a beginning and end, and means "destroyed to the vanishing point".
Thanks, that was generous of you to disagree yet make that comment.
I don't think it will ever be "proved" to the general public as a whole in this present "Cosmos" or world order, possibly because it wasn't meant to be.
That may be the reason God "hides" himself so diligently from the masses yet reveals Himself to the individual.
It's to preserve the very nature of the "contest" created in this element.
Last edited:
It seems that I have been defeated. Again. I believe it is time that I leave this thread, for it is becoming increasingly clear that I will not succeed in my goals here. Thus, I bid you all farewell, until the next time I come up with another theory. It will be hard, though, and it will take a long time, so don't expect me to return here soon. Goodbye, everyone.
TheVisitor,
You simply have an extremely weak case.
I'm afraid these are all rationalizations, i.e. attempts to make something inherrently irrational appear rational. You also have the weight of statistics, common sense, and absence of credibility, against you. Generally when someone claims to see something others cannot see it is because; they are intoxicated, mentally disturbed, delusional, or simply very gullible.
You simply have an extremely weak case.
I don't think it would make sense at all.
Regardless of how many dimensions, planes of existence, states of existence (whatever you want to refer to it as) it still remains that if ones does not experience time, one can not experience the passing of anything.
People talk about the being on the "Astral Plane" for long periods of "time" only to realize that no "time" at all passed when they got back.
Even if these other planes DID exist, STILL you must experience time on them, or you wouldn't be able to move, progress, or even think "Hey, I am on the Atsral Plane".
Nothing is possible without time.
Move your hand from left to right and you will see that it moved because it WAS there but it IS here NOW. Without time there would be no WAS, IS, NOW, THEN...
Do you understand what I am saying? I'm not sure if this is coming across.
Other rates of what?
Time.
That makes more sense, but still your hypothetical dimension is experiencing time, albeit a different rate of time that we experience.
Perhaps time passes very very quickly for beings in this mythical God realm, but that would just mean that they seem to be moving very very slowly from our perspective.
They would not be "outside of time".
Thanks.
I'm glad someone understood what I was saying.
Sometimes it is very difficult to express something that just seems as obvious as this to me.
Hope to see you around again Rokkon.
Other that what raven responded Visitor, your whole post is self serving justification. It may be philosophical, inventive, creative even...but not (f)actual or proven.
At any rate, I've highlighted this sentence to point out that
1. Please give a link so we may be so informed,
2. Even if such a link exists, personal accounts do not evidence create. (Bloggish websites are also personal accounts).
3. Appeal to authority (and/or numbers) as proof has been done to death.
Good luck next time Rokkon
except science is no closer now than they were 50 years ago at creating it in the lab.
that life arose by natural means.
good point.
I know, I know, I said I wouldn't come back for quite some time, but I was simply trying to see if I could get some information from all this that would help me when I next try to prove/disprove something, and I am afraid I just have to ask Spidergoat if that last statement was really necessary. And to Roman: If you would just learn to spell correctly, [DELETED]
Last edited by a moderator:
Well lets see...
-No "personal accounts"
-No "Blogs"
-No reference of "Authorities"
-No crunching "numbers"
Can I use more than one finger to type?
Do I need to have your proof certified and mailed FED-X, UPS....?
Just what exactly will you take as proof then?
It seems to me your narrowing the field so small because your afraid someone might just prove there is a God, and you know you'll have to go and make right everything to everyone you've ever wronged to free your conscious.
Thats as obvious as the nose on your face friend, or is it fiend?
I smell fear.
(Just kidding).....But look kid, I've been around this block a few times before, and can recognize the attitude thats not ready to listen to reason, no mater what.
I think I'm probably just wasting my virtual breath here.
I could provide examples, and tie together the shoestrings of the Milky Way for you....
But I think I would be wasting my time and yours until your attitude takes a change so why don't you just read what I've already posted the last few days and get back to me.
(Not).....
That would be a terrible attitude for me to have wouldn't it?
Fortunately, I don't have that kind of attitude. Tempting, but no.
Let me be the one to make the first gesture of faith.
I'll go out on a limb here and give a serious response at the risk of having this olive branch cracked over my head.
I said earlier;
-There are places where people can exist and yet the place where God exists as still being "higher still" and out of sight from even there.
-Also that God is described as a Spirit.
-And maybe not only this world is moving through time at a certain rate, but other dimensions exist which are moving at other rates, which compared to this might seem "forever" but are not completely static.
There is a audio available of someone who went beyond the "curtain of time" in 1955. (Verbatim of audio tape in text)
http://www.biblebelievers.org/ltime.htm
There is a video available of a guy who died and went there in 2005.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2433471460463354645
These describe many key elements the same.
Also I personally had a Near Death Experience earlier in 2006, from a head injury that put me in a coma on life support.
Yes, I said head injury....don't even go there.
For any of this (NDE) stuff I experienced, you can click on my handle above...TheVisitor.... and read the posts I've typed on this subject the last fews days.
I hope some of this can help you.
Last edited:
Yes, because you didn't even try to answer me.
"Why can only a being exist outside time?"
I would personally really like to see you support this:
Where I take the most issue is summed up well here...
The first part is completely correct.
There would be no dead end.
That's fairly simple to grasp, correct?
The rest of it, however...
If, in fact, the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, that means it has always existed, correct?
Now, think about your childhood...
Recall back to the first Birthday present you recall receiving.
In order for you to have done that, did the past have to generate itself for you?
Did time have to "literally flow backwards"?
Of course not.
Why not?
Because it already happened - it is in the past - it is over...
You get me?
Now, please explain why that same principle can not be applied to an infinite past?
If it happened 680 Billion Billion years ago, can't you STILL say it is in the past because it happened already?
Why would time have to flow backwards?
What is the difference?
Assuming the universe did not have a beginning is not the same as saying we can travel back in time.
It is just saying that it did not have a beginning.
Time doesn't "go backwards" it just has always existed.
That's all.
First cause.
You are essentially saying (if not blatantly stating) that the universe could not have always existed because if there was no first cause, then thet betrays the law of cause and effect, therefore the universe itself could not exist, because without stringently adhering to the law of cause and effect, we would have chaos, and without order, there can be no laws.
This is an old argument, first introduced by St Francis (if my memory serves, and it may not, so somene plese fell free to correct me if it was no him).
The argument is invalid, because that same argument can be applied to a creator - What caused him? If he is eternal, does that not also violate the law of cause and effect?
You have failed to support your "existing out of time" justification, and I have pointed out why in my above arguments.
So unless you can explain why 1.) God does not have to have a cause and 2.) the universe can not be eternal, then your hypothesis does not hold water.
And before you jump to any conclusions about me, I am not an Atheist, so please don't assume I am simply trying to shoot you down because it is my job to "tow the Atheist line" and shoot down Theist hypotheses.
I am being honest, and I think, reasonable.
Where I take the most issue is summed up well here...
The first part is completely correct.
There would be no dead end.
That's fairly simple to grasp, correct?
The rest of it, however...
If, in fact, the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, that means it has always existed, correct?
Now, think about your childhood...
Recall back to the first Birthday present you recall receiving.
In order for you to have done that, did the past have to generate itself for you?
Did time have to "literally flow backwards"?
Of course not.
Why not?
Because it already happened - it is in the past - it is over...
You get me?
Now, please explain why that same principle can not be applied to an infinite past?
If it happened 680 Billion Billion years ago, can't you STILL say it is in the past because it happened already?
Why would time have to flow backwards?
What is the difference?
Assuming the universe did not have a beginning is not the same as saying we can travel back in time.
It is just saying that it did not have a beginning.
Time doesn't "go backwards" it just has always existed.
That's all.
I see this as a simple aplogetic justification, and let me explain why...
First cause.
You are essentially saying (if not blatantly stating) that the universe could not have always existed because if there was no first cause, then thet betrays the law of cause and effect, therefore the universe itself could not exist, because without stringently adhering to the law of cause and effect, we would have chaos, and without order, there can be no laws.
This is an old argument, first introduced by St Francis (if my memory serves, and it may not, so somene plese fell free to correct me if it was no him).
The argument is invalid, because that same argument can be applied to a creator - What caused him? If he is eternal, does that not also violate the law of cause and effect?
You have failed to support your "existing out of time" justification, and I have pointed out why in my above arguments.
So unless you can explain why 1.) God does not have to have a cause and 2.) the universe can not be eternal, then your hypothesis does not hold water.
And before you jump to any conclusions about me, I am not an Atheist, so please don't assume I am simply trying to shoot you down because it is my job to "tow the Atheist line" and shoot down Theist hypotheses.
I am being honest, and I think, reasonable.
Yes, I know that this is also going against my promise to leave for a long time, but Spidergoat, if you read carefully, I never said that only a being can exist outside of time. Take for example the qualities of an object (example: a pencil sharpener) that make it what it is (it is intended to be used for sharpening pencils, and was designed to fulfill that role), and think: why is it a pencil sharpener and not a desk, or a newspaper, or whatever else it isn't? This is because a set of universal truths makes the term "pencil sharpener" in normal english language refer to something that is intended to sharpen pencils, and another set of truths to determine what it is made of, how it is assembled, what type of pencil sharpener it is (that last one goes VERY specific, like "who makes it," or "what method of sharpening pencils does it use," or even "who is the being who owns it from point in time a to point in time b," etc.), anything else about it that makes it what it is is determined by these universal truths. These universal truths are also outside of time, just like the being I spoke of. So when I come up with my next theory, if you read it, PAY ATTENTION!!! Speaking of what I am going to do with my time from now on, I might as well not go away, but simply remain just to make things clear to whoever is confused about my last theory. So, I guess the "good bye" no longer applies now, since I decided to stay.
I know that you never said only a being can exist outside of time. I am taking your assumption that a first cause can exist outside of time and pointing out that there is nothing about existing out of time that makes the first cause an intentioned being.
I am suggesting that if you accept that a first cause can exist out of time, then that first cause could very well not be a God, but an inanimate force.
Therefore your theory has a huge hole in it that you fail to explain.
I hope you don't take my self-congratulatory comment personally, but in the spirit of friendly competition that exists here.
I am suggesting that if you accept that a first cause can exist out of time, then that first cause could very well not be a God, but an inanimate force.
Therefore your theory has a huge hole in it that you fail to explain.
I hope you don't take my self-congratulatory comment personally, but in the spirit of friendly competition that exists here.
Yes, it just so happens that you caught me in a mood good enough not to start a flame war that would make Maddox (maddox.xmission.com) cower in fear just because of that self-congratulatory comment you made. I have many times proven to be, in my own words, an overly competitive perfectionist with a near immeasurably low self esteem. I suppose, though, that I should forgive you, for you didn't happen to know that at the time. But just the act of giving up on trying to make anyone believe my theory was rather hard to do. Just remember that, okay?
- Status