EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />messiah

no, thought is not necessarily logical,thought just is,there are illogical and reasonless thoughts and pictures,besides i'm looking for something deeper than logic etc.

put another way, what gives the result of thought?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Conscious thought is the symbiotic interaction of flesh and entity acting and reacting to themselves and each other as external stimuli filters through the senses.
In subconscious thought, the volume of external stimuli is muted and in unconscious thought, the entity is basically acting and reacting to itself.

m, i agree that existence is eternal. i believe that this is the most logical position to take. the position, i think, is this, "something cannot arise from nothing". since there definitely is "something", there was always "something".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tuffy</i>
<br />m, i agree that existence is eternal. i believe that this is the most logical position to take. the position, i think, is this, "something cannot arise from nothing". since there definitely is "something", there was always "something".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must first exist. Change is a function of 'existence' - NOT 'existence' is a function of change. Time is nothing more nor less than the measurement of 'rate of change'; hence time, too, is a function of existence - NOT existence is a function of time. You can have existence without change, but not change without existence. You can have existence without time, but not time without existence.

m, i've always been intrigued by time. i want to say that and really believe, because of eternity, that time doesn't "really" exist and is man-made. what gets me, though, is that it appears to be "one way", characterized by the passing of events or phenomena.

Is half existent possible. You know of half life. Or a half penny. Messiah... can you explain me your idea about existence.

So now I look at the verb. This is a life form, can't it half exist. What you tell me I have no knowledge about.

Many members take the pictures serious from very fas stars close to 14 billion years ago. There's no reason that those picture are fake, isn't it? Were you there 14 billion years ago. maybe it's al wrong in your eyes. But my question was were you there?

Of course not. I think if we would be able to look there we would see a not recognizable world and then in dynamic layers. one after the other, obscuring more our sight. But maybe you would meet there half existence, like you have also half life forms.

Maybe we have a wrong word for time. And is it a meeting yes or no and with no, one of them was too late. That's a more local and primitive time. That such a time notion exists outside me. Why not? When I don't look the process go on. That is for me clear. We have to keep some contact with the reality.

So we have different opinions Messiah. Maybe you are for me no Messiah, may I say that? Grin.

It could be so that we are blind for half existing things.

You are free to read this and also to throw it away.

Ed

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tuffy</i>
<br />m, i've always been intrigued by time. i want to say that and really believe, because of eternity, that time doesn't "really" exist and is man-made. what gets me, though, is that it appears to be "one way", characterized by the passing of events or phenomena.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If {Exist = To have physical presence within the Universe}, then no, time has no fabric - it is only a measurement of rate of change.

Memory gets everyone confused, we can virtually 'go back in time' by recalling things - or - more interestingly - reversing our memory and visualizing events in reverse motion. To truly travel back time would require a process in which sufficient force is applied to first halt all change, then reverse all procedures in process. Unfortunately even if that were possible, the process would have to TERMINATE ITSELF at the same temporal point it began - or time would not actually be reversed.