The Energon Pub

Say... WHAT?

Our actions dictate the future, which rolls around and becomes the past again?

So, you are saying I have been confused by your post many times in the past, and many times to come?

Insurgent wrote:Say... WHAT?

Our actions dictate the future, which rolls around and becomes the past again?

So, you are saying I have been confused by your post many times in the past, and many times to come?

Technically, you cannot go back in time. By "traveling back in time," as shown in Back to The Future, the Time Machine, or any number of popular movies, what is actually happening is people are manipulating everything around them to create a given scenario while mantaning their same form within it.

Time is technically only a measure of change as comparing one action to another, so there is no place where past planes of reality hide-- it is all one sphere which constantly shifts and ebbs. So any attempt to go back in time is not actually going back to an era, but recreating it.

This brings up the idea that everyone then is merely a clone, which is technically true, and brings me to the thought that there is no absolute individual conscious as I have discussed before-- as the cells in you grow and die, you have died and been reborn many times in your life. You are never the same person you were even a second ago. The only seeming absolute 'individual' is the combined cosmos itself.

But anyway, such manipulation requires near omnipotent and omnisentient abilities, so true universal "time travel" is probably never going to happen. If anything, recreating beings and actions on the small scale.

Now, way to travel discussed by Hellbender depends on what is known as the philosophical proposition of "Eternal Return"-- that the scenarios played out now will later be redone in the universe. This goes on the idea of, if the universe is everything in existence, and thus is unaffected by outside sources, it will go to its own path, and, if the path continues on forever, even going by probability, every scenario will be played out. The problem is staying alive that long, because this idea mainly exists today in the hypothesis of the Bang/Crush model, in which everything in this plane constantly comes together, crushes itself together by extreme gravity, basically destroying near any distinct combination of mass, than rocketing outward and defying gravity though their own clashing force, only to go on to repeat the process. I admit the elegance is compelling.

Salazaar wrote:Obviously, God couldn't have created himself, and there had to be a time when the universe was divoid of matter, so he couldn't have been here from the dawn of the universe. So, what do YOU think?

Probably, God who created humans is actually a living being, just like humans. Maybe it is an alien. And this alien was created by another being that he himself call as God.

God created an alien race. This alien race created humans, so for us humans, we called them as God. Humans created other beings, such as clones. For these clones, we humans will be called as God for them.

It's a matter of perception. Who creates who.

Insurgent wrote:Say... WHAT?

Our actions dictate the future, which rolls around and becomes the past again?

So, you are saying I have been confused by your post many times in the past, and many times to come?

Yes. Unless you do something to prevent it. Or use the Matrix to light your darkest hour.

prowl24 wrote:

Salazaar wrote:Obviously, God couldn't have created himself, and there had to be a time when the universe was divoid of matter, so he couldn't have been here from the dawn of the universe. So, what do YOU think?

Probably, God who created humans is actually a living being, just like humans. Maybe it is an alien. And this alien was created by another being that he himself call as God.

God created an alien race. This alien race created humans, so for us humans, we called them as God. Humans created other beings, such as clones. For these clones, we humans will be called as God for them.

It's a matter of perception. Who creates who.

That part about aliens creating humans reminds me of that truthism.com thing with the reptillians lol.

But you are right on how we percieve God as a creator. If I grow a plant, I can say I am that plant's God, however oddball that may be. I heard a quote when I was watching the Philosophy of the Matrix (10 disk box set extra), it was something along the lines of "God became man, so man became God." Which I think is like prowl124 was saying.

If I were to look at the situation from an outsider's perspective (Athiest or whatever), man created God to give himself peace of mind or whatnot, creating faith. So we created this omni-everything being which has grown into an imposing precense because of our faith in the being we created. But that's just my thoughts if God doesn't truly exist, then the most logical answer would be to say that we created Him.

I hope this theory doesn't get grouped with the "god doesn't exist" ideal that wasn't intended for the topic, it's just my spur of the moment thoughts.

God is outside of time.Time came with humans because we do not have the capacity to imagine infinity."time" goes never ending in both directions,and when you go to heaven or hell you live on infinitely because your soul cannot be destroyed.

Omega Charge wrote:God is outside of time.

speculation.

Omega Charge wrote:Time came with humans because we do not have the capacity to imagine infinity.

this goes counter current scientific thought of space and time being inseperable, as space existed prior to humans, so does time

Omega Charge wrote:"time" goes never ending in both directions

again this is speculation.

and their is a contradiction; how can god exist outside of infinity? if god exists outside of infinity their is a limit on infinty.

Omega Charge wrote:and when you go to heaven or hell you live on infinitely because your soul cannot be destroyed.

rampant speculation; Heaven? Hell? souls? their is no evidence for any of this.

and their is a contradiction; how can god exist outside of infinity? if god exists outside of infinity their is a limit on infinty.
_________________________________________________________________
God does not exist outside infinity His "time" goes in both directions=infinity.God is infinite.God exists outside human time etc. 1:00 P.M., year 2007 A.D. This is basically counting from man's creation.

Omega Charge wrote:and their is a contradiction; how can god exist outside of infinity? if god exists outside of infinity their is a limit on infinty.
_________________________________________________________________
God does not exist outside infinity His "time" goes in both directions=infinity.God is infinite.God exists outside human time etc. 1:00 P.M., year 2007 A.D. This is basically counting from man's creation.

speculation. and really i don't see how God's "time" is different from our concept of time.

You say it's all "speculation".It's more of a matter of faith.whoever believes in Christ as the Son of God goes to heaven.Those who just see it as "speculation" do not, and will burn in hell.it takes faith to believe any religion,even evolution.so if eternity and God are "speculation", where,how,and when did "time" really begin?

Omega Charge wrote:You say it's all "speculation".It's more of a matter of faith.whoever believes in Christ as the Son of God goes to heaven.Those who just see it as "speculation" do not, and will burn in hell.it takes faith to believe any religion,even evolution.so if eternity and God are "speculation", where,how,and when did "time" really begin?

faith isn't acceptable evidence in a rational debate. your claims implicitly equate faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

as for evolution; The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by your claims. (really don't start attacking evolution, it's never gone down well on this forum)

also telling people they are going to burn in hell is probably falls under the hate speech section of the forums rules.

time as we know it began 13.7 billion years ago, as say the general relativity, redshift, the abundance of primordial elements, and the distribution of galaxies and their morphologies

Evolution is a religion, because random occerence is its god.it takes faith to believe it because no one was there when the Universe began.But I agree,I would rather not start an argument
about evolution.and as for burning in hell, I didn't refer specifically to you.If you are convicted its not my fault.but sorry and I won't post about it again.

Omega Charge wrote:Evolution is a religion, because random occerence is its god.it takes faith to believe it because no one was there when the Universe began.But I agree,I would rather not start an argument
about evolution.and as for burning in hell, I didn't refer specifically to you.If you are convicted its not my fault.but sorry and I won't post about it again.

evolution makes no claims what so ever about gods, it's totally irreligous. calling it a religion shows a complete lack of understanding about evolution. as does saying it's random. it's not.


compare some comon grounds amongst worl religeons with evolution;
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

no evolutionists subscribe themselves as evolutionists, they call themselves jews, christians, muslims, atheists, hindu, etc, if evolutions is a religeon it is one rejected by all it's adherents

Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).



secondly, we can see back in time, great thing about light is that it takes time to get anywhere, for example when we look at the sun we actually see it as it was 8 minutes ago, when we look back into the other bits of space and we see light coming from even further away, we are seeing even further back in time.

you also seem to have failed to grasp the difference between faith with evidence and faith that lacks falsifiability; scientific theory, stands or falls by its agreement with observations, your speculation cannot even be tested accurately, you cannot even compare it with observational evidence to see if it stands or falls.

we can observe red shift, we can observe the theory of relativity, we can observe gravity, we can observe evolution, in fact with most of these phenomena the observations came BEFORE the explanation we call scientific theories

Please re-read the first 2 paragraphs of my last post and try to comprehend the difference between something that can be tested and shown to be true and something for which no test can exist.

I'd note I've heard the "Evolution is a religion and," --either A) "Time" or B) "Random occurrances"-- "is it's god" recited like the faith statement of Islam many times over, so I speculate he's just spouting what he's been told, and is either a kid and/or a person with whom any deeper discussion you wish to pursue, Tammuz, will have covered little new ground.

A friend of mine has a theory that in order to become a god (being able to live forever and create matter at will) then the body would need to absorb an amount of energy equivilent to all the energy in the universe. that means every sun, every blackhole, every nuetron star, planet, asteriod. This is of course impossible, but that is the theory behind it.

As to what created god IF there is a god, I suppose maybe a being from a universe before ours, it may have absorbed half the energy of the big bang and then the rest went out and created the universe. of course that is just me considering an fantastic possibility but nothing can hold that much energy....except the universe itself....Im going to go think about this.

Omega Charge wrote:You say it's all "speculation".It's more of a matter of faith.whoever believes in Christ as the Son of God goes to heaven.Those who just see it as "speculation" do not, and will burn in hell.it takes faith to believe any religion,even evolution.so if eternity and God are "speculation", where,how,and when did "time" really begin?

Time is an invention of man, time is the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once, we of the scientific community cannot answer the question of when "time" began, the universe sure but time is irrelevent in this discussion. Say we assume there is a god, time would have had to have been there before this god, but time, once again, is an invention of man.

Cole Regnum wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:You say it's all "speculation".It's more of a matter of faith.whoever believes in Christ as the Son of God goes to heaven.Those who just see it as "speculation" do not, and will burn in hell.it takes faith to believe any religion,even evolution.so if eternity and God are "speculation", where,how,and when did "time" really begin?

Time is an invention of man, time is the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once, we of the scientific community cannot answer the question of when "time" began, the universe sure but time is irrelevent in this discussion. Say we assume there is a god, time would have had to have been there before this god, but time, once again, is an invention of man.

isn't time a fundamental thingy, rather like space? both being part of the same thing; space-time, that which is the universe...or do you disagree with Hawkings?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "time".*


*Cheap way out, woo!

Tammuz wrote:

Cole Regnum wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:You say it's all "speculation".It's more of a matter of faith.whoever believes in Christ as the Son of God goes to heaven.Those who just see it as "speculation" do not, and will burn in hell.it takes faith to believe any religion,even evolution.so if eternity and God are "speculation", where,how,and when did "time" really begin?

Time is an invention of man, time is the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once, we of the scientific community cannot answer the question of when "time" began, the universe sure but time is irrelevent in this discussion. Say we assume there is a god, time would have had to have been there before this god, but time, once again, is an invention of man.

isn't time a fundamental thingy, rather like space? both being part of the same thing; space-time, that which is the universe...or do you disagree with Hawkings?

As best I understand, "time" as described by man is a ratio of change comparing one movement of change to another in the universe.

I have a friend who can outdo Hawking on the subject, I dont necessarily disagree but my friends theory sounded better, Ill tell him to write it down as Im sure I dont do it justice

prowl24 wrote:

Salazaar wrote:Obviously, God couldn't have created himself, and there had to be a time when the universe was divoid of matter, so he couldn't have been here from the dawn of the universe. So, what do YOU think?

Probably, God who created humans is actually a living being, just like humans. Maybe it is an alien. And this alien was created by another being that he himself call as God.

God created an alien race. This alien race created humans, so for us humans, we called them as God. Humans created other beings, such as clones. For these clones, we humans will be called as God for them.

It's a matter of perception. Who creates who.

That just sounds like Stargate to me. It's possible if there are alien beings in the universe, yes. But that only explains where God came from if He is not omnipotent.


And Hellbender, I want all your babies. Awesome.

Looks like Robert Jordan was on to something after all.