Ha! But if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what will make energy end? Could you tell me how you know about the start and end of time? You are not actually Pat aka Methusela are you? :-)
On Aug 25, 9:59 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 Aug, 13:09, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't fully understand. Did time have a beginning point, and will it > > have an end point? If eternity exists, it cannot have a start or end > > point can it? Does space somehow cease to exist? > > Time and space began together. There was nothing before it and > there will be nothing after it. Time needn't be eternal, there only > needs to be enough. And there is enough, so don't worry!! ;-) > > > > > On Aug 25, 6:38 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24 Aug, 16:36, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat, how can continuum have ends points defined? > > > > How can it not? A continuum is defined by its ends. For example, a > > > line (a 1-dimensional entity) can be viewed as a continuum of points > > > (zero-dimensional entities) from the beginning of the line to its > > > end. Along the line, there are no missing points, i.e., the line is > > > continuous. So, too, our space-time continuum is continuous from > > > beginning to end with no missing points. The philosophical > > > implications of us living in a space-time continuum are enormous, as > > > it means that our conventional view of a future open to possibilities > > > is simply not realistic/accurate. Einstein knew this, but only > > > mentioned it rarely. To believe that the future is mutable is the > > > modern-day equivalent of still believing the Earth is flat. We have > > > to come to a new understanding of the universe and humanity's role in > > > it and that will not happen until we've removed the comforting > > > blindfolds we 'prefer'. > > > > > On Aug 24, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy that, in > > > > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do you get past > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in your > > > > > > > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the statement > > > > > > > and say > > > > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then, > > > > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they > > > > > > > could} be > > > > > > > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally, I don't > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > you've stated your whole case, here. > > > > > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then > > > > > > Ian's > > > > > > strance is going to be the best you will get. > > > > > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse > > > > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we practice > > > > > > a > > > > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out the > > > > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have done > > > > > > with > > > > > > it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend > > > > > > against, do you? > > > > > > I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover the > > > > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In order to > > > > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no comprehensive > > > > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology. Once we've > > > > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it can do > > > > > and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why' questions to which > > > > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers, > > > > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to choose > > > > > and futher blocks progress. > > > > > One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no > > > > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is heading > > > > > in a particular direction with goals at the end. They overlook the > > > > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The continuum contains > > > > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already > > > > > defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already defined, then > > > > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling block > > > > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one stone > > > > > (Einstein). > > > > > My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute > > > > > truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly useful until one > > > > > extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found special (and > > > > > general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually, things like > > > > > physical constants. But it is how those truths work together and > > > > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and makes > > > > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
