It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened.

Nothing can happen outside of now - so it must have happened now!!!
All that appears disappears in presence.
The idea that there is another time can only happen presently.
edit on 5-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Everything that is appearing to exist presently is being created and destroyed right now. How can there be movement if everything stays the same?
There is something (which is not a thing) which never changes and that is 'that' which knows that the appearance is changing - it never 'appears' to exist but without it nothing could appear to exist.

I am sure that you did not lost just me in this word play, but yourself as well...
Just because you fail to understand what is written does not mean I don't know what it means.



But I am sure you are not trying to explain how come we have evidence that 98% of life forms on earth are extinct... would that make our creator somewhat 'not knowing how to do it' kind of being/entity? (just noticing)

That which is appearing is constantly changing - nothing has ever been found that is the same - no snowflake is the same as another snowflake.
The present is constantly changing but that which sees and knows the appearance stays the same - it is an amazing being - the present is being all there is - it is always the present but is constantly changing form - so never truly forms - it is the formless. If it is never formed it cannot be a thing that has been created.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Not quite. Thanks to the Cosmic neutrino background (which decoupled from matter about 2 seconds after the Big Bang), we can go all the way back to a few seconds after the big bang started.

Cosmic neutrino background


Like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the CνB is a relic of the big bang, and while the CMB dates from when the universe was 379,000 years old, the CνB decoupled from matter when the universe was 2 seconds old. It is estimated that today the CνB has a temperature of roughly 1.95 K. Since low-energy neutrinos interact only very weakly with matter, they are notoriously difficult to detect and the CνB might never be observed directly. There is, however, compelling indirect evidence for its existence.


ETA: Though if you disbelieve in the CvB then you would be correct in your statement since we can actually detect the CMB. In either case, we are unable to say what was going on in the universe before these radiation backgrounds appeared. That isn't to say that the universe came from nothing. "I don't know" != nothing.
edit on 5-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Just because you fail to understand what is written does not mean I don't know what it means.


Riiiigggghhhttt....




originally posted by: Itisnowagain
is constantly changing form -
so never truly forms
it is the formless.
If it is never formed
it cannot be a thing that has been created.


Make up your mind - either has form or it has no forms, but then it can't change forms, as does not have one.

Just as I have already said - no sense...




posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened.

Nothing can happen outside of now - so it must have happened now!!!
All that appears disappears in presence.
The idea that there is another time can only happen presently.


Prove that statement. Until you do, that is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened.

Nothing can happen outside of now - so it must have happened now!!!
All that appears disappears in presence.
The idea that there is another time can only happen presently.


Prove that statement. Until you do, that is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I cannot prove it to you. But if you check for yourself you might notice that you have never actually seen or known any other time but now. You are always here and now and thoughts about time happen where and when you are.
Can you honestly ever say that you are not now?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Howdy,

www.newsbiscuit.com...

Can you explain this to me using your strange hypotheses?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened.

Nothing can happen outside of now - so it must have happened now!!!
All that appears disappears in presence.
The idea that there is another time can only happen presently.


Prove that statement. Until you do, that is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I cannot prove it to you. But if you check for yourself you might notice that you have never actually seen or known any other time but now. You are always here and now and thoughts about time happen where and when you are.
Can you honestly ever say that you are not now?


I can say that I experienced my lunch 30 minutes ago so no I'm going to say you are wrong. Thanks for trying though.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened.

Nothing can happen outside of now - so it must have happened now!!!
All that appears disappears in presence.
The idea that there is another time can only happen presently.


Prove that statement. Until you do, that is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I cannot prove it to you. But if you check for yourself you might notice that you have never actually seen or known any other time but now. You are always here and now and thoughts about time happen where and when you are.
Can you honestly ever say that you are not now?


I can say that I experienced my lunch 30 minutes ago so no I'm going to say you are wrong. Thanks for trying though.

You are experiencing the thought and idea of lunch but where is it now? You are now but where is the lunch? The lunch is just an idea arising now.
Nothing can arise any other time because it has to be observed arising - the observer and the observed are not ever separate.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Can you ever separate yourself physically from now?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I observed myself directly eating the lunch. It happened. I know this for a fact. Like I said your philosophical stuff is all awash if you cannot prove it. For instance, if time didn't exist then the standard model of physics would be wrong and we base just about all of science off of the standard model of physics. So yeah, good luck with trying to get around that bear in the room.

But hey let's get a bit more technical here. Light takes time to travel. We know this because we've clocked its speed (done WAY before computers or electronics existed). Using this principal we can look at the past. When we look at the night sky, we see objects where it takes whole calender years for the light to travel to our planet. In some cases, we can look ALL the way back to right before the Big Bang happened. This is proof enough for me that time exists, but hey let's get a bit more technical here.

We also know that time itself goes along at different speeds depending on certain forces acting upon the object in question. Gravity and velocity have an impact on the speed of time. We know this because we have to periodically recalculate the times for our satellites since, being in orbit, they travel through time at a different rate than we do here on the planet.

Here is some more fun with time and light. Since we know that light takes time to travel, that means that your brain is operating in the past. Light travels from its source (usually the sun) to a destination then reflects off of the surface. This light then travels towards your eyeball so you can interpret what you are seeing. The light reaches the eye and the cell receptors that process the information and then a chemical reaction in your nervous system sends a signal to your brain which then interprets it for you to understand what you are looking at. All these processes take time. Yes the amount of time is so small that you think it is inconsequential, but time is taken up nonetheless. Couple this idea with the fact that no two people in the world travel through time at the same rate and you have everyone sitting on different parts of the time axis on the 4D scale.

Therefore no two people live in the same "now" like you just described. Therefore you are wrong. So you can use all the flowery imagery you want to try to say that time doesn't exist, science disagrees with you and frankly science is winning the argument since it is responsible for literally every part of your modern life. In fact, I'd argue that the "now" as you describe it doesn't exist and at the most it is just a relative term.
edit on 5-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Can you ever separate yourself physically from now?


No, but that would be akin to asking if a 2D object could move vertically in a 3D universe. Objects of a certain dimension exist in the dimension above them but cannot move freely through that dimension. Go read the book Flatland. While it is a satire poking fun at Victorian culture, it makes some good parallels to what I am talking about.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I do put the neutrino map in as specutlation

Fir the moment

But im not so sure neutrinos cant interact with us and fir that matter I think we may have to rethink them all together

Maybe

im waiting for more info on if and, if they are, how they are changing decay rates

Something is going on that we are missing


reply to: Krazysh0t


edit on pm820143103America/ChicagoTue, 05 Aug 2014 15:19:18 -0500_8000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Of course, something is always going on that we are missing. We are always finding new variables to plug into and add to existing equations, creating whole new equations.

As far as your remarks about the neutrino field, like I said without the neutrino field we just push our boundary of "I don't know" closer to us in time. Which means we wouldn't even know about the state of the universe until 100,000 years after the Big Bang, which gives even less credence to the claim that the universe came from nothing.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree that we dont know what it came from

Many hope we find something

Many hope its more of a someone

But either way the neutrino thing freaks me out

Really if they can interact freely change things that souldnt its not normal


edit on pm820143103America/ChicagoTue, 05 Aug 2014 15:30:20 -0500_8u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Itisnowagain
I observed myself directly eating the lunch. It happened.

When did you observe yourself eating the lunch? Was it not now when you were observing? Now you see no lunch, just an idea that it happened.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
For instance, if time didn't exist then the standard model of physics would be wrong and we base just about all of science off of the standard model of physics.
The standard model used to dictate that the stars and planets and the sun revolved around the earth.

Couple this idea with the fact that no two people in the world travel through time at the same rate and you have everyone sitting on different parts of the time axis on the 4D scale.
No one travels through time - change happens now. Now is always now but now always appears different.



Therefore no two people live in the same "now" like you just described. Therefore you are wrong. So you can use all the flowery imagery you want to try to say that time doesn't exist, science disagrees with you and frankly science is winning the argument since it is responsible for literally every part of your modern life. In fact, I'd argue that the "now" as you describe it doesn't exist and at the most it is just a relative term.
Is it not now right now? Is there anywhere on earth or in the entire universe where it is not now now?
Now is the like the container in which all that is arises and subsides.

You argue that there is no now existing but now is all that can appear to exist. Now can appear to exist as a 'past thought' (memory) and a 'future thought' (anticipation) - now can appear to exist as anything and is everything.
edit on 6-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I'm not endorsing the philosophy of time not existing (as it obviously does), but there are some interesting philosophical implications regarding time and physics IMO, also light (though I'm not inferring any scientific validity in any of the following). At any rate, it can make for a far more interesting philosophical discussion than the ones pertaining to a jealous old man in the sky IMO.

Though in general, it seems that when things like "infinity" or "time = 0" are reached, it is probably because the limits of our theories of physics and what we can understand are reached, so in the end I'm not implying anything other than speculation and philosophy here.

One example, does time or distance exist for something travelling at the speed of light...such as light itself?

One curious experience (have experienced it myself) that is very old across many cultures is that of existing as a form of unimaginably, beautiful all pervading light. An experience where there is no time and an infinite presence. It has been called "seeing the light", the "light that casts no shadows", the "light of lights" etc. Could something about this type of experience offer a glimpse beyond (not claiming it is) what can really be understood as yet?

I know (and accept) that neuroscientists can invoke such experiences artificially and do accept their physical explanations. Yet, would that necessarily negate the experience itself? Possibly, it might all simply be a trick of the mind. Though I like the ideas of science philosophy in this area (perhaps it does have a use after all lol), when people like David Chalmers remind scientists that they really offer no viable explanation for consciousness itself as yet (which isn't to say they won't).

It's a shame also that no end of new age charlatans proclaim all manner of knowledge and facts from such things.

I remember a thread some time back where I actually agreed with a Christian (see atheists aren't closed minded lol) on what could ultimately underly our existence and what even that might be (something eternal and omnipresent that is beyond our current understanding). The difference being that, for me, it was more a possibility (or some form of probability) I was open to, rather than a fact. It also negated any notion of a god or any form of intelligence willingly directing processes in this universe (nothing is individually making apples fall from trees at the same rate, guiding evolution, or meddling in human affairs). It could be even more amazing than that (IMO).

One of the reasons I keep an open mind, though not to religious gods, as such.

www.askamathematician.com...

www.science20.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Thank you for posting the first link - very interesting.
It seems obvious that you move but if one examines the evidence one finds that one never moves - the scenery does.
One must look at direct experience to find out what is really going on.
This video came to mind when I read about the man on the train in the first link - it goes quite deep into direct experience - fascinating.

Take no notice of the title - Peter Brown does not talk about concepts - he speaks and points to direct experience.
edit on 6-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain
In any useful or practical sense that we can observe, measure or use to understand our universe (ie. especially physics), I think Krazysh0t is obviously correct. Time (or the concept of time as we can measure it) does obviously exist.

Though in another ultimate/philosophical sense, it seems obvious that what you are saying (if I have understood it correctly) also seems valid. There does only seem to be the present moment, which also seems to defy any sort of measurement or any effort to truly define it. Obviously when we try to measure it, it's already gone...and so forth. Where does it begin? Where does it end? What is it? Is it infinite?

There is something that appears unfathomable in this (though perhaps not unfathomable to others) and IMO doesn't infer any sort of creator (if that is what you infer?) as much as a fascinating way of seeing, or trying to understand an aspect of our existence.

A truly interesting subject (I enjoy science, though I also enjoy philosophical discussions).



edit on 6-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join