FW: Time

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 11:45:02 EDT

  • Next message: richard@biblewheel.com: "Re: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Traditional Christian Hermeneutics"

    Josh replying to what
    Debbie wrote:

    >"Why? On an infinite line there are infinitely many points. They are in an
    >order, though not a countable one. Our moment is on the graph. The fact
    >the moment exists, or that the point exists, does not mathematically depend
    >upon the rest of the line. Infinity does not effect, positively or
    >negatively, the fact that this point, and this segment exist. I am talking
    >about points in relationship to time. I am discussing the points as though
    >they were mutually independent events."

    -I understand what your saying, but I do not feel that such an explanation
    resolves the problem (people have said this to me before, but maybe I'm too
    thick to get it.) It is difficult to put it into words, but here's the best
    I can do: If something has existed forever, it must have taken it forever
    to get here. Taking forever, means it "lasts FOREVER", not "lasts forever
    until we reach this point in time." Something cannot spend forever existing
    before this point in time because it must forever remain in a state of
    trying to reach this point in time, not actually reaching this point in
    time. This is the definition of forever, and it is illogical to say that
    forever exists before this point in time. Time must therefore have an

    >We do not truly know the nature of
    >time. It is one of the great debates in physics. Perhaps it is not a
    >straight line through space, perhaps it is a thread winding randomly
    >space. Perhaps it itself is a plane that cuts our space in a line. Perhaps
    >it is a manifold or sheet that is bent and curves in on itself and
    >intersects our three dimensional space in a curving line. Whatever it is,
    >travel along points that do have an order and don't branch out into other
    >directions. At least not in human history. Perhaps there is a beginning
    >point where space and time first intersected. ANd then we get into the Big

    -Wow. And I thought Howard had me straining my imagination! :)


    Debbie Again:
    'forever' for a limitless time

    I don't see how there is effort involved. You describe that 'it requires
    forever to get here'. I disagree. I don't think there's any requiring to it.
    Time has happened to exist. Whether it existed for forever or a century is
    irrelevent to the current moment in terms of time itself. If you are a rock
    with water running over you - then forever wuld turn you to nothing and a
    century would be a nice polish. But for time itself, there's no requirement.
    It just is.

    You are making the logical statement:

    If something has existed forever then it must require forever.

    If something, like a rock, exists in water - does it require water? No.

    If I exist in Indiana, do I require Indiana? No.

    If rocks exist in a continuous magma - do they require a continuous magma to
    exist? No.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Josh Bembenek [mailto:jbembe@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:05 AM
    To: deborahjmann@insightbb.com
    Subject: Re: Time

    Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 11:46:41 EDT