jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (21 posts)

The Ever Presence of God

  1. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago

    I just ran across this article and it mirrors my thoughts on how God can know all things.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … verse.html

    The interesting thing is that God says 'I AM'. Not I was, am and will always be. It is a simple statement of I AM. I have come to believe that when these words were first spoken the past, present and future came into existence simultaneously. The entire universe, as we observe it, became an is. We, being embedded in the tapestry of the universe can only see from the perspective we have by our position in the timeline which already exists. Currently, I am trying to understand how something can exist within and outside of time simultaneously. 

    Any thoughts? I'm really just interested in creative comments. If you want to bash God and believers we could start a new thread. I promise I won't hijack it. I probably won't comment more than once or twice.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      "Currently, I am trying to understand how something can exist within and outside of time simultaneously.  "

      Addressing only this portion, we might start by observing that the surface of a sheet of paper, only two dimensional, is within a 3 dimensional (or perhaps more) space.  Time is but a 4th "dimension" that composes what we recognize as our universe, so there is no problem being without it, like a plane without the 3rd dimension.  A 3 dimensional "thing" in a 4 dimensional (including time) universe.

      The problem is that the 2 dimensional surface of a piece of paper is nothing more than a human construct, an imagined thing that does not truly exist.  If we go deep enough into that paper, with ever more powerful microscopes, the surface is most definitely NOT 2 dimensional, but instead 3 dimensional.

      In the same way, we can imagine something that is not a part of the 4 dimensional universe, but it is only imagined.  We know of nothing that exists in that condition and have little reason to think it is possible.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        That's about where I am right now except for the part about having little reason to think it is possible. I would say, by what we know that we don't know, we have every reason to ponder the possibility.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          I don't see ignorance ("what we know that we don't know") is a reason to decide anything at all.  To ponder the possibility is a far cry from trying to figure out how to rationalize it as absolute or even probable ("I am trying to understand how something can exist within and outside of time simultaneously").  In other words, the "how" comes long after the "what".

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            I think it is just a basic difference in approach. This can be due to what one thinks the ramifications of any answer might be. To someone who believes that belief in a higher power would entail a choice between paradise and eternal torture would probably be more willing to choose a 'rule everything out first' approach. Someone like me who doesn't buy into an eternal punishment for earthly existence is more open to a 'don't rule anything out until it is proven wrong' approach. I see no real loss or gain whatever the answer to the mystery of the universe is.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              Perhaps.  I see a danger in accepting a premise (something can exist outside of time) and then finding reasons how it might happen.  One tends to lose objectivity, accepting belief as truth and then spending time figuring out how it is possible rather than finding out if it is possible.  As objectivity is probably the most important tool a researcher has it becomes necessary to keep it and ensure that personal desires don't enter into it; that belief not override truth.

              I understand that in the matter of religious/spiritual/supernatural beliefs this approach is seldom used, which is one very big reason I'm not a believer.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                Hold up on that one wilderness. What about many worlds theory, or any multiple universe theory for that matter. What about the theory of relativity, or the Big Bang, even. What about string theory? All of these move or initially moved in the arena of the possibility of what ifs not what are. All driven by simple observation.  Even the discovery of bacteria was driven by observation, not a firm knowledge that bacteria existed.

                We already know that time is not a constant. Our measurements prove slight variations. Our observations show great variations. Since we know this much it is not outside the realm of possibility for (by our understanding of time) time to coexist with an absence of time.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Yes, driven by simple observation (or mathematical proof in the case of relativity).  We postulated the Big Bang, and found evidence for it, but we're still working on the "how".  Same with string theory.  Even relativity was postulated (if mathematical proof is considered a postulate) and then showed it to be true, but still have no answer as to "how".  But there is no observation of anything "outside of time", even if we define the terminology.

                  You're right - it may be possible.  So find it.  Find something outside of time.  THEN figure out how it is possible.  But let me throw a concept at you; without time there is no movement.  No mph, RPM, vibrations per second...nothing moves.  No light waves, no sound. No blood flow, no heartbeat.  A stasis, in other words, where everything is absolutely still right down to atomic vibrations and electron movements.  A stasis that can never change as there can be no movement to change anything.  Using this simple logic, then, there can BE no "outside of time" as everything moves.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I get that time involves movement.  However, if we know that time flows at different rates then we can assume that (by our standards) time can appear to not flow at all. This doesn't mean that nothing exists in that state it simply means that we don't currently understand it because of our limited understanding of time, itself.

                    don't look at this from a search for God perspective. Everyone starts with one of two basic paradigms but each side is searching for similar answers.

  2. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 weeks ago

    Human beings have certainly been gifted the capacity to see the world through many different kinds of lens.

    I have had plenty of experiences of the world which I would call mystical if I had been brought up that way. But I wasn't, so I go with 'isn't life wonderful?'. Sometimes, at any rate, lol.

    We all need something to help endure the hell of other people. And our terror of being alone.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      Ummmmm.....OK???

  3. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 weeks ago

    I think you need a God with a slightly more comprehensive view of humanity, Live to Learn. I recommend a God that reads poetry, at the very least. And Scientific America, when he/she feels up to it.

    I wouldn't burden any deity with the need to read these forums, lol.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      Um....OK?

      Edit. It occurred to me I should probably respond with something about as on point as  your comment. So, the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain? Or is it plane.

 
working