US Elections

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

Where we do seem to differ is this: you wrote in a post somewhere in this thread "God, optimistically, WILL eventually get to the point of being all of the above, and when this happens we are back in Eden." So you are thinking (or you WERE thinking) that while God isn't fully powerful right now, there will come a time when S/he is fully powerful, fully self-realized.

But now in this latest post of yours, you are arguing against your prior statement. Now you are saying that if a day ever comes when God is all powerful, it means God is outside of time and by definition must no longer exist, a view with which I agree. The only conclusion is that your view has changed since that prior post.

Fantastically interesting, and respectfully written!

The suggestion that by my reasoning the universe may cease to exist as soon as it perfects itself is quite cute! And given my choice of words, you are in my opinion legitimately entitled to playfully allude to this, and of course by doing so to ask for clarification. And I apologize for any improper choice of words I may have made. Believe me, Paul, it is always my intention to make myself perfectly clear. :)

Now, to God.

We agree that to place God outside of Time is to define God out of existence. We agree that God must be placed into Time, and have, therefore, a past that was, a present, and a future that is not yet. Just like us.

What is God, at least to a monist such as myself? God is the One substance, only God exists. The problem is that God does not realize this. What is God made up of? All of us, all of the other beings, and all of whatever is particular and special to God alone. And all of this is One substance.

So if everyone and all creatures and God all realized and understood this, and if all creatures and God became totally benevolent by choice, and further the choice was also made to be completely erotic as well, then the combination of benevolence and eroticism at a universal, substantial level would result in Love, God would become Love, and this is...

In-a-gadda-da-vida-baby!!

Excuse me for giving the impression that I thought the world would disappear. I am hoping rather for a return to Eden. Although at that point I would not be surprised if a lot of us paired up and promptly disappeared.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: US Elections

Uhhhh.... I think if the U.S. election were provably hacked and the hackers were caught and brought to the U.S., they would be charged with a criminal offence.

So, do you think the last US election was hacked? And you could prove it?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

Fantastically interesting, and respectfully written!

The suggestion that by my reasoning the universe may cease to exist as soon as it perfects itself is quite cute!

Very interesting, because I was actually thinking the universe never perfects itself, never ceases to exist, but now you've put a different thought into my head.

And immediately I was reminded of something. When I was quite young and getting into music, I went to a repertory cinema and watched a movie documentary about The Who (can't remember the name of the film). And in one segment, they have John Entwistle (the bass player) giving a tour of his country estate, complete with a staircase of guitars (he was a collector). And at some point, Entwistle looks into the camera and says something to the effect of: "I finally have all the money I could ever want.... and I'm too old to enjoy it." I've never forgotten that little statement. And many years later, I had the privilege of meeting John Entwistle in a group setting, sitting at a table at a Toronto restaurant with many people including him. And he was drunk out of his mind and making lots of jokes, I believe they were all of an adult nature. Nothing wrong with that, but I remember thinking that possibly the REAL John Entwistle did disappear once he achieved fame and fortune.

Imagine, then, if the ultimate goal of all creation is to reach some state of absolute perfection, and then to promptly wink out of existence.... like possibly the real John Entwistle. Something I hadn't considered until now.

And given my choice of words, you are in my opinion legitimately entitled to playfully allude to this, and of course by doing so to ask for clarification. And I apologize for any improper choice of words I may have made. Believe me, Paul, it is always my intention to make myself perfectly clear. :)

Is human language capable of this? One thing that people who have come back from near death experience say is that what they experienced of the pure love and ecstasy of the other side, and even the brilliance and purity of the colors they saw, cannot be put into any human words. Apparently nothing in this physical realm suffices to describe it. And this gets back to what I wrote about trying to describe the color red to a person blind since birth.

Now, to God.

We agree that to place God outside of Time is to define God out of existence. We agree that God must be placed into Time, and have, therefore, a past that was, a present, and a future that is not yet. Just like us.

I would make one edit to this to make my own viewpoint clear:

We agree that to place God outside of Time is to define God out of existence. We agree that God must be placed into Time, and have, therefore, ETERNALLY a past that was, a present, and a future that is not yet. Just like us.

What is God, at least to a monist such as myself? God is the One substance, only God exists. The problem is that God does not realize this. What is God made up of? All of us, all of the other beings, and all of whatever is particular and special to God alone. And all of this is One substance.

So if everyone and all creatures and God all realized and understood this, and if all creatures and God became totally benevolent by choice, and further the choice was also made to be completely erotic as well, then the combination of benevolence and eroticism at a universal, substantial level would result in Love, God would become Love, and this is...

In-a-gadda-da-vida-baby!!

Excuse me for giving the impression that I thought the world would disappear. I am hoping rather for a return to Eden. Although at that point I would not be surprised if a lot of us paired up and promptly disappeared.

This is making me think of Woodstock 1969. I was far too young to experience that, but from what I gather, at that time many attendees believed that humanity was about to enter a new age.... and eroticism and benevolence were to be a big part of the new era.

But it's like somebody snapped their fingers (sometime between Woodstock and Altamont, or maybe at Altamont) and everybody went right back into the dog-eat-dog world of business and the pursuit of greed.

Brad, are you someone who has done research into the 1960's counterculture? You know, Age of Aquarius and Jesus Christ Superstar and California Dreaming? I have extensively gone back and researched that era, just out of pure identification with that feeling of breaking free of all bonds. I'd love to sit down and have a long chat with Neil Young, among others.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

We agree that to place God outside of Time is to define God out of existence. We agree that God must be placed into Time, and have, therefore, ETERNALLY a past that was, a present, and a future that is not yet. Just like us.

I disagree with this. It seems to me that if we allow God to have a past that goes backwards eternally then we run into the same problems with Time and Infinity and we define God out of existence.

I believe, therefore, that God had a beginning. God is a miracle, God is miraculous and came to be ex nihilo, or, from nothing. God is quite young, as is evidenced by some of the immaturity shown in this form. :)

Another way to put it would be to state that I believe in the big bang theory, but what big banged into existence was One consciousness. Now it has to figure out what the hell it is and what the hell is going on. And it bloody well better do so fast if you ask me. Just as possible as Eden is self-destruction.

As for the 60s, I am old enough to remember those days, though I was too young at the time to participate in them. Which means I survived. A lot of people did not. We are seeing a return to those days now.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

I disagree with this. It seems to me that if we allow God to have a past that goes backwards eternally then we run into the same problems with Time and Infinity and we define God out of existence.

I believe, therefore, that God had a beginning. God is a miracle, God is miraculous and came to be ex nihilo, or, from nothing. God is quite young, as is evidenced by some of the immaturity shown in this form. :)

Another way to put it would be to state that I believe in the big bang theory, but what big banged into existence was One consciousness. Now it has to figure out what the hell it is and what the hell is going on. And it bloody well better do so fast if you ask me. Just as possible as Eden is self-destruction.

As for the 60s, I am old enough to remember those days, though I was too young at the time to participate in them. Which means I survived. A lot of people did not. We are seeing a return to those days now.

The two hardest things for humans to try and imagine are (1) an infinite past (and thus a God with an infinite past), and (2) a beginning where all matter, all energy, all mathematics popped into existence FROM NOTHING. And yet, these are really the only 2 possibilities for our reality. Either there was a beginning or their wasn't.

As soon as you mention a Big Bang, the first question that comes is: "What was there before the Big Bang?" No space -- WHAT?!!! No time -- WHAT?!!!! No numbers, no math -- WHAT?!!!

I guess a third hardest thing to image is what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Infinite density -- WHAT?!!!!

Even if we suppose that our physical reality is all a hologram (a very popular theory) or somebody's video game (another popular one), there then remains some kind of other reality that must exist... and where did that come from, what was its beginning if it had one?

One way I've heard described the existence of "the other side" is that it exists on the basis of ultra-high frequencies that we cannot even fathom. Forget gigahertz, forget terahertz....way beyond that. Calculations of capacitance and inductance and resistance of various materials using normal equations at audio frequencies, for example: the equations themselves change once into the gigahertz range. This is an indication that as frequency increases, reality changes. Perhaps then our physical reality is created and had a beginning, not from nothing, but from turning DOWN the frequencies in another reality.

I believe string theory has a foundation based on frequencies as well, but I'm not well versed enough to comment further than that. But speaking of string theory, there's a fourth thing impossible to imagine: 11 dimensions. WHAT?!!!!

Perhaps all of these impossible-to-imagine things are signposts of God.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

The two hardest things for humans to try and imagine are (1) an infinite past (and thus a God with an infinite past), and (2) a beginning where all matter, all energy, all mathematics popped into existence FROM NOTHING.

I think it is impossible for us to conceive of the infinite regress, but I think it is easy for us to conceive of a being that had a beginning. Indeed we experience ourselves as precisely that. We have memories that end at a certain point, and before that there is what? Nothing!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

I think it is impossible for us to conceive of the infinite regress, but I think it is easy for us to conceive of a being that had a beginning. Indeed we experience ourselves as precisely that. We have memories that end at a certain point, and before that there is what? Nothing!

It isn't having a beginning that is hard to conceive, since we can relate to that. It is that everything we can perceive -- all matter, all energy, all mathematics, all logic -- popped into existence from nothing. And another part is that all evidence we have shows that life can only come from life, so how did the first life originate? And how / why would the very first life to originate be (or become over time) God?

If one God can pop out of nothing, why not multiple Gods? If God had a beginning, and God knows S/He will never reach an all powerful state, then wouldn't God live in fear of another God popping into existence and being or becoming the "new and improved" God?

The biggest question of all is: if God had a beginning, and God is not all powerful, how can God promise us eternal life? How can God prove His / Her own eternal existence?

You see, there's a paradox here. If God is not all powerful and never will be (as we agreed), then God cannot be absolutely certain of eternity. Which would mean his promise to us of eternal existence would be meaningless. And the other side of the paradox is what we already mentioned, that if God IS all powerful, that means S/He is unchanging, therefore outside of time, therefore not existing.

You see how difficult it is? In order to truly accept God, we have to accept that that God has an infinite past in which S/He has been infinitely changing and has infinite memory of every change, with no beginning. As soon as you say there has to be a beginning, then before that beginning God did not exist, thus did not have any control over whether S/He ever WOULD exist. God loses all power to know for certain whether another God more powerful will come into existence and perhaps change everything. Thus God cannot speak of eternity with any absolute authority.

If we truly believe that God can promise us eternal existence, then we have to accept that God has an eternal past and has been eternally changing (by the very definition of time). The only way to do that is by faith.

God, Infinity and Time: they all merge together into one abstraction which we cannot imagine in this physical realm where we are trapped for now.

Incidentally, humans have been hypnotized into a state of regression and have brought forth memories of a past life. When this happens, they have been known to even take on the voice and personality from their past life. In some cases, details of the past life that were presented during the regression have been confirmed after the fact. That either proves reincarnation, or the skeptic can always believe that somehow the hypnotized person had foreknowledge of that past life, even the minute details.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

You see, there's a paradox here. If God is not all powerful and never will be (as we agreed), then God cannot be absolutely certain of eternity. Which would mean his promise to us of eternal existence would be meaningless. And the other side of the paradox is what we already mentioned, that if God IS all powerful, that means S/He is unchanging, therefore outside of time, therefore not existing.

I think you have gotten to the essence of it.

And you know my philosophical opinion. For me, God is not all powerful and never will be, and cannot, therefore, be absolutely certain of eternity. I have stated earlier that all of us, God included, had bloody well better wake up soon, lest all be lost.

Indeed, any religious dogma that promises us a blissful eternity is dangerous and almost suicidal. There are no guarantees in life. We want a blissful eternity? Fine! Make it NOW. Do not sit around on our ass waiting for someone else to do it for us for us. What if the bad guys get their way?

God could die. And if He/She does we all do. Or God could live forever, and evolve toward paradise. No guarantees. It is up to us and Him/Her.

The world appears about to explode in some manner. Hopefully it will be a good explosion.

In the meantime, trust in Trump!

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: US Elections

Which would mean his promise to us of eternal existence would be meaningless.

The concept of eternal existence at least for me sounds scarier then finite existence. I get tired thinking about a lifespan of only 150 years never mind eternal. Of course since time is dependent on motion the concept of time is somewhat artificial.... I can remember being put under for surgery and when I came to I was convinced I was never put under even though the operation actually lasted for a few hours. For me the time elapsed was only a few seconds. As far as my body was concerned motion was frozen therefore no time elapsed. Einstein was on to something with his frames of reference :-) .

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

The concept of eternal existence at least for me sounds scarier then finite existence. I get tired thinking about a lifespan of only 150 years never mind eternal.

That is a very interesting response. Of course, you are speaking from the reference point of a decaying, slowing human body and brain. If you could be eternally 2 years old.... very different story, wouldn't you think? Not only is the body more purely energetic, but the mind also, so much so that in our later years we can't even imagine it. What if eternity was always like that, where knowledge and learning were to be always as intense as when we were 2 years old on Earth? And because we are acknowledging eternity (and thus infinity), there were infinite things for us to learn?

Chess is a very simple model for such infinite learning.... not infinite in the standard rules perhaps, but when you start adding in variants...... and variants of variants.... personally, it has taught me that infinity can and must exist.

To believe in eternity is to believe in infinity, and that is to believe in infinite learning because infinity means no bounds to anything. By faith it is possible to believe we are made in God's image, God is always learning, and we too shall always be learning.... perhaps even the worst of us.

I believe this can only be by faith, because the belief in such a scenario can have no logical reasoning. And that is because God must have an infinite past, something we cannot comprehend.

Of course since time is dependent on motion the concept of time is somewhat artificial.... I can remember being put under for surgery and when I came to I was convinced I was never put under even though the operation actually lasted for a few hours. For me the time elapsed was only a few seconds. As far as my body was concerned motion was frozen therefore no time elapsed. Einstein was on to something with his frames of reference :-) .

But what is motion? Motion is change, just one specific type of change, and time is dependent on change.

What you talk about with your surgery can be extrapolated to the passage of billions of years (depending on how old you think the universe is)... because all that time passed and you aren't now aware of it, there's no "recollection" of it. That doesn't mean you didn't exist. Perhaps you were just "under".... but in RELATIVE terms, meaning you were on a different plane of existence which for this Earthly life you are not allowed to access.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

...time is dependent on motion the concept of time is somewhat artificial....

This is one theory, but I do not personally agree with it. When musicians keep time, or even when people listening simply clap their hands in time to the music, they are not basing their apprehension of time upon motion. It is, rather, a pure or direct intuition, it seems to me. We sense time directly, or else how could we play music? The wait between claps is not based upon any assessment of motion, it is time being directly grasped.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: US Elections

Arguing politics AND relativity with Paul Bonham?

You guys are insane.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: US Elections

This is one theory, but I do not personally agree with it. When musicians keep time, or even when people listening simply clap their hands in time to the music, they are not basing their apprehension of time upon motion. It is, rather, a pure or direct intuition, it seems to me. We sense time directly, or else how could we play music? The wait between claps is not based upon any assessment of motion, it is time being directly grasped.

Nothing to disagree with, it is simply a law of physics, a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The reason this many periods were chosen is that it corresponds to the number of seconds that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun in one day. The point is all of this involves motion, no motion = no time.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

Nothing to disagree with, it is simply a law of physics, a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The reason this many periods were chosen is that it corresponds to the number of seconds that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun in one day. The point is all of this involves motion, no motion = no time.

When we watch a movie at fast-forward speed, or in slow motion, it has the same amount of motion as it does when we watch it at normal speed, therefore it will take the same amount of time to watch it regardless of which way we do it since time equals motion.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: US Elections

When we watch a movie at fast-forward speed, or in slow motion, it has the same amount of motion as it does when we watch it at normal speed, therefore it will take the same amount of time to watch it regardless of which way we do it since time equals motion.

That's ridiculous. Not buying it. Time does not equal motion.