Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Probable and possible are two different things, but thanks anyway.

😄

I say probable because it has been done in recreations of early earth experiments. Since the results occured in this environment, it is probable, and in fact likely, that it happened in actual early earth conditions.

Edit: not to mention it has been done in numerous other experiments around the world, which is why it has become an accepted model. To just merely scoff at it is rather ignorant.

Originally posted by ThePittman
So if all that was was the spirit realm then where did go put this universe? If matter doesn't exist in the spirit realm then where did all this come from? Why would he need to give us a material form? If time is not linear in his realm then why would he make time linear for us?

Here is the beauty of being a believer: we don't claim to know everything (unlike some people, ahem, leon...ahemmmmm...heartmm). Just kidding pal. 😄

Can you repeat the first question it does not make sense?

All matter was possibly in the mind of God as a thought.

God does not explain in His Word why He gave us a physical form, but that does not mean that we cannot ever know. Man, this is one of the joys about being saved, born again, a Christian, a believer: in short a person whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ. We are going to be able to stand (or sit) before God and pick His brain. I don't know about you but I have all kinds of questions that I want to know the answers to. In fact, I am going to ask God to show me in exactly how He created all life and matter (I know how based on the Bible but I want to see it). God has the power to cause me to go back in time and witness the creation of the universe. Anyhoo, these are things that I will ask God (my Heavenly Father) to do for me once I am in Heaven.

You believe that time is linear? Then how come leonheartmm does not believe that time is linear? Hmm....Well, my thoughts on that (because it is not explained in the Bible) are that God made time linear for us for a reason. He wanted us to be able to discern time. But there is no time where He is, everything is always now there.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Here is the beauty of being a believer: we don't claim to know everything (unlike some people, ahem, leon...ahemmmmm...heartmm). Just kidding pal. 😄

Can you repeat the first question it does not make sense?

All matter was possibly in the mind of God as a thought.

God does not explain in His Word why He gave us a physical form, but that does not mean that we cannot ever know. Man, this is one of the joys about being saved, born again, a Christian, a believer: in short a person whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ. We are going to be able to stand (or sit) before God and pick His brain. I don't know about you but I have all kinds of questions that I want to know the answers to. In fact, I am going to ask God to show me in exactly how He created all life and matter (I know how based on the Bible but I want to see it). God has the power to cause me to go back in time and witness the creation of the universe. Anyhoo, these are things that I will ask God (my Heavenly Father) to do for me once I am in Heaven.

You believe that time is linear? Then how come leonheartmm does not believe that time is linear? Hmm....Well, my thoughts on that (because it is not explained in the Bible) are that God made time linear for us for a reason. He wanted us to be able to discern time. But there is no time where He is, everything is always [b]now there. [/B]

So for us to believe that simple one cell organic life could be created with the right set of conditions but God creating all matter and life that is out of something that has no substance like a thought is logical?

As for "time", that is a human concept and is relative to its viewer. I do not see it as being linear or what ever because it can be changed or viewed differently. Even if I did believe that time was linear and he didn't doesn't make a difference, you believe what you do but the same people of your faith do not so what does that matter? Does that make your points less valid?

Casey or JIA... anyone who wants to answer this.. if God created us and the universe... who created God? ..... of course the Bible or any book I know of doesnt tell us this.. I know we dont know but isnt true or wouldnt/doesnt it make sence that everything comes from something... or was God different.. he created himself or appeared out of .. nowhere ... to begin creating....😖

The general view on this is that God existed forever, before there was anything.

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Casey or JIA... anyone who wants to answer this.. if God created us and the universe... who created God? ..... of course the Bible or any book I know of doesnt tell us this.. I know we dont know but isnt true or wouldnt/doesnt it make sence that everything comes from something... or was God different.. he created himself or appeared out of .. nowhere ... to begin creating....😖

For me there is no God as the Bible or other religious text says. I would have more belief in that there is a higher form of life that may have god like powers and may have seeded life on Earth, but not this omnipotent being.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you equate not responding (because I haven't had the opportunity to because of my responsibilities outside of this great forum) with running?

What facts Shakyamunison? I am still waiting for those facts that support the belief that humans are animals. Humans are not apes (read all of my posts to Pittman on this discussion, they are in this thread, several posts back).

You have failed because I am not talking about opinion; I am talking about fact

hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"😉, including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. (This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. See the Hominidae and history of hominoid taxonomy articles.)

The primatological term is easily confused with a number of very similar words:

A hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the lesser apes (gibbons) and great apes.
A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae: all of the great apes.
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans.
A hominan is a member of the sub-tribe Hominina: humans and their extinct relatives.
A humanoid is a vaguely human-shaped entity.
Certain morphological characteristics are still used conventionally (though incorrectly) to support the idea that hominid should only denote humans and human ancestors, namely bipedalism and large brains. These points of departure between human beings and the other great apes are important, but taxonomically do not divide us into separate families. Genetics, rather than morphology, is the critical test of relatedness and in this respect humans and the other great apes ought to be of the same family. Indeed, the terms hominid and "great ape" are now effectively coterminous. However, anthropologists use the term to mean humans and their direct and near-direct ancestors, despite the changes in the understanding of hominoid taxonomy that have happened in the past several decades.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid"

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Omnibenevolant? 😑 😖

Leonheartmm, hate to burst your bubble but time is linear (i.e. it is one dimensional). Stop and think about it for a minute: can you travel back in time? No? Well, why not? Because...time-is-linear. Tell you what why don't go into the future and then come and tell us who will win the superbowl five years from now. Am I asking too much? Well, why? I thought that time was not linear, that it was just movement? Hmm, linear and arrow, boy these two concepts sound alike. Just ask Goddess Kali about the whole Big Crunch spill--which is a theory by the way not a proven fact just like the rest of the theories out there.

Leonheartmm, where did the two dimensional strings come from? Better yet, where did the universe come from that the two dimensional strings were in come from? Oh, I forgot it's called the String [B]Theory. It amazes me how you describe all of this dynamic activity (which are subject to the law of cause and effect) in detail yet can't explain what caused it "intially". Just for your fyi leonheartmm, no physical thing is eternal, only spiritual things are eternal.

I should have qualified my statement about present discovery not being able to explain undiscovered phenomenon. Present discovery cannot explain spiritual Truth or reality (this is the undiscovered phenomenon that I was referring to). However the Bible is replete with scientific information. I posted a link a while back I will see if I can locate it.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml (scientfic facts that the Bible mentions before scientific discovery).

I didn't know that laughing was a selfish act. That statement makes me want to laugh. 😂 (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.) I just find it humorous that you are so confident in the accuracy of the theories that you support, you are so sincere. Did you know that you can be sincerely wrong leonheartmm? I have known people that were so cocksure about something only to discover that they were wrong as a nine dollar bill. [/B]

hate to burst UR bubble but its not linear. one dimensional is NOT equal to linear, the time dimension bends in gravity, it compresses, twists, turns as u pass throuhg it with a velocity in the spatial dimension{time dilation} it breaks off, converges, a,d sumtimes even connects back on a previous coordinate, please, this is NOT EUCLEDIAN GEOMETRY!!!!!!!!!

what does time TRAVEL have ot do with time being linear? its already been proven that every time u move with a velocity reletive to anything else both unergo metapsychosis{LOL, so to speak} as time passes differently for both and they end up in COMPLETELY different{albiet with sriking similarities at lower speeds} universes{yes thas how fickle and non linear ur existance really is} u really think physicists pull out ideas like alternate universe out of their asses?! wrong! let me give u an example. im sure ur aware of the twins paradox in physics. but it has certain implications which u might not know about. lets say that u have an identical twin. and u take a trip in space at near lightspeed and are able to observe ur twin perfectly and ur twin can observe U. to the TWIN, reletive to him, UR velocity will be approaching lightspeed, and it wud seem like ur moving in slow motion, albeit when u come back after what seems to the 60 years, the twin, wud be sixty years old n u wud look like{depending on ur reletive speed} u were only a year older then when u left. practically same people, yet different ages.

now the OTHER more confusing part of the argument takes into account, UR perspective. again we start at the same beginning, but we look at it from UR perspective. if you move away at earth on the same spaceccraft at near lightspeed, but can observe ur twin, reletive to YOU, the EARTH wud me moving away at near lightspeed at UR twin wud be moving very sluggishlky{as well as everything arouns him} and time wud be passing slower for him. if ur returned to eart after what seemed to u 60 year, YOU wud be 60 years older then when u left but ur twin{assuming the speed is the same in the first example} wud only be a year older then when u left him. same people{practically} different ages. BUT HOW CUD THIS BE. either YOUR +60 and your twin +1 years old then when u left. or YOUR TWIN is +60 and YOUR +1 years older then when u left. this is stratight out paradox. iether there are two of both u and ur twin or one scenario is WRONG. the fact is that BOTH are correct, u just end up in a DIFFERENT universe form ur twin, where the laws of physics were made ever so slightly different in SUCH a way as to have made the molecules of your OTHERUNIVERSELY TWIN come together in a way where he was 60 years older at the time than u r. same goes for your twin. this process is happeneing ALL THE TIME. and ur practically skipping universes/realities WHENEVER anything move reletive to you or you move reletive to anything else!!!!!!! this is a very bacis qualitative definition of the phenomenon of time dilation and time dilation has been FACTUALLY REPEATEDLY PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!! so there goes ur argument of time being LINEAR in any way shape or form. NO DIMENSION IS!

both quantum mechanics and reletivity are PROVEN theories. as far as the MATHEMATICAL expressions for the theories go, their immedieate effects are ALSO proven. its only INDUCTIONS like what they PREDICT about the non localised spread out wholistic phenomenon of creation that are not PROVEN in the strict sense so dont bring that up again please.

n how can u say no PHYSICAL thing is eternal. i suppose u meant things that possess mass, then yes, none are eternal, but as far as superdimesnions and self contained systems{among many other i wudnt mentions due to quantitative complexity} go which ARE also physical then yes in so far as eternity means INFINITE TIME, they ARE eternal. n theres no evidence for SPIRITUAL things in the mainstream which is credible, only anecdotal statements and recollections, nothing which really qualifies as emperical. the bible is replate with scientific FALLACIES.

laughing isnt a selfish act in itself, but when an omnipotent OMNIBENEVOLANT{all loving, thas what it means if u doint know, n uve mentioned many times before, GOD IS LOVE, either he is and hes omnibenevolant, or u were lying and he isnt omnibenevolant, pick one} being mockingly LAUGHS{n not cries} at the misfortune of his BELOVED creation led astray and having its end in eternal unbearable torment, then YES laughing is a very selfish and unfitting act.

n just so u know, im only confident in the theories RELETIVE to the alternates u post. u dont know me personally, being scientific, i dont even consider my OWN existance of my conciounce as infalliable! im logical {i hope}, i dont consider the world around me as truly existing without any room for disproof either, heck for all i know the universe cud have started a SECOND ago n i wudnt know, thoretically. theres no COMPLETELY impartial ULTIMATE knowledge, just reletive knowledge increasing or decreasing in probability. however, ACCEPTING some axioms as necessary to WHATEVER the nature of the current existance is, {n u accept them too} i know that many things out there, along with what u say is completely inconsistent and contradicting to those axioms.

{after all, what if im just in a simulated world of my own dreams right now n im really in a coma, or what if im in the matrix, or what if the thoughts im having right now are not COEHERENT at all but i cant emotionally sense it or what if this is sumthing which cannot befathomes by whatever is ME at all???? i ADMIT these possibilities, but when i realize that i have to partially except SUM things as axioms[ I EXIST, I AM AWARE, I AM CAPABLE OF PERCEPTION OF MY SURROUNDING, A SURROUDNGIN EXISTS, I AM CAPABLE OF COEHERENT THOUGHT ETC ETC] to function, and these are the basics,[also including, I AM AN EXISTANCE WITH A NEED FOR SELF PRESERVATION TO CONTINUE TO "EXIST" THE WAY I AM NOW, A PROBABLY PERCIEVING,THINKING ENTITY] and go on those things and try n create the most sensible picture of the worldaround me, if ALL sense is wrong then im wrong and this sentence talking about sense being wrong is WRONG, and it really doesnt matter what is what or what i percieve or think. so dont go on that path to try n dismiss my posts as its self destructive and destroyes the very axiomic foundation it uses to create the argument in the first place.

apparently u wont accept the above argument UNLESS im able to physically take u back in time n then show u the universe of ur origin, or at least thats the impression igot of you in the last post. ahh well, i suppose uve ALREADY WON RIGHT!

lol. aaaaanyway.

here is a single post of mine form the thread i mentioned which u didnt care to see{not that uve really read whuat i said in the old post or tried to understand it either before replying}

"time is a perceptual phenomenon to humans existing due to the nature of integration of our perceptual ability{which can only be extended to predict the future through past events before it has happened and not the other way around since that would be linguistically illogical based on the words current definitions} in reality past and present are interchangeable, expansion of the universe seems to us to represent time moving FORWARD, while compression{as might happen in the big crunch} seems to indicate time moving BACKWARDS. in reality its just two states of matter which have opposite velocities, acceleration and direction of motion. we might as well not be MOVING at all and be stuck in one place{sort of like taking a freezeframe of the dynamic universe} and be completely static. yet still we would not know it and think things were progressing in the usual way simply because we are not physically equipped to percieve anything other than PERCEPTUAL time. any REAL TIME if it exists outside our perception is beyond our ability to know. now i could simply pass time off as a perceptual illusion, but things like time dilation in reletivity and dimensional time in quantum mechanics give us evidence that there is INFACT a thing similar to REAL time exists, seperate from perceptual time. now to accurately or completely define this with my very limited knowledge of both these fields is next to impossible, but i shall try to propose my own crazy theory{actually based on facts, it just seems that way to most people}. time is the ability of the universe to allow motion of bodies. in a 3 dimensional universe particles, waves etc can EXIST in any one 3d coordinate. but they do not have the ability to MOVE from their initial coordinate to any other. the ability or function which makes TRANSLATION from point A to point B possible is called time. and since time is theorised to exist as a dimenion perpendicular to all others, and it can not be observed with the other 3, its only role is TRANSLATION or acting as a mathematical{or its physical equivalent} function, giving the ability of motion when force is induced etc .

if: F(x, y, z) --------> (x', y', z'😉

and x, y, z are spatial coordinates of a point and x', y' and z' are there later coordinates on which the original are mapped onto, then the "F" is time. or atleast something like it.

in either of these contexts{admittedly these are inductions and extrapolations but they have a solid physical base} there is no such thing as BEGINNING of time. or rather, such a thing is irrelevant. you could say that in CONTEXT to another dimension which is to time as time is to space[FF(x, y, z}] at WHAT COORDINATES did the lower dimensional function, TIME come into existance for the even lower dimensional space of the universe{remember that lower is only a reletive term here} you cant say "at which TIME did TIME come into existance " since time has to exist to begin with to measure the time of creation of TIME."

please no more nonsensical debating from ur side. counter, if u have a nonfallacious argument, otherwise, i cant keep replying{my As LEVEL finals are only a week and a half away n i REALLY dont have time to senselessly continue what ur doing}

I am not a spatial coordinate. mhm

Originally posted by lord xyz
I am not a spatial coordinate. mhm

Originally posted by leonheartmm

I have provided a number of examples for why I believe that time is linear. What is your definition of "one-dimensional?" You are not making any sense. Linear means "straight, involving a single dimension."

what does time TRAVEL have ot do with time being linear? its already been proven that every time u move with a velocity reletive to anything else both unergo metapsychosis{LOL, so to speak} as time passes differently for both and

What do you mean by metapsychosis?

The theories about time travel support my belief that time is linear that is why I mention it.

they end up in COMPLETELY different{albiet with sriking similarities at lower speeds} universes{yes thas how fickle and non linear ur existance really is} u really think physicists pull out ideas like alternate universe out of their asses?! wrong! let me give u an example. im sure ur aware of the twins paradox in

No, I don’t believe that scientists pull anything out of their….

physics. but it has certain implications which u might not know about. lets say that u have an identical twin. and u take a trip in space at near lightspeed and are able to observe ur twin perfectly and ur twin can observe U. to the TWIN, reletive to him, UR velocity will be approaching lightspeed, and it wud seem like ur moving in slow motion, albeit when u come back after what seems to the 60 years, the twin, wud be sixty years old n u wud look like{depending on ur reletive speed} u were only a year older then when u left. practically same people, yet different ages.

now the OTHER more confusing part of the argument takes into account, UR perspective. again we start at the same beginning, but we look at it from UR perspective. if you move away at earth on the same spaceccraft at near lightspeed, but can observe ur twin, reletive to YOU, the EARTH wud me moving away at near lightspeed at UR twin wud be moving very sluggishlky{as well as everything arouns him} and time wud be passing slower for him. if ur returned to eart after what seemed to u 60 year, YOU wud be 60 years older then when u left but ur twin{assuming the speed is the same in the first example} wud only be a year older then when u left him. same people{practically} different ages. BUT HOW CUD THIS BE. either YOUR +60 and your twin +1 years old then when u left. or YOUR TWIN is +60 and YOUR +1 years older then when u left. this is stratight out paradox. iether there are two of both u and ur twin or one scenario is WRONG. the fact is that BOTH are correct, u just end up in a DIFFERENT universe form ur twin, where the laws of physics were made ever so slightly different in SUCH a way as to have made the molecules of your OTHERUNIVERSELY TWIN come together in a way where he was 60 years older at the time than u r. same goes for your twin. this process is happeneing ALL THE TIME. and ur practically skipping universes/realities WHENEVER anything move reletive to you or you move reletive to anything else!!!!!!! this is a very bacis qualitative definition of the phenomenon of time dilation and time dilation has been FACTUALLY REPEATEDLY PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!! so there goes ur argument of time being LINEAR in any way shape or form. NO DIMENSION IS!

Question: Can an object of nucleonic particle size (or larger) be accelerated to near lightspeed? The answer is no. Nucleonic particles would become disrupted causing them to separate. The strong forces is not capable of holding those particles together at or near the speed of light. So, actually your Twins Hypothesis in relation to time dilation is invalid. There is no way for time dilation to occur at that speed. Besides, time dilation has not been proven for particles that are nucleonic in size (which according to scholars is the mechanism that actually measures the timing in terms of the accuracy required), they only deal with particles at electron mass or smaller. In short, particles of nucleonic size are not affected by time dilation; therefore, that aspect of Einstein’s postulated is erroneous.

both quantum mechanics and reletivity are PROVEN theories. as far as the MATHEMATICAL expressions for the theories go, their immedieate effects are ALSO proven. its only INDUCTIONS like what they PREDICT about the non localised spread out wholistic phenomenon of creation that are not PROVEN in the strict sense so dont bring that up again please.

n how can u say no PHYSICAL thing is eternal. i suppose u meant things that possess mass, then yes, none are eternal, but as far as superdimesnions and self contained systems{among many other i wudnt mentions due to quantitative complexity} go which ARE also physical then yes in so far as eternity means INFINITE TIME, they ARE eternal. n theres no evidence for SPIRITUAL things in the mainstream which is credible, only anecdotal statements and recollections, nothing which really qualifies as emperical. the bible is replate with scientific FALLACIES.

No physical thing is eternal because it is linked to time and time began with the creation of matter and space.

laughing isnt a selfish act in itself, but when an omnipotent OMNIBENEVOLANT{all loving, thas what it means if u doint know, n uve mentioned many times before, GOD IS LOVE, either he is and hes omnibenevolant, or u were lying and he isnt omnibenevolant, pick one} being mockingly LAUGHS{n not cries} at the misfortune of his BELOVED creation led astray and having its end in eternal unbearable torment, then YES laughing is a very selfish and unfitting act.

God is love as I have always stated.

I never said that God would laugh at yours or anyone’s misfortune—you said that. Besides, I was being facetious when I said that God would laugh at your theories (not your misfortunes). I meant that in jest not literally (lighten up and stop being so sensitive).

n just so u know, im only confident in the theories RELETIVE to the alternates u post. u dont know me personally, being scientific, i dont even consider my OWN existance of my conciounce as infalliable! im logical {i hope}, i dont consider the world around me as truly existing without any room for disproof either, heck for all i know the universe cud have started a SECOND ago n i wudnt know, thoretically. theres no COMPLETELY impartial ULTIMATE knowledge, just reletive knowledge increasing or decreasing in probability. however, ACCEPTING some axioms as necessary to WHATEVER the nature of the current existance is, {n u accept them too} i know that many things out there, along with what u say is completely inconsistent and contradicting to those axioms.

{after all, what if im just in a simulated world of my own dreams right now n im really in a coma, or what if im in the matrix, or what if the thoughts im having right now are not COEHERENT at all but i cant emotionally sense it or what if this is sumthing which cannot befathomes by whatever is ME at all???? i ADMIT these possibilities, but when i realize that i have to partially except SUM things as axioms[ I EXIST, I AM AWARE, I AM CAPABLE OF PERCEPTION OF MY SURROUNDING, A SURROUDNGIN EXISTS, I AM CAPABLE OF COEHERENT THOUGHT ETC ETC] to function, and these are the basics,[also including, I AM AN EXISTANCE WITH A NEED FOR SELF PRESERVATION TO CONTINUE TO "EXIST" THE WAY I AM NOW, A PROBABLY PERCIEVING,THINKING ENTITY] and go on those things and try n create the most sensible picture of the worldaround me, if ALL sense is wrong then im wrong and this sentence talking about sense being wrong is WRONG, and it really doesnt matter what is what or what i percieve or think. so dont go on that path to try n dismiss my posts as its self destructive and destroyes the very axiomic foundation it uses to create the argument in the first place.

No comment from me on this, you seem to be venting, expressing yourself, or simply having a conversation with yourself here.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

lol. aaaaanyway.

No, that is not the reason that I don’t accept the above argument. I don’t accept it because it is invalid.

Also, I am not here to win anything (I have stated this before).

here is a single post of mine form the thread i mentioned which u didnt care to see{not that uve really read whuat i said in the old post or tried to understand it either before replying}

"time is a perceptual phenomenon to humans existing due to the nature of integration of our perceptual ability{which can only be extended to predict the future through past events before it has happened and not the other way around since that would be linguistically illogical based on the words current definitions} in reality past and present are interchangeable, expansion of the universe seems to us to represent time moving FORWARD, while compression{as might happen in the big crunch} seems to indicate time moving BACKWARDS. in reality its just two states of matter which have opposite velocities, acceleration and direction of motion. we might as well not be MOVING at all and be stuck in one place{sort of like taking a freezeframe of the dynamic universe} and be completely static. yet still we would not know it and think things were progressing in the usual way simply because we are not physically equipped to percieve anything other than PERCEPTUAL time. any REAL TIME if it exists outside our perception is beyond our ability to know. now i could simply pass time off as a perceptual illusion, but things like time dilation in reletivity and dimensional time in quantum mechanics give us evidence that there is INFACT a thing similar to REAL time exists, seperate from perceptual time. now to accurately or completely define this with my very limited knowledge of both these fields is next to impossible, but i shall try to propose my own crazy theory{actually based on facts, it just seems that way to most people}. time is the ability of the universe to allow motion of bodies. in a 3 dimensional universe particles, waves etc can EXIST in any one 3d coordinate. but they do not have the ability to MOVE from their initial coordinate to any other. the ability or function which makes TRANSLATION from point A to point B possible is called time. and since time is theorised to exist as a dimenion perpendicular to all others, and it can not be observed with the other 3, its only role is TRANSLATION or acting as a mathematical{or its physical equivalent} function, giving the ability of motion when force is induced etc .

if: F(x, y, z) --------> (x', y', z'😉

and x, y, z are spatial coordinates of a point and x', y' and z' are there later coordinates on which the original are mapped onto, then the "F" is time. or atleast something like it.

in either of these contexts{admittedly these are inductions and extrapolations but they have a solid physical base} there is no such thing as BEGINNING of time. or rather, such a thing is irrelevant. you could say that in CONTEXT to another dimension which is to time as time is to space[FF(x, y, z}] at WHAT COORDINATES did the lower dimensional function, TIME come into existance for the even lower dimensional space of the universe{remember that lower is only a reletive term here} you cant say "at which TIME did TIME come into existance " since time has to exist to begin with to measure the time of creation of TIME."

please no more nonsensical debating from ur side. counter, if u have a nonfallacious argument, otherwise, i cant keep replying{my As LEVEL finals are only a week and a half away n i REALLY dont have time to senselessly continue what ur doing}

Again, handle your responsibilities because they are more important than creating posts on this forum. However, I still maintain that time has a beginning because it is intrinsically linked to space and matter which have a beginning. Time began at the moment that space and matter began (their expansion that is).

Linear doesn’t mean one dimension or always moving forward it just means that it is a horizontal line. What you are describing is a ray, something that has a beginning and is moving in one direction, linear would have no beginning or end and you could move to any point on the line so forward or backward in time.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Linear doesn’t mean one dimension or always moving forward it just means that it is a horizontal line. What you are describing is a ray, something that has a beginning and is moving in one direction, linear would have no beginning or end and you could move to any point on the line so forward or backward in time.

You are correct.

However, time in terms of its origin began as a line segment or spatial point, but in terms of its function is a ray because it has a beginning.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are correct.

However, time in terms of its origin began as a line segment or spatial point, but in terms of its function is a ray because it has a beginning.

Originally posted by ThePittman
However your speculation about time is not absolute, while it is theorized that you can only more forward in time (which is a human concept) we still don’t understand the most powerful force which is gravity which easily manipulates the other major forces of the universe. Just because we do not fully understand every aspect doesn’t mean that it can not be done, just as many milestones in science have been passed where previously all science said that it couldn’t be done.

My understanding of time may not be absolute but it is scientifically accurate.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My understanding of time may not be absolute but it is scientifically accurate.

Originally posted by ThePittman
So was thinking the world was flat and that Earth was at the center of the universe. Just because science hasn’t found it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, we already know with current science that gravity warps time and space so the logic of thinking that it must be so because we don’t have an answer is not very reasonable.

Just because science hasn't found what?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Just because science hasn't found what?