On Apr 10, 2:58*pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:53*pm, wrote:





On Apr 9, 7:43*pm, "foolsrushin." wrote:

On 10 Apr, wrote:

On Apr 9, 12:16*am, wrote:
There is no before the beginning of time. So what was God doing in the
timelessness?
We know the universe comes from the timeless no-thing.
What can you say about that?
It is the final catagory.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
xxein: *Half-good for once. *Why do you invent stupid ideas though?
When we do physics, we have to account for things. *We do so under
different theories of how things happen. *We observe a happening and
categorise it into what we call physics. *This "physics", however, is
proved to be only subjective in nature.
Very good explanations exist for how we measure --- which should lead
to a more objective thought of the physic. *However, it dies on the
vine because of belief.
You might as well say that this red raspberry is growing to be a god..
(speaking of which, I miss them even through the wasps and bees. *I no
longer live in that climate).
Time is overrated. *Yes, you can say that an object goes from here to
there in some such time. *But let's see you put/assign a 'property' of
time on any object.
Well, we come close. *We give it a velocity (but only relative). *We
can measure the spectrum of an exact atomic procedure and
differentiate the relative velocity from the gravitational effects.
Or so we say.
We don't know diddly sh*t. *It is all based on some prior belief which
was surely wrong.
What is your next post going to be? *Cinderella ice-cream bars sent
via internet?

That's what makes physics fun. Just imagine, if metaphysics worked,
how far ahead the Ancient G(r)eeks would have been! They would have
invented everything and left us all waiting for welfare!? Conversely,
though, we have had to invent everything their legacy discovered in
principle - but left out! Gravity is an obvious candidate for debate -
with its occasional disruptions to normally physical routines!

Do I include poltergeists and UFOs? Sure! Why not? I don't want to be
part of a cargo cult.

By the way, I am not just skeptical but also mainly, cynical! And rate
of change of rest can only be relative under eternity, as Goethe knew!
--
'foolsrushin.'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rate of change of rest?
That is co motion of more than one object in a system moving together
at exactly the same rate. Einstein said there is No Absolute Rest but
there is the relative rest of co motion or when things are moving
together. The only absolute rest would be the unmoved mover who began
the universe and abides with us through gravity.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: *Explain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

God controls the universe by doing one thing. He makes gravity.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Apr 9, 12:16 am, wrote:
There is no before the beginning of time. So what was God doing in the
timelessness?
We know the universe comes from the timeless no-thing.
What can you say about that?

"The gods created men to worship them; men created the gods for
blasphemy." - source unknown

It is the final catagory.

Thank you, Alex Trebek.

Tell Vanna White that when someone buys a vowel, she damned well
better deliver the right one.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Apr 8, 9:16*pm, wrote:
There is no before the beginning of time. So what was God doing in the
timelessness?

This topic of "timelessness" KILLS me man. WHY can't anyone accept
that it is a *paradox* in the domain of human cognitive comprehension.

A smart fish would probably regard our atmosphere as outer space, and
build great technologies to explor the far reaches of the clouds.

Imagine the utter inability to comprehend that if this fish were to go
far enough, there would be and end to the "atmosphere/outerspace" and
find the whole of what we know to be the universe?

Who's to say we aren't just the same as the smart fish?

Timelessness is a paradox - I can't understand it - I do not think
anyone can. GOD as you are referring to him cannot have "not existed"
and then "existed" in the realm of human perception. It makes a much
sense as stating 1=2.

I'm not angry, just don't understand why this debate always happens.
Also, it's so obvious that these are the paradoxes which have produced
the human proclivity towards religions. I am not an aeitheist because
that is a paradoc too - but to blind faith is irrational and to accept
the stories from a time long past as unconditionally true in the face
of how outlandish they sound is not very reasonable, unless you are
already sure that the alternative to being unreasonable is eternal
suffering in the afterlife.

It's quite a neat little circle.

I got out of it by accepting there is that which I am unable to
comprehend.

Aaron



We know the universe comes from the timeless no-thing.
What can you say about that?

It is the final catagory.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008