Hi,
I'm new here and haven't been through most of the threads so I don't know if this has been covered before, but about the term self-existent, as quite commonly used by a member DeepSight on the two forums that led me to the path of NL membership:

From where does the conclusion that something that is self-existent must be intangible and immutable come from? Is it just one of those things that "just are" and is this accepted as the philosophical/religious standard definition; which to me would seem rather silly, or do you have arguments supporting it?

My qualm is chiefly with the latter half: Must it be immutable? Say I take a definition of god as one where it is, say energy, then energy can change form and convert to mass and back, theoretically (E=mc^2). So why can't this one energy also be able to change its form? If it's the most powerful or potent being/energy/existence from which all is derived why should there be a restriction on what it can do to itself? Why must it be immutable?

Also, say conservation of energy is perfect, and all the energy of this universe is kept within its bounds and conserved in one form or the other: assuming a cosmic crunch scenario where the universe collapses back on itself, won't this satisfy the condition of 'ssomthing' being eternal though the universe isn't as the enrgy is still conserved? So the enternal clause is met without the need for a separate being standing outside of the universe as the energy that comprises the universe is, in itself, eternal.

And if this point sounds sensible enough to you, and assuming negative energy matter (exotic particles or whatever else it's called) does exist; why is it that the zero net energy system seems ridiculous? If we have the positive matter that makes up our universe and say negative matter in a parallel universe birthed from the same event collapse back on each other, the net sum of their energies would be zero. And from what little i know of quantum mechanics, the creation of such pairings of positive and negative energies from nothingness is possible, as while nothingness has no net energy so does a system of two equal and opposite energies (like the equal and opposite charges in ionic molecules: 1+ve plus 1-ve charge lead to the molecule having zero net charge though the ions do have their own charges).

I realize this last paragraph may not be too clear, and if so kindly ignore this para while i prepare a better way of phrasing my points, and answer the others.

Thank you

P.S. as for the concept of negative energy, I shall be researching upon it now, though if any physicists happen to pass by I'd appreciate any helpful information they could provide.

P.S.S. Also, I know negative energy is just a theoretical concept derived by mathematics, say a conjecture of math, but why must this make its existence any less believable than the existence of intangible, immutable god? The latter being a conjecture arrived at via logical and deductive reasoning. Now, mathematics is no less logical, so why must possibilities suggested by it be any less valid? In fact reasoning can, by intentional or unintentional missteps or farcical assumptions, be used yo arrive at sheer nonsensical deductions. Eg: the greek philosopher who theorised that moving from one place to the other was logically impossible (something along the lines of "to cross x distance between A and B you must first cross x/2 and before that x/4 and before that x/8..." Ad infinitum and hence you are always approaching B but never reach it).

op, e b like say u enjoy knowledge pass me sef

dunno if they've discussed it before, but the idea, as far as physical entities are concerned, is untenable from my POV. And as I'm a materialist, meaning all that manifests would need a physical base, well, you should be able to do the math. note I hold this would apply to any possible universe as I cannot imagine a universe that does not have some sort of entropy and/or allows infinities to manifest physically. but that's just me

oga ds ran away some months back after some thorough thrashing administered to him by some mostly heartless folk. his folly was too much sha, in our defence. mayhaps the site owners shenanigans had a part to play as well....long story. he does drop by from time to time though, it seems, but not really active here per say. you might have more luck reaching him in his new lairs or via email.

anyways, by his colorful definitions, I would say he would qualify e=mc2 as immutable as well, somehow

and welcome, though I'm not that much of an old timer myself

Haha. Thanks.

I actually am of a similar opinion as you (and if you get notifications of likes on the "Ex Nihilo... " post by LordBabs from two years ago, it was me liking and posting without checking the date stamps).

The entire concept of self-existent things rankled my brain too but I tthought I should seek some clarification before i decide on whether to dismiss it outright or not.

Waiting for DS or cezar or someone else to explain why it can or cannot work with the points I mentioned.

yeah, I recall him explaining why at some point or the other, can't remember the details

me digging up those posts? no, making me fairly useless. however, even if they don't necessarily agree they may at least be able to clarify his stance, so tagging plaetton, pastoraio and muskeeto. if I spelled those right they will be notified and one of them might be willing to help. of course ds himself may show up (he does throw those tantrums only to return fairly often )

that was one of the first threads I was active on. I've learned and evolved a bit since those days

CrazyKaps:

My qualm is chiefly with the latter half: Must it be immutable? Say I take a definition of god as one where it is, say energy, then energy can change form and convert to mass and back, theoretically (E=mc^2). So why can't this one energy also be able to change its form? If it's the most powerful or potent being/energy/existence from which all is derived why should there be a restriction on what it can do to itself? Why must it be immutable?

I seem to remember striktlymi say he believes energy is god and his god is energy and that this energy can create mater from it self, implying that it can mutate (change), since he can change from man to animal and back to god.
Its just different people with different opinion.

#If striktlymi denies this, I shall dig up those posts.

ooman:


I seem to remember striktlymi say he believes energy is god and his god is energy and that this energy can create mater from it self, implying that it can mutate (change), since he can change from man to animal and back to god.
Its just different people with different opinion.

#If striktlymi denies this, I shall dig up those posts.

Not just any energy...the Energy.

striktlymi:


Not just any energy...the Energy.

It still the same thing. At the end of everything, there is one singularity right?
The disagreement here is if i type energy instead of Energy, and that is just child play.

@ooman @striktlymi

The energy part then pretty much agrees with the scientific stand too, and so I don't quite see a difference there. The problem comes up when people try to explain the existence of this energy.

Quantum mechanics stipulates (as far as i know) that even vacuum is in a constant flux with postive and negative energies cancelling each other out thus leaving a net result of zero energy which we observe as the 'empty' vacuum. And so the universe itself could just br a runaway result of such a reaction (with gravity being the negative energy, i think) and have sprung up from the "nothingness" that is 'empty space'. Hell, it could but be the latest or one of many that sprung up from such fluctuations. This neatly ties up the where did it all come from question, the answer being the pre Bang space.

Again, maybe a little too neatly, but wherein is the problem in this scenario? And do we really then still need an external force? Also, couldn't your Energy be the system instead? A system having observable equal positive and negative (and so a net 0) energy?

Take an analogy of a deity or one power from a fantasy novel which comprises all the good and the bad. Thus being neutral/neither.


Also, all the above physics was paraphrasing of stuff read 4 years ago and what @PhysicsQED posted somewhere earlier. So I may have gotten it wrong to some extent. If in doubt do your own research and reference your sources and let me know where i went wrong.

And I'm also afraid this is going to be a short thread.

@plaetton @pastoraio @muskeeto

There's no point from the pov of debate tagging you all if you are of the same opinion as me. of course if you aren't, I'd love to hear your answers/arguments, and if yiu are could you, on the off chance that @DeepSight did clarify the immutable part before i appeared on the scene, explain why he believes it must be so?

If course, if he drops by himself it'll be even better.

Thanks and good day to you all.

CrazyKaps:
And I'm also afraid this is going to be a short thread.

@plaetton @pastoraio @muskeeto

There's no point from the pov of debate tagging you all if you are of the same opinion as me. of course if you aren't, I'd love to hear your answers/arguments, and if yiu are could you, on the off chance that @DeepSight did clarify the immutable part before i appeared on the scene, explain why he believes it must be so?

If course, if he drops by himself it'll be even better.

Thanks and good day to you all.

I disagreed with deepsight on immutability. A god cannot be immutable and at the same time be the active agent in creation.

God is contradiction in terms , because if he is active in creation, then he subject to the laws of universe himself, making him a non god.
If , on the hand, god is not active in creation, then he does not exist in creation.

God, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy that pulses and reverberates throughout the universe would be a much more plausible description.
In other words, god would have to be evolving with the universe.

plaetton:

I disagreed with deepsight on immutability. A god cannot be immutable and at the same time be the active agent in creation.

God is contradiction in terms , because if he is active in creation, then he subject to the laws of universe himself, making him a non god.
If , on the hand, god is not active in creation, then he does not exist in creation.

God, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy that pulses and reverberates throughout the universe would be a much more plausible description.
In other words, god would have to be evolving with the universe.

In other words, the separate god does not exist and so this divide between the worlds of science and philosophy is merely in our heads?

If that is what you meant, I guess we're all in agreement, at least till now.

Hello Crazycaps -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance/1#7369083

Hope that clarifies.

Cheers.

DeepSight:

Hello Crazycaps -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance/1#7369083

Hope that clarifies.

Cheers.

Thanks for sharing, and yes it does clarify your belief about the immutability of anything that is self-existent.

I guess that concludes the primary aim of my post. However, if it's not much of a bother (or a proven hopeless task in your opinion) would you mind taking a gander at the other questions I posed and pass on your own opinion about them?

CrazyKaps:
@ooman @striktlymi

The energy part then pretty much agrees with the scientific stand too, and so I don't quite see a difference there. The problem comes up when people try to explain the existence of this energy.

Quantum mechanics stipulates (as far as i know) that even vacuum is in a constant flux with postive and negative energies cancelling each other out thus leaving a net result of zero energy which we observe as the 'empty' vacuum. And so the universe itself could just br a runaway result of such a reaction (with gravity being the negative energy, i think) and have sprung up from the "nothingness" that is 'empty space'. Hell, it could but be the latest or one of many that sprung up from such fluctuations. This neatly ties up the where did it all come from question, the answer being the pre Bang space.

Again, maybe a little too neatly, but wherein is the problem in this scenario? And do we really then still need an external force? Also, couldn't your Energy be the system instead? A system having observable equal positive and negative (and so a net 0) energy?

Take an analogy of a deity or one power from a fantasy novel which comprises all the good and the bad. Thus being neutral/neither.


Also, all the above physics was paraphrasing of stuff read 4 years ago and what @PhysicsQED posted somewhere earlier. So I may have gotten it wrong to some extent. If in doubt do your own research and reference your sources and let me know where i went wrong.

@bold-I think I and striktlymi agree on the energy being the system altogether. However striktlymi think that this '"Energy" is intelligent and that it is the intelligent god called Yahweh, and this is where we disagree.

DeepSight:

Hello Crazycaps -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance/1#7369083

Hope that clarifies.

Cheers.

From the post in your link, I think that it is invalid to conclude that because something is self-existent, it is therefore immutable. Since existence is the inherent property of this "thing" as already said in your post in the link, the only criterion needed to be satisfied is for this thing to exist, not that it must exist in its original form.

I think that this self existent thing may change (morph), however, what is constant to it is that in any form of its existence, it may return to its original form and no more. And this "limit of change", which satisfies existence, is the singularity.

CrazyKaps:


Thanks for sharing, and yes it does clarify your belief about the immutability of anything that is self-existent.

I guess that concludes the primary aim of my post. However, if it's not much of a bother (or a proven hopeless task in your opinion) would you mind taking a gander at the other questions I posed and pass on your own opinion about them?

Hello. What specific ones. Also might I ask the purpose for which you ask these questions.
Many thanks.

ooman:


From the post in your link, I think that it is invalid to conclude that because something is self-existent, it is therefore immutable. Since existence is the inherent property of this "thing" as already said in your post in the link, the only criterion needed to be satisfied is for this thing to exist, not that it must exist in its original form.

I think that this self existent thing may change (morph), however, what is constant to it is that in any form of its existence, it may return to its original form and no more. And this "limit of change", which satisfies existence, is the singularity.

No, something that is self existent cannot change because its intrinsically existent property cannot but be what it is: it cannot be something else. This is as simple as saying that 1 is 1, however this particular issue I find, has been rather hard for most people to absorb or grasp - I just don't know why. It is perfectly clear to me.

I said that an example of a self existent thing is eternity. Eternity is Eternity and it cannot be something else. It cannot change: it is immutable. Many events and times may be interpolated into it: but eternity forever simply remains eternity. Nothing more, just that: constant, unchangeable, immovable, indestructible, having no beginning and no end. It is intrinsically what it is and thus cannot change. It is also intangible.

And as I said prior: this is one key to slightly apprehending the nature of God: and this is the simple secret as to the ancient truth repeated in most ancient religions and orders of thought: the truth that God is unchangeable.

This is because God is the sum of all self existent realities - and self existent realities are immutable and intangible. Thus God itself is immutable and intangible.

I fear I go too far and should try to halt here. My recent experiences give me to revere that which is referred to as the God Head much much more than I could previously imagine. I therefore find it somewhat presumptuous - and even rather sacrilegious for me to attempt to explain or deconstruct the unfathomable God Head.

I do not want this to get longer than it should. So I will just clarify some points.

DeepSight:


No, something that is self existent cannot change because its intrinsically existent property cannot but be what it is: it cannot be something else. This is as simple as saying that 1 is 1, however this particular issue I find, has been rather hard for most people to absorb or grasp - I just don't know why. It is perfectly clear to me.

Actually, I think its a belief system for you, rather than that this concept is hard to grasp for most people.
1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

What if 1 is "read" differently from 11 and differently from 111 and also differently from 1111? If you are familiar with binary systems, you'd know that 1 is 1, 11 is 3, 111 is 7(octal decimal), 1111 is 15 (F - hexadecimal), 11111111 is 256 (FF hexadecimal).

I could go one, but the point is that it all depends on how this singularity is affected.

DeepSight: I said that an example of a self existent thing is eternity. Eternity is Eternity and it cannot be something else. It cannot change: it is immutable. Many events and times may be interpolated into it: but eternity forever simply remains eternity. Nothing more, just that: constant, unchangeable, immovable, indestructible, having no beginning and no end. It is intrinsically what it is and thus cannot change. It is also intangible.

You assume that eternity is an object. Eternity is not "something", rather its an abstract that is used to describe an object. Its more like saying time is an object. Eternity qualifies infinite time period, and both are abstracts. In fact, eternity does not make sense if there is no object that could exist for all eternity. Nature exists, and nature is an object not an abstract. So this irreducible singularity is not an abstract but must be an object - that could exist for all eternity (abstract time period).

DeepSight:
And as I said prior: this is one key to slightly apprehending the nature of God: and this is the simple secret as to the ancient truth repeated in most ancient religions and orders of thought: the truth that God is unchangeable.

This is because God is the sum of all self existent realities - and self existent realities are immutable and intangible. Thus God itself is immutable and intangible.

I fear I go too far and should try to halt here. My recent experiences give me to revere that which is referred to as the God Head much much more than I could previously imagine. I therefore find it somewhat presumptuous - and even rather sacrilegious for me to attempt to explain or deconstruct the unfathomable God Head.

If you could describe an abstract as if its a real existent object, I see the reason why you could think a god exists. All gods are abstracts, none is real.

ooman:
I do not want this to get longer it should. So I will just clarify some points.



Actually, I think its a belief system for you, rather than that this concept is hard to grasp for most people.
1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

What if 1 is "read" differently from 11 and differently from 111 and also differently from 1111? If you are familiar with binary systems, you'd know that 1 is 1, 11 is 3, 111 is 7(octal decimal), 1111 is 15 (F - hexadecimal), 11111111 is 256 (FF hexadecimal).

I could go one, but the point is that it all depends on how this singularity is affected.



You assume that eternity is an object. Eternity is not "something", rather its an abstract that is used to describe an object. Its more like saying time is an object. Eternity qualifies infinite time period, and both are abstracts. In fact, eternity does not make sense if there is no object that could exist for all eternity. Nature exists, and nature is an object not an abstract. So this irreducible singularity is not an abstract but must be an object - that could exist for all eternity (abstract time period).



If you could describe an abstract as if its a real existent object, I see the reason why you could think a god exists. All gods are abstracts, none is real.

Perfect.
I couldn't have nailed it better.

By treating eternity, a mental extrapolation, as an object , he inadvertently confirms what most us continue to remind him and others: that god is simply a mental extrapolation.

ooman:
I do not want this to get longer than it should. So I will just clarify some points.

Actually, I think its a belief system for you, rather than that this concept is hard to grasp for most people.

No, I doubt that it is a belief system. It is rather the simple and self evident. As with most people, you do not grasp it either. It has thus become a tiresome point for me to discuss, and these days i'd rather not worry myself much discussing same. This is moreso because this is only one step of understanding what is at play. If you cannot grasp this simple step, why should we bother with the many steps ahead of it which will clearly confuse you the more? I do not mean to sound as though I know something special or the other, I simply mean to convey that if we cannot get past 1 is 1, we cannot discuss.

1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

You see, this exactly shows again why I hardly bother these days. Because if you happen to know anything about that which I have written ad infinitum ad nauseum on this forum, you would know that indeed, this is exactly what I have espoused: namely - that the God Head, by natural law must exude both the positive and the negative. This does not mean that the God Head is changing anymore than (by analogy only) a magnet with both north and south inclined magnetic pulls/ negative and positive magnetic charges could be said to be changing in terms of the intrinsic quality of what it is. It would attract or exude these charges all the same.

God, Reality and such self existent things as Eternity do indeed exude charges that result in the created complexity of everything you see around you in the cosmos and infinitely far beyond.

This does not mean that the God Head itself changes or that Eternity Changes.

I have, in the same vein, used this very same principle to explain the inevitable existence of Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Positive and Negative, Up and Down, and even Right and Left.

What if 1 is "read" differently from 11 and differently from 111 and also differently from 1111? If you are familiar with binary systems, you'd know that 1 is 1, 11 is 3, 111 is 7(octal decimal), 1111 is 15 (F - hexadecimal), 11111111 is 256 (FF hexadecimal).

Aside from the fact that I used "1 is 1" as a representation and exemplary statement only - an analogy - the quantities you state are different quantities and only bear similar representative figures within their written forms. This is a bad response to that which I tried to convey.

It is also light years far away from anything to do with the precept of self-existence I described.

I could go one, but the point is that it all depends on how this singularity is affected.

You could certainly go on to show how little you grasp of what is discussed here. No matter. I don't have the energy for needless brick-batting.

You assume that eternity is an object.

This again just shows how far away you are from understanding anything I have written. I do not assume this. In fact, I have in the past described time as the continuum into which events are interpolated and space as the void into which objects are interpolated.

If you reflect carefully on this alone you will see that your characterization of my thoughts is wrong.

Eternity is not "something",

Well if it is not something, then it must be nothing. I hope you see yourself how this contradicts your own statement yesterday where you acknowledged that there is no such thing as nothing.

Again, if it is nothing, then nothing would exist. There would be no time, no space, no universes - aboslutely nothing, for: into what would all these be interpolated? Into "Nothing"?

Again though, I verily doubt that you will appreciate this simple point.

rather its an abstract that is used to describe an object. Its more like saying time is an object. Eternity qualifies infinite time period, and both are abstracts.

This is not true to the extent that infinite real time is an unavoidable reality in all scenarios that one may project.
Your statement is the same as saying that Space is abstract, or that infinite space is abstract. As a matter of fact it is a reality as there can be no conceivable limits to, or borders of space - even micro-space is infinite. And this is not an abstraction but the reality that we live in and that all things are interpolated into.

In fact, eternity does not make sense if there is no object that could exist for all eternity.

Again this is wrong because, object or no: Eternity is Eternity. It cannot be circumscribed or limited by perception of interpolated objects.

If you could describe an abstract as if its a real existent object, I see the reason why you could think a god exists. All gods are abstracts, none is real.

As discussed above, you are very wrong, but I sense of course that there is no point to an elongation of the matter. You may carry on with your views, it is fine: neither your opinion nor mine hurts anybody.

Take care.

plaetton:

Perfect.
I couldn't have nailed it better.

By treating eternity, a mental extrapolation, as an object , he inadvertently confirms what most us continue to remind him and others: that god is simply a mental extrapolation.

It would appear that you do little thought of your own these days. Ah wait - it has always been the case I think. You may see my revert to ooman above (not that it is likely to help you out of your wrong presumption above).

Whatever is, is.

EDIT: p.s: you really need to do some deep thinking on what you mean when you classify eternity as "a mental extrapolation", lol. Think well, think deep.
https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time#11185834

DeepSight:


No, I doubt that it is a belief system. It is rather the simple and self evident. As with most people, you do not grasp it either. It has thus become a tiresome point for me to discuss, and these days i'd rather not worry myself much discussing same. This is moreso because this is only one step of understanding what is at play. If you cannot grasp this simple step, why should we bother with the many steps ahead of it which will clearly confuse you the more? I do not mean to sound as though I know something special or the other, I simply mean to convey that if we cannot get past 1 is 1, we cannot discuss.

DeepSight, if you cannot clearly explain why 1 is 1 to adults (not just me, but many (most in fact) as you have acknowledged yourself @red), then perhaps, the problem is with you, not us who don't get your point.
Making a discussion unnecessarily complex so that people do not understand you is not a discussion at all, its just you flattering yourself.

@Bold - Why does it sound like you just want me to agree with what you say, without actually making it clear? You cannot conclude that because I could not grasp your starting point, I would not grasp any other issue. This is nothing but flattery and if that makes you feel intelligent, then bask in it.

Some other points in the discussion might make me get the whole issue, you know!

DeepSight:
You see, this exactly shows again why I hardly bother these days. Because if you happen to know anything about that which I have written ad infinitum ad nauseum on this forum, you would know that indeed, this is exactly what I have espoused: namely - that the God Head, by natural law must exude both the positive and the negative. This does not mean that the God Head is changing anymore than (by analogy only) a magnet with both north and south inclined magnetic pulls/ negative and positive magnetic charges could be said to be changing in terms of the intrinsic quality of what it is. It would attract or exude these charges all the same.

God, Reality and such self existent things as Eternity do indeed exude charges that result in the created complexity of everything you see around you in the cosmos and infinitely far beyond.

This does not mean that the God Head itself changes or that Eternity Changes.

I have, in the same vein, used this very same principle to explain the inevitable existence of Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Positive and Negative, Up and Down, and even Right and Left.

I agree with this. It is the same thing I meant when I said

ooman:
1 is 1 truly, but what if there are different charges of 1? Negative and positive that could attract and so, build up some complexity.

The problem therefore lies in how we define change. I think my definition is stricter than yours. When I say this singularity "changes", I meant it stops exude its inherent property as its primary property. To simplify, + and - becoming neutral. Neutral is a new property (charge-less), but can be broken down to its component + and -. This is what I meant by "change".

But apparently, this doesn't qualify as change enough for you. And it's OK, I am not trying to force you to accept this as change. Its OK the way you want to view it.

But just one question however. Let us assume that this charged singularity (reference to bold phrase in your post) is a proton and an electron and that this singularity exists as a proton and an electron. Then these charges attract and become Hydrogen. Hydrogen fuses to form Helium. The reaction continues and oxygen is formed. Two hydrogen atoms are attract by one oxygen atom and water forms, water is polar (charged) and so could aid other complex processes (life). Does this qualify as change enough for you or does not it? Because this is exactly what I meant by change.

DeepSight: Aside from the fact that I used "1 is 1" as a representation and exemplary statement only - an analogy - the quantities you state are different quantities and only bear similar representative figures within their written forms. This is a bad response to that which I tried to convey.

It is also light years far away from anything to do with the precept of self-existence I described.

Ok

DeepSight: You could certainly go on to show how little you grasp of what is discussed here. No matter. I don't have the energy for needless brick-batting.

You think I have energy to waste? If you cannot communicate what you understand, then you should consider checking yourself for the fault.

DeepSight: This again just shows how far away you are from understanding anything I have written. I do not assume this. In fact, I have in the past described time as the continuum into which events are interpolated and space as the void into which objects are interpolated.

If you reflect carefully on this alone you will see that your characterization of my thoughts is wrong.

One question, does the colored make time an object with separate existence?

DeepSight: Well if it is not something, then it must be nothing. I hope you see yourself how this contradicts your own statement yesterday where you acknowledged that there is no such thing as nothing.

Well, you misunderstood my use of "something" and "nothing" here. I meant eternity is not an object that exists, its an abstract that's why something in quotes.

DeepSight: Again, if it is nothing, then nothing would exist. There would be no time, no space, no universes - aboslutely nothing, for: into what would all these be interpolated? Into "Nothing"?

Again though, I verily doubt that you will appreciate this simple point.

Well, this simple point is your own idea.

Interpolate means - insert (something of a different nature) into something else or to introduce data from different source into the original source. It also has a not-related mathematical meaning.

Considering that you've been using the term "interpolate" a lot, and according to the meaning given above, you do realize that your singularity requires some other self existent thing for anything to exist at all. Hence, we are not just talking about one fundamental form anymore, but many, which are interpolated.

DeepSight: This is not true to the extent that infinite real time is an unavoidable reality in all scenarios that one may project.
Your statement is the same as saying that Space is abstract, or that infinite space is abstract. As a matter of fact it is a reality as there can be no conceivable limits to, or borders of space - even micro-space is infinite. And this is not an abstraction but the reality that we live in and that all things are interpolated into.

Space is the dimension in which objects exist. The relationship between space and time is that the longer the space, the longer the time it takes to cover it. So there is a space-time dimension. This does not mean space [directly] is time. An object could exist in space without moving, yet time will pass for it. An object could move faster in space, time will run slower for it.

My point is time only qualifies the existence of an object in space. And so, this direct sameness you bestow on space and time is invalid.
As you (unconsciously) agreed to @bold, time only qualifies, it is not.

DeepSight: Again this is wrong because, object or no: Eternity is Eternity. It cannot be circumscribed or limited by perception of interpolated objects.

With the bold I agree. An abstract is an abstract. However, it only comes into play when there is an object to qualify.

"It's existence [this eternity] is not based on the object it qualifies. Without the object, it exists, and when the object is, it qualifies it, and when the object is not, it exists" - is this how you qualify this "eternity"?

DeepSight:
As discussed above, you are very wrong, but I sense of course that there is no point to an elongation of the matter. You may carry on with your views, it is fine: neither your opinion nor mine hurts anybody.

Take care.

Of course it hurts no one. And we could carry on with our philosophy if only it does not matter to know the truth.
I do not seek elongation. I seek understanding.

DeepSight:


It would appear that you do little thought of your own these days. Ah wait - it has always been the case I think. You may see my revert to ooman above (not that it is likely to help you out of your wrong presumption above).

Whatever is, is.

EDIT: p.s: you really need to do some deep thinking on what you mean when you classify eternity as "a mental extrapolation", lol. Think well, think deep.
https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time#11185834

Re: Whatever is , is.
No sir.
We held on to these types of axioms when we were at our infancy.
We have since grown up( at least some of us).
We have since realized that we really don't know " what is", and are therefore driven and striving to understand.

We do however observe that " everything is becoming" , and " what will become will become".

Change is the only constant in the universe, not time, not eternity, and not god.

ooman:

I do not seek elongation. I seek understanding.

Fair enough and well understood.
I will touch on a few of your points later.
Cheers, and good post.

plaetton:

Change is the only constant in the universe, not time, not eternity, and not god.

Well at least you were nuanced enough to say "in" the universe: you ought to know of course, that the precepts at play here far transcend this or any conceivable universe.

God and Eternity are precepts that transcend the material dimension and the universe indeed.

Indeed, it is the very fact of the constant change of matter and the universe that we derive the logical understanding that neither can be eternal in the past - as they lack the quality of self existence. This leads us to apprehend the fact that they must proceed from a transcendent extraneous cause or factor.

1. On a theoretical level

For a self existent entity to be unchangeable/immutable, it has to be independent and insulated from any cause and at the same time isolated from any causal chain, including as a causal agent. Because there is a motion of change in a causal agent which ought to be absent in a self existent entity.

DeepSight:

God and Eternity are precepts that transcend the material dimension and the universe indeed.
Indeed, it is the very fact of the constant change of matter and the universe that we derive the logical understanding that neither can be eternal in the past - this leads us to apprehend the fact that they must proceed from a transcendent extraneous cause or factor.

2. Eternity is an expression for infinite time and is understood only in relation to time. To isolate time from the idea of eternity will lead to poor conclusions.

plaetton:


Re: Whatever is , is.
No sir.
We held on to these types of axioms when we were at our infancy.
We have since grown up( at least some of us).
We have since realized that we really don't know " what is", and are therefore driven and striving to understand.

We do however observe that " everything is becoming" , and " what will become will become".

Change is the only constant in the universe, not time, not eternity, and not god.

nice response

Kay17:
1. On a theoretical level

For a self existent entity to be unchangeable/immutable, it has to be independent and insulated from any cause and at the same time isolated from any causal chain, including as a causal agent. Because there is a motion of change in a causal agent which ought to be absent in a self existent entity.

Exactly. If we are talking about a singularity from which everything came and to which everything return, and if this singularity is the only thing that can exist before anything is (which I think I and DeepSight agree on), then ability to cause by changing must also be present in it. Therefore, it must be mutable, else only this singularity will exist for infinity.

If this is not true, then something else is needed to bring about plurality from this singularity. DeepSight does not see this as a contradiction to his view of one "eternity" however.

ooman:


Exactly. If we are talking about a singularity from which everything came and to which everything return, and if this singularity is the only thing that can exist before anything is (which I think I and DeepSight agree on), then ability to cause by changing must also be present in it. Therefore, it must be mutable, else only this singularity will exist for infinity.

If this is not true, then something else is needed to bring about plurality from this singularity. DeepSight does not see this as a contradiction to his view of one "eternity" however.

God is not the physical singularity predating the Big Bang of this universe... just a note. Also an ability to cause events does not connote that the intrinsic nature of the causer thereby changes. However, will expand on both your concerns when free. Take care.

DeepSight:


God is not the physical singularity predating the Big Bang of this universe... just a note. Also an ability to cause events does not connote that the intrinsic nature of the causer thereby changes. However, will expand on both your concerns when free. Take care.

Again, I disagree.
Once you trigger an event, nothing ever remains the same.
For example, once you open a thread, although you still remain deepsight, the experience of creating a thread and posting your opinions adds to, alters and sometimes irrevocably changes the sum of your worldviews and who you are, or becoming.

Everything is a constant state of becoming.

If the universe is a product of something,then it's properties should reflect it...
From typical observation...the universe appears to be infinite,and not in thermal equilibrium(energy is constantly being re-arranged...with each re-arrangement increasing entropy),so it won't be far off if the universe is a product of a 4th dimensional brane(as proposed by string theorists)..so in essence we may just be a product of self existent forces and dimensions that are alien to our basic euclidean geometric model of reality...perhaps where particles seemingly pop in and out of existence like virtual particles.

DeepSight:


God is not the physical singularity predating the Big Bang of this universe... just a note. Also an ability to cause events does not connote that the intrinsic nature of the causer thereby changes. However, will expand on both your concerns when free. Take care.

The intrinsic nature of the causer may remain the same, but it now has an acquired nature, which causes it to have a secondary nature, which is different from its intrinsic nature. Break that, and you will have the intrinsic nature again.