You cannot use the mind to define itself!
Why not? All knowledge is constructed by our mind.
THE IMPONDERABLES TOPIC (Enter at your own risk)
by Terry 61 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Oubliette
-
Oubliette
Science (which is knowledge) measures before it does anything else.
I disagree. Science is initially a way of knowing that begins with observing.
-
panhandlegirl
Terry this topic is interesting.
sparrowdown, self-awarness may not be necessary for existence but could it make our existence better or maybe longer. Don't we become self-aware early in life, say in the first months of life when we first realize that we are not a part of
our mother or whoever takes care of us in the early weeks,months of our existence, but another entity of our own. Does self-awareness help us to differentiate oneself from another, and what we/ they might want or need, to make our
existence better and/or longer by determining what we do
Just a thought
-
prologos
Terry, in post 1667 you assert that "god' could not know anything, because there was nothing created, therefore there was nothing to know.
If there is an eternal creator (not moving through time as we do on a one way mission), he would not be a learner as we are, from conception on. but
even we learners can have truely original thoughts (look at the patent office files).
Who are we to say that an eternal creator, a non-learner, a non-tinkerer, can not have original thoughts? in his own domain?
BSW, I do not believe 'god' has absolute foresight, although he is already in the future, watching, as we come along through time, waching what is happening.
The text about Cyrus notwithstanding. ha.
-
millie210
I want to comment on this thread but feel massively underqualified.
Terry you are a great writer. I enjoy consuming your words even though your thoughts are going places mine cannot go apparently.
What did come to mind while reading your posts was that in order for what you are saying to work wouldnt all time have to be existing as "past" "present" and "future"?
Isnt there a theory that all time exists at the same time?
Ah well, this isnt a topic I know much if anything about but its interesting following along.
Now Im off to google Schrodengers Cat and learn something else thats new to me!
-
prologos
millie, Time should be eexpressed as MOVING through time. everybody moves through time at different rates. The faster you move through space, the slower through time.
Time is a fourth dimension, and serious scientists consider it a given, eternal if you will, stretching into the eternal past and into the etrnal future, that we until our death will mve toward.
If 'god' would be eternal, he too would cover, or fiil all time (he would own it after all) but not move through it from one event to the next. .
so Yes, there is a past, there is a future, but technically there is no "NOW" it has zero length, we as humans can not stop in time and live.
-
millie210
Time is a fourht dimension, and serious scientists consider it a given, eternal if you will, stretching into the eternal past and into the etrnal future, that we until our death will mve toward.
Thanks prologus, so fourth dimension - like in the novel "Slaughter- House Five".
Relating things to novels helps me.
Moving through time is much more accurate isnt it?
-
prologos
millie 210, I was trying to link up with Terry's idea about an eternal being in his/her/it's state before he would start creation on it's own way through time , it's unique beginning, including instructions aka natural laws.
Have not read the novel, if it is fiction, even the wt dramas, never watch them either.
The 4st dimension definition of 'time' is from scientific literature, and time is the x (horzontal) axis on all those graphs by the way.
AND since Terry poses a problem that would happen to a pre-Big Bang 'god'/ creator, he too assumes that there is time before the Universes' beginning, it's movement through time.
-
millie210
You didnt miss anything not reading Kurt Vonneguts novel.
He does have a character that moves through time therefore the tie in.
Wouldnt it be more incorrect to NOT allow that there is time before the beginning of what we might consider the beginning?
Does that sentence make sense? I guess what I mean is wouldnt a blank drawing board where we are inquisitve and allow what IS to reveal itself rather than assuming we know with our limited tools be better?
Dont feel obligated to anwer - just musing here.
I dont have the intellect to add much and dont want to derail this thread.
-
Finkelstein
Gods were first imagined from humanity on a vague comprehension of knowledge.
The other interesting point is that the ancients realized the greatness the universe so gods had to be
a male, a strong ominous male, a small female could have never built the vastness of what they observed.
To this day god(s) are still acknowledged as (HE) with a human sexual identity.
The connection between human creators and the ominous god creators can not be denied.
Is it any wonder that there are so many men still today proclaiming themselves jointly connected to the all knowing and powerful creating gods ?