On Dec 6, 12:05 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Why think of time in any sense at all , but doesn't it seem reasonable to > believe that there have always been universes and life and death will > continue in infinity whereas it is accepted that this universe began and > will end. My point is that like God Creation with a chain of universes will > continue in eternity. >
Whilst it is a reasonable assumption (one, in fact, I've derived myself), there still needs to be a list of said reasons for accepting the stance. My reasons are: 1) Energy is neither created nor destroyed 2) There is a possible geometric configuration of dimensions that will allow cyclical Big Bang to Annihilation cycles given the number of dimensions afforded by String Theory 3) It is consistent with conservation of energy that such a conformation exists 4) Such a conformation also allows the energy that exists to explore all spatio-temporal events given all of time For these reasons, I believe that there is a cyclical nature to creation; but, please note, I've listed my reasons. I think the group would like to hear yours. That is, if they differ from mine, as they know mine (if not before, they do now!!). ;-) > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > RP I don't think that time exists in a substantial sense, except to > > explain sequences of events or provide reference states/events. From what we > > do know of it, if I am correct, time is relative, and I am beginning to > > think of it similarly to gravity. In my view the present can and the past > > has been affected by the future. Through this I accept causality but deny > > determinism. > > > Now why cloak explanation in very human terms like happiness and > > loneliness? What is pleasurable and painful to this trans-being? This > > implies to me a changeful One, not eternal and omnipotent in the linear > > senses usually attributed. But something alive, with living parts which have > > an impact on the whole. Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, care to > > clarify more? > > > On 12/5/2010 11:14 PM, RP Singh wrote: > > > Ash my meaning is that God finds his happiness in his creation and > > therefore , though universes have a beginning and an end , Creation has no > > beginning and no end as there would always be universes before and after the > > present universes. In other words there would be no beginning or end of > > time. > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This leads us to the question of the existence of our universe at all, if > >> a being existed: omnipresent, omniscient, eternal; what point would there > >> be > >> to creating our universe? > > >> On 12/5/2010 12:12 PM, RP Singh wrote: > > >> Francis , if creation were to have a beginning and an end the eternity of > >> God would have no meaning as it is in creation that God's presence is felt. > >> God would have become a very lonely fellow. > > >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:08 PM, frantheman <[email protected] > >> > wrote: > > >>> RP, I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again: > > >>> Who sez? > > >>> Any of us can make pronouncements ... about anything. The trick is to > >>> back them up. > > >>> Francis > > >>> On 5 Dez., 16:09, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > There is no beginning or end of God. He is eternal. There is no > >>> > beginning or end of creation. Before this universe there were other > >>> > universes and after this universe there will be other universes. In > >>> > fact there is no point in time when there was a first universe or > >>> > there will be a last universe. God and Creation are both eternal , it > >>> > is us beings that are finite.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
