Krisma" since this is a religion forum where the concept of God is constantly introduced and discussed besides the fact that "Abracadabra" bought up the pantheist God makes your statement ... er ... how can I say this?...delusional

define moral: refers to what is judged as right, just, or good
Define amoral: being neither moral nor immoral; not believing in or caring for morality and immorality

Adding an "a" in front of any word simply takes and removes something.

It is not a positive, it is a lack of a positive.

Atheism is nothing special, it is just a lack of Theism.

Agnostic is almost a useless term. NO ONE KNOWS, EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC, some just think they are not.

You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist who realizes that I cannot prove, or disprove god, but I hold my belief in reserve for factual empirical and rational information that has no other plausible theory but that an extreme intelligence must have done it.

There are several problems with extremely complex intelligences having created this universe.

First this being would have to be extremely complex to have the capability to analyze and deduce what exact properties of the universe would be needed to have the results end in intelligent life, no less humanity exactly.

With no further evidence we must take into account occums razor, and ask is this probable. The answer is no, but that doesn't make it impossible so we go on with our analysis.

Next we ask, well if this being is conscious and intelligent, what does it mean to be conscious and intelligent. This is where our knowledge is not complete, yet what we do know creates problems for the super genius creator theory.

To have intelligence is to be able to analyze data and make choices based on that analysis, to be conscious is to know thy self.

If god has always existed, then has god created infinite worlds in this infinite time period? If this is true, then we can accept that this god had no beginning and will have no end, that it had no creator.

This works without self contradiction however defies occums razor.

If god has not always existed then when was god created, and by what? To create an amazingly complex conscious intelligent data analyzing system would require a more complex conscious intelligent data analyzing system, and we get an infinte tower of turtles.

This does not work unless you create an infinity of complex data analyzing systems ie infinite gods . . . . well what good is that? That brings you back to the who is the daddy god?

The third theory is that there is no consciousness, only energy. That events such as big bangs can be accounted for by natural processes, and "creation" becomes a universal evolution mechanism where the possibility of us living in a universe that is right for life is 100% because otherwise we wouldn't be here contemplating the existence of god.

One main problem with conscious intelligence, is that it must have a data container ( also what is data?). All things that can analyze need tools to do this analysis, we must be able to organize this data.

This presents two problems. If there was nothing until creation occurred, then what housed this data container?

What tools where used to organize data, and make decisions? Everyone just shrugs and things about ghostly entities that are not physical, but that is a sad cop out.

For you to see a ghost would require either light to be manipulated, or your nuerosynapse to be manipulated . . . .

Manipulation requires physical interactions . . . . .

For something proposed as non-physical to interact with a physical is itself a contradiction.

Does this prove that god doesnt exist: no.

Does this present problems for saying god created everything: yes.

I lean toward the many worlds interpretation: infinite who knows, can we ever know? hmm maybe.

__________________
There is actually a forth theory, for that you can read Paul Davies book, "The Cosmic Jackpot"

I have read it about 4 times and still don't have a complete handle on his ideas. But essentially he evokes retro causation to allow a future consciousness (perhaps even us) to have created this universe to be life bearing . . . .

Amazing concepts however and I think everyone with any desire to understand these concepts should read this book.

"Bushidobillyclub"

atheism is that which requires "fact" for the existence of God beyond
the "Belief" that a God exist

also there is a logical way to show how a God didn't create the universe

a god is supposely perfect so a God that creates a creation more perfect then itself would no longer be the God it's creation would become the God

a God that create lesser creation then itself creates imperfection and a god that creates imperfection is not a God

therefore a true God would create nothing...lesser or greater or equal then itself

all the Gods in history has all supposely created creations lesser then themself which according to a God standards is imperfection ...which means a God that create imperfection is no God ...therefore no true God created the universe

Some atheists choose not to believe in god because they find the entire premise emotionally manipulative, ridiculous, silly and potentially dangerous in its worse case scenario. It almost becomes a defense mechanism. When you flat out choose to deny the existence of something in your life, you take away all of its power, for better or for worse.

Or they just dont see the point in investing a lot of time and effort into something irrational that cant be proven or unproven. That tends to lean more towards Agnostic however. They choose not to worry about it now while existing in the material world.

"Krimsa"..anyone can claim to be anything ..but the term atheist is not about being agnostic or unsure that there is or isn't a God ..an atheist know why there are no gods and can provide logical proof why

Well I dunno. I guess it always comes down to that "there is nothing to disprove the existence of a god" or an intelligent creator of some description. Since no one can beyond a shadow of a doubt substantiate the existence of a god, then they seem to just settle into a judicious mode of "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god doesnt exist."

Thats psychologically satisfying to some people I guess. The abscess of proof does not prove anything however.

"Krimsa" someone can make a claim that the teletubbies created the universe ..so wouldn't it be up to the one making the claim to prove it and not for others to disprove it

it's not up to anyone to disproved someone's delusion it's up to the claimer to provide the facts that it's not a delusion

people claim that God is unattainble unreachable and incomprehensible to the human sense but yet they somehow claim God created the universe ..but how would they know that God created the universe if God is incomprehensible to their senses ..... sounds delusional to me

define : sexual reproduction :Process in which two cells, termed gametes, come together to form one fertilized cell that contains genetic information from both parental cells.

define : asexual reproduction: a type of reproduction where an organism replicates itself, by budding or dividing, without the involvement of other organisms.

IE WITHOUT SEX.

theism = belief in god.

atheism = without belief in god.

That is it, you can create your own definition and make it more complex then it is, but that is not what the standard for the words imply and is not what I believe it to mean.

In math we call this a set: theism, atheism would be that which is outside this set.

That means sure the person funch is describing that requires fact to garner belief would indeed be an atheist, but that is not the definition of atheism.

Krimsa your example would also be an atheist, but again that is not the root of the definition of atheism.

People are notorious for making things more complex then needed. Its true there are many reasons for people to be atheist and many reasons for people to not call themselves atheist even when they are.

Even if you decide just to not think about it, if you lack belief . . . . your an atheist.

theism = belief in god.

atheism = without belief in god.

The term has baggage with it that is added on by theist to scare young children into rejecting anything termed atheist. Atheist are immoral, and reject god . . . lol silly in the extreme, sure maybe some that are atheist do these things, that does not change the root meaning.

That is like saying Americans drive big cars, then saying the definition of American is a person that drives a big car.

I don't reject god, Ive never met him, for me to reject him would require for me to know him, in fact I find it interesting the differing levels of acceptance that theists hold regarding there belief in god. 38,000+ denomination of the christian religion shows a perfect example of this, and that is just the folk who take it serious enough to craft a denomination lol.

Most folk that believe in a god do so with very little vigor think on it almost not at all, have nothing but some good feelings of awe and wonder to back it up, and yet still believe. Sigh where are these people when I was in sales . . . ahh but I wasn't selling god . . . doh!
Its only with the principle of god people are like this

"Bushidobillyclub" ..the term atheism is a way to draw others into their fantasy ..it's an attempt to give the fantasy some truth

it's no different than someone not believing in BigFoot ..so then you are label a big-atheist-foot ..you become an unwilling player into the fantasy

it was a time when not being a player meant you would be tortured and/or murder ..so it's not the person that makes the claim of being the atheist..it's others that label them

I happily accept the label and work to restore the mathematical nature of words.

In regard to the O.P. here is my take on time.

Every single point of view (unit of awareness) has its own individual perception of the passage of time. This perception is in relation to its own processes of being or thought.

There is no single entity or system of "time" in existence apart from the observer created reality.

Time is an observation of a process.

Realities exist within other realities, entities within other entities. Each have their own unified field with own system of spacetime.

Funches..


Does time have a beginning and an end? Shalom..Miles

Now is all that exists. Time is simply an observation of a process.



Every individual unit of awareness has its own unified field and system of spacetime.



All events happen Here Now and are an observable process. This observable process is time. You cannot exist outside of your own individual unified field which is your own spacetime environment, but you can exist inside or outside of another individual's unified field and spacetime.

This means you, as an individual observer can exist inside of another observers dream of spacetime. It also means that other individual observers can exist and live within your unified field of space time and within your dreams. They are part of your being but yet individual in their point of observation.

You are a universe. You create reality.



The will of "god" is to exist. Hence the famous line: "To be or not to be, that is the question!"

The choice was to BE.

JB

"Bushidobillyclub" in accepting the label you become part of the fantasy

since you brought up math then let's it it as an example

someone claim that 2+2=5 and provide no proof that it is but all others that claim against this is amathemathical

you accepting the label of amathemathical makes you part of this delusion it makes you therefore help endorse this delusion and you unwillingly but knowingly help promote the delusion as being acceptable to the normal mentality of society

Yes I would accept it, and no I do not agree that my saying that I do not believe in this wrong concept somehow validates it as true.

Yes it validates it as a wrong concept saying it is real that you think its right, but being wrong doesn't make it not a concept, its still a concept, just a wrong one, or perhaps unprovable thus not worth (in my mind) of belief.

If I created a new concept called wiggledesprunk, which was my new word for the correct concept of math then showed how it could perform things and improve our life, then I could help people to see how math was wrong and wiggledesprunk was right.

I would be a amathematician in the sense that I would not believe in math, becuase no one could prove it to be right.

I would be a wiggledesprunkin in the fact that I could prove wiggledesprunk correct and make use of its ideas to do things that work.

However there is no correct version of religion that is provable so I feel no need to create a new concept.

"JennieBean" ..yes each indidvidual has their own preception of time ...but since eternal is supposely void of time their perception of time is exactly what makes them unable to make the claim of eternal...

that why any individual that claim awareness can not claim eternalism.. because awareness and creation can not be achieved without the factor of time

"Milesoftheusa" ..time actually doesn't exist....time is a mental system used by an individual to count reality and once the reality is counted time either cease or dissapates ...so yes time has a beginning and a end ..an awareness cannot count reality without "Time"

Time is more elusive then that. It is far more concrete then what JB claims as well.

Time is real. As real as space.


If time does not exist then how does it slow down for things without mental systems?

_____________

Time inside a black hole . . . . .

"Once you're inside of the horizon, spacetime is distorted so much that the coordinates describing radial distance and time switch roles. That is, "r", the coordinate that describes how far away you are from the center, is a timelike coordinate, and "t" is a spacelike one. One consequence of this is that you can't stop yourself from moving to smaller and smaller values of r, just as under ordinary circumstances you can't avoid moving towards the future (that is, towards larger and larger values of t). Eventually, you're bound to hit the singularity at r = 0. You might try to avoid it by firing your rockets, but it's futile: no matter which direction you run, you can't avoid your future. Trying to avoid the center of a black hole once you've crossed the horizon is just like trying to avoid next Thursday. "

"Bushidobillyclub" the word "math" is not spelled the same in all languages in the world so your use of the term "wiggledsprunk" wouldn't change the concept of math of add any delusional concepts to the world but your acceptance of being amathematical does because you acknowledge that 2+2 could equal 5 that it just can't be proved or disproved

your acceptance of the label atheist provide that same function ..you may as well say that you believe in God because you are playing into the delusion of agnosticism that God can't be proved or disproved

That probably true about EVERYONE having their own perception of time. Ever left your pet dog to go to work? To them, 8 hours is a lifetime and then when you arrive back home they are quite concerned that you had abandoned the pack and were perhaps killed or missing in action. Cats on the other hand could not care less provided you get your ass in gear to feed them at some point. If you dropped dead, they would probably not hesitate to make a meal of it. Thats the difference between a solitary and a pack oriented animal at least.

So animals and humans have their own perceptions of time for sure.