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.
"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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely it can slow to where we might think it stopped, at least until we measure it carefully.
But that is not "out of time"; it isn't even close. The difference between .00001 and zero is an eternity when zero is unattainable and this seems such a case.
If time is defined as a function of motion, might we look for a temperature of absolute zero? No motion there, either, but would such a definition hold up in the world we know? And can we actually produce or observe absolute zero?
Think of it this way. The eternal universe theory as I understand it supposes that time is slowing down and will eventually stop. Without movement time ceases to exist. Does that mean everything within ceases to exist? Not necessarily but there is no element of time to allow observation.
That's not how I understand it. Yes, the universe will "die", but that does not mean movement will end. Even if planets, for instance, collide with their star, molecules will still vibrate, electrons will move, particles will come into existence and disappear. For that matter, the latest seems to indicate the universe will continue expanding, meaning matter will continue to move.
I've never heard anything at all about time stopping. Time slows, yes, with increasing speed or gravity. Nothing else I've heard of does the trick, and even there it is only mathematical theory that says it stops at the speed of light or an event horizon of a black hole. Neither has been observed and the math says C cannot be reached to stop time.
By my understanding there are three possibilities for an expanding universe. Open, flat or closed. If the universe is flat then it would expand forever, but the rate of expansion would slow to zero after an infinite amount of time. Forever and infinite are by our understanding.
Then (if "flat", whatever that means) it will never slow to zero, for infinity is not a number that can be reached. There will always be expansion and movement.
OK. Not possible. Doesn't make sense. That's your answer. Thank you for your input.
Didn't say that. I said that the assumption that zero would be reached in infinite time means it will never be reached at all as that's what "infinite" means. We tend to think there is an end to infinity in our every day thinking, as the concept is too far outside our experience, but by definition there's not.
Mathematics can handle the concept - check my hub on Zeno's paradox for one explanation - but our experience cannot. Ancient mathematicians had quite an argument over infinite series and eventually calculus provided a way to handle the questions, but real life experience does not include infinity.
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.
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.
by pisean2823117 years ago
God didn't create the universe -- it was actually a result of the inevitable laws of physics, British physicist Prof Stephen Hawking has concluded.In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking said: "Because there...
by jomine6 years ago
the new science deals in concepts like relativity and quantum, which are irrational. it says about annihilation by black holes. it says everything "created" from singularity out of nothing. it says virtual...
by dutchman19516 years ago
Here is an Interesting Article i found, that makes the exhistance of God a possibility, buy looking at science.The Article:Cosmic FingerprintsAsking “Where did God come from” is a lot like reading a John Grisham...
by pay2cEM6 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by Alexander A. Villarasa13 months ago
The classical definition of causality states that a cause and its effect(s) can be different types of entity. In equational terms a cause is considered necessary:->> if x is a necessary cause of y,...
by AMAZING THINKER3 years ago
Who are right, believers or atheists?We don't know how the universe works, and science does not yet have all the answers, so all we can do is assume what we believe in is true.Some things can't be explained, but does...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.