Good. This thread is moving forward now

Now we return to the last thought within the thought-development of this thread.

We were discussing zero. We had also discussed why zero must per force be the starting point.

And we were able to see that although for hypothetical and theoretical purposes we commenced from the presupposition that zero is nothing, the truth is that zero is not really nothing. Because nothingness connotes no time, and a timeless state is what is called eternity. Zero is therefore imbued with eternity. Or simply put –

0 = Eternity.

This is the first thing we must absorb, and reflect carefully on. Because it shows us conclusively that eternity is a self-existent reality which remains irrespective of anything. It remains, as we have seen, even in a state of nothingness. It is timeless, and simply still.

Thus while eternity has been said to be incomprehensible, we should, in all calmness, absorb the simple reality that eternity is simply stillness.

I hope that in this alone, the reader already senses that we have crossed a major thought boundary: namely the presupposition in our minds that everything must come from something else, which is the supposition that leads to the question - “Where did God come from” or “Who created God?”

The thought boundary that we have crossed is the realization that some things are self-existent – such as Eternity – and would exist and remain what they are even in a state of supposed nothingness (i:e – zero). Thus we need no more bother with the question – “where did Eternity come from” as we can see that Eternity is a still and permanent self-existent reality.

Now let us reflect a little more closely on the nature of Eternity.

Eternity being a still and permanent factor for want of a better word, cannot in anywise be said to be divisible. Its very intangibility presupposes this. The fact of timelessness also presupposes this. A timeless state cannot be regarded from a finite perspective of limited periods, given its timelessness.

Thus Eternity is indivisible.

And since it is indivisible, eternity is all one unified state.

Thus eternity is ONE, as -

There is only ONE eternity.

I hope that we are carefully able to absorb the thought progression here. The discerning reader should see along the line that something almost magical has happened along the thought process: namely that whereas we started out with zero, we now have ONE Eternity. We have moved from nothingness to somethingness. And more importantly, we realize that that somethingness was always there: it is, to be very simple, called Eternity.

I am grossly tempted at this early stage to begin to point out what qualities of God are already obvious within this, but I am certain that many readers already see some of it.

Will continue shortly please.

Now what other qualities can we deduce?

We have seen that -

1. Eternity is self-existent

2. Eternity is ONE Eternity.

What does oneness presuppose in the mind.

Oneness is absolute unity.

I hope faint echoes of Judaic, Christian and Islamic scripture assail the mind of the reader at this point – echoes of all those scriptures insisting on the oneness and eternal nature of the originating element - God

Will be back . . .

@Deep Sight:
Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose,
-V for Vendetta (2005)

Numbers were so called because the more they change in size, the "numb[/b]er" you feel while trying to appreciate them (as Rudy Rucker wryly notes in his book Infinity and the Mind (Birkhäuser, 1982).  You may end up with [b]apeirophobia, fear of the infinite   

I beg to differ: zero does NOT connote eternity. 

Zero connotes timelessness.

Eternity is infinite time.

"If in the infinite you want to stride, just walk in the finite to every side" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

One of the most interesting attempts to define eternity appears in Hendrik Willem Van Loon's 1921 children's classic The Story of Mankind:

High up in the North in the land called Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every thousand years a little bird comes to the rock to sharpen its beak. When the rock has thus been worn away, then a single day of eternity will have gone by.

All that for eternity, BUT Timelessness is the state of being unaffected by time.

I will illustrate my point.

For instance, a line is made up of infinitely many points (like eternity is made up of infinitely many units of time). Now, we are not considering the length of the line (as we may not bother evaluating the time-based length of eternity), but rather the fact that it has infinitely many points adding up to yield the line.

Please note how the gradual addition of things of one kind (points) yields something of another kind (line), which defies dimensionality! We have moved from an object of no dimension (point) to one with a real dimension (line), and by repeating our actions we can move from lines to surfaces. The question is: at what stage of the addition do you "get there" and change dimension? Will 2 points do? Or 2000? Or 2 asankhyeya (10¹⁴⁰, a Buddhist number)? Infinity is troublesome because it seems to imply that once you can add something up infinitely many times you can actually change something from one kind to a totally different kind. Infinity has this abstruse property of making things change dimension, so maybe you may want to relate that to the nature of divine Creation.

However, timelessness is not eternity. Timelessness in this case would be: keep adding points to the points and they never become a line, put lines together and they never become a surface. It stays a point still, no matter how (long) you keep adding points. THAT is the concept of zero.

You have attempted to pull the wool over our eyes with this subtle difference between eternity and timelessness, and I have not taken the bait. 

You jump the gun when you mention "a line."

I am still at "a point."

Make you wait till i reach where i dey gooooo. . .

I know that a point is not a line. The same way timelessness is not eternity. And you have claimed that timelessness == zero == eternity

Unless you are about to prove otherwise 

A timeless state is per force eternal.

Do you deny this?

God is said to exist beyond all time and space. In a timeless state.

Thus his eternal nature.

Do you deny this as well?

Timelessness and eternity, as I said before, are akin to a point and a line!

God is timeless, and exists outside realms capturable by time. To us, who exist in time, he APPEARS eternal.

Timelessness and eternity are not the same thing!

A timeless force is not perforce eternal, it is observed as eternal ONLY by sentients that are bound in time.

Mavenb0x:

A timeless force is not perforce eternal

Can a timeless entity ever be said to have a beginning or an end?

It cannot be said to have such because beginnings and ends are concepts within time.

Thus it is absolutely beyond cavil that a timeless entity is per force eternal.

This cannot be disputed Maven, don't play around with words.

Will you insist that timelessness does not connote eternity then?

I think your trouble may be that you see time as a progression.

That's an illussion. Time is still. We move within it.

@DeepSight: Of course time is not progressive! The concept of time is understood by time-bound entities as they translate in time. The hymn-writer Isaac Watts was partially correct when he compared time to an ‘ever-rolling stream’ which ‘bears all its sons away’.

I repeat, timelessness does not connote eternity.

The English word ‘eternal’ comes from aeturnus in Latin, itself a derivation from aevum, an age or time. So ‘eternity’ means everlastingness.

Time is God's creation, and all of God's time-bound creations move by its compulsion.

So it is not that God has always existed, for as long as time has existed, and that he always will exist, but that God does not exist in time at all. He is apart from his creation, transcendent over it. Technically speaking, God is not "everlasting", (i.e. for any time T God exists then), but is "atemporal" or timeless, (i.e. whatever the time T is or is not, God IS). That was what he was expressing to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Time involves a translation of occurrences that either denote a change for the better, or for the worse. There is no universal status quo. But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

Those in time, like you and I, are bound by it, in this sense, that they cannot stop the process of change and therefore of time. They are the subjects of time, not its masters. In a sense, they are more the masters of space than they are of time, for they can choose to remain at the same physical location for a time, but they cannot choose to remain at some particular time.

Eternity is like an "infinity" to time, you can technically not deal with it arithmetically. But what about timelessness? It's not even quantifiable in time!

Using your own words, you have "conceded defeat". See:

Time is still. We move within it.

When the object keeps on moving indefinitely ad infinitum, it has thus moved eternally. Is that not so, professor? 

So is that the same thing as an object that is not time-bound, but observes the time-bound object ushered forward on the unending conveyor-belt called the experience of time?

Ehn? 

Ehn?

Might i suggest that perhaps we are being defeated by the insufficiency of words.

You use the word "Eternal" in the sense to mean - unending time. That is correct.

I do not believe that that in any way detracts from my surmise that that which is timeless is also eternal - to the extent that it can never have an end.

Now you can NEVER escape on this point unless you are willing to positively assert that timeless things do come to an end.

That is absoluetly and irretrievably illogical, and you know that. Accordingly you may never rationally assert that timelessness does not connote eternity - it does.


But to escape the insufficiency of words, maybe i should let the issue rest at simply using a different word - let me say that timelessness connotes immutability. But in using this word, i would like you to note that beings within time are not and cannot be eternal in the same way as God is said to be. Because even if they may have an eternal future, they are not eternal in the past: because they had a beginning: God is absolutely eternal - in that he had no beginning and cannot have an end, like you said, he is. I belive that that is real eternity.

But there is little need to quibble over these words and get distracted, because your words below flow entirely into what i am setting out -

But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

Now the foregoing absolutely argues my case for me.

We may proceed on the assumption that Zero = nothingness, and that nothingness is timeless.

Timelessness connotes immutability and eternity - as a timeless nature cannot be ever said to end or change.

The thing that cannot end, is by simple definition, eternal and immutable.

Thus "nothingness" is both eternal and immutable.

So we have come full circle, Maven?

But to escape the insufficiency of words, maybe i should let the issue rest at simply using a different word - let me say that timelessness connotes immutability. But in using this word, i would like you to note that beings within time are not and cannot be eternal in the same way as God is said to be. Because even if they may have an eternal future, they are not eternal in the past: because they had a beginning: God is absolutely eternal - in that he had no beginning and cannot have an end, like you said, he is. I believe that that is real eternity.

Here, I perfectly agree with you, it is also in line with what I said previously:

But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

But I still have some issues with the parts of your post above, as outlined in GREEN below:

We may proceed on the assumption that Zero = nothingness, and that nothingness is timeless.

Timelessness connotes immutability and eternity - as a timeless nature cannot be ever said to end or change.

The thing that cannot end, is by simple definition, eternal and immutable.

Thus "nothingness" is both eternal and immutable.

I agree that nothingness is immutable, because if it were otherwise, it would no longer be a "null", a "nothingness", it would have become a non-nothingness, which would connote the presence of a "something". And timelessness is also immutable, because the concept of time as we understand it, involves a continuous change in the traits of the universal. If nothing changes UNIVERSALLY, then we can say that "time stood still" for the universe. Timelessness exists outside this Universal watch-dog of change and variation in quantity, quality, nature, etc.Thus timelessness is immutable, as well as nothingness.

However, can we definitely say that a timeless nature cannot be said to end? Yes, because to "end" in itself, is not a trait of immutability. Timelessness is immutable, so it cannot "end". Nothingness is immutable, so it cannot "end" either. But what about eternity? Can it end, technically speaking? Yes, I believe so.

This is because eternity denotes the ENDLESS CHANGE that the universe experiences.

Consider, for instance, a special case where a timeless force upsets the "time scale" and makes the time-bound universe immutable, i.e. the time-bound agents in the universe no longer translate in time because the universe stops experiencing change. Would the eternit[/b]y not have come to an end in that case? Theologically, I mean if God puts an end to the time-project, eternity would end, but he, timeless as he is, would still BE.

To us time-based creatures, timelessness and eternity are similar; but NO they are not the same thing because one (eternity) is still in a large container called time, no matter how infinite the container's dimensions are.

[b]I stick with nothingness (or zero, so to speak) being immutable and timeless, but definitely not eternal.

Deep Sight:

Yes, may I humbly proceed.

Nicely, yes.

But may I make a few extraneous remarks before doing so.

From the earliest days of one’s youth one was told – “God created everything,” The very natural question springing to one’s mind of course was – “Who created God?” or “Where did God come from?” It has often been said that any person who attempts to decipher the riddle – “who created God” or – “Where did God come from?” is simply toying with insanity. We were thus sternly adjured NOT to attempt the question – nay – not to even dare think about it.

I must say viaro has lived a very, very fortunate life. How? Because in my years of tutelage, I once pondered over that question - and when I asked my parents, there were no stern adjurations, remonstrances or 'killer' looks from those who entertained my question. Not that I even had any answers, but I asked that question all the same.

But I have always been of the persuasion that nature abhors a vacuum: I feel that humans would not have been given the faculty to ponder the question at all, if we were never intended to find the answer. Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum. This seems so self evident to me, that I have therefore made the pursuit of truth my chief calling in life, with the pursuit of understanding of the origin of all things as the epicentre of the quest.

I actually would have hoped that your chief calling in life was successful. How? For this simple reason, according to you: "Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum". I read along to see what answers you got/gave to that question. . . and was I surprised that you left another vacuum by not providing any answers. Why then muse on these things in the first place? Your answer? Here -

I say these things for one reason only: I want to make it clear before proceeding yet further that –

1. God’s existence, or shall I say – the “reality” of God is a deep mystery
2. It is not easy to articulate, even by a person who may have a faint glimmer into its meaning
3. Even when articulated, it may not be easy to grasp
4. And finally, the person attempting an articulation may well appear simply deranged!

Okay, and after stating your reason for all that, and yet leaving us a huge vacuum in the process, you flattered me with this -

I say this for you Viaro!

[size=14pt]Hahahaha!![/size]

Please excuse my guffaw . . I couldn't hold it back! I'm tempted to ask why you would single me out for that memorial speech? But that would be for another thread. So we don't derail, let's have your prose on the OOI. . . which seems to be ongoing. My observations between times will follow.

I should not like to jump on the thread with ripostes/rejoinders for now, but I'd like to make a preliminary observation, Mavenb0x.

Although there's been a warm discourse on zero, timeslessness, eternity and infinity/infinite, it seems to me that that way you tried to set forth your point on these concepts only points us back to the same thing in commonality. From the onset, it appears that while you disagreed with DeepSight, you infact argued to agree with him! Let's see -

Mavenb0x:


I beg to differ: zero does NOT connote eternity. 

Zero connotes timelessness.

Eternity is infinite time.

Okay, you objected that 'zero' does NOT connote 'eternity'; but in the very next line you came back to admit that it actually does! How?

(1) Because eternity is also timelessness which in turn is simply infinite time.
In context of this thread, it would seem like the threader is dicussing these values teleologically, and so we may excuse for now that 'eternity', 'timelessness' and 'infinite time' are simply pointing to the very same thing, don't you think?

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view. The reason, IMO, is that one cannot make huge leaps from 'nothing' to 'infinite' - they are clearly worlds apart. More so, in mathematical terms at the basic level, we know that 'infinite/infinity' are not represented by |'0'| but rather by |'∞'|.

(3) Yet, there is an even greater problem in DeepSight's prose. How does he weave his thesis from 'nothingness' (|'0'|) through to 'eternity'? Just telling us to regard what he says as 'just-so' does not convey any understanding to anyone. There are questions to be asked; and one at this point is this: on what basis is one to assume that 'zero' = 'eternity'?

@Viaro:

(1) Because eternity is also timelessness which in turn is simply infinite time.

I do not think timelessness is infinite time. Infinite time is eternity, but timelessness means entirely OUTSIDE of time. I hope you understand my point.

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view.

And that is MY POINT to DeepSight. I can say zero (nothingness) is to timelessness, what infinity is to eternity.

(3) Yet, there is an even greater problem in DeepSight's prose. How does he weave his thesis from 'nothingness' (|'0'|) through to 'eternity'? Just telling us to regard what he says as 'just-so' does not convey any understanding to anyone. There are questions to be asked; and one at this point is this: on what basis is one to assume that 'zero' = 'eternity'?

I was going to proceed along that line, but the fundamental statement that nothingness has eternal properties, is in itself, flawed, IMO!

Viaro, I suggest you take time to read my 2 previous posts (#73 and #75). Cheers.

Thanks Mavenb0x.

Mavenb0x:

I do not think timelessness is infinite time. Infinite time is eternity, but timelessness means entirely OUTSIDE of time. I hope you understand my point.

I understand your point, and I could go on to argue even more profoundly about what we humans often infer by that nebulous word 'time'. We just take many things for granted and that is perhaps why many readers may not follow easily enough.

However, for the sake of simplicity and to carry our readers along, we should not forget the threader (DeepSight) seems to be discussing his topic from a teleological perspecitive - in which case we may relax and not suffer ourselves to be too technical here. Consequently, in this regard we may excuse deep technicality and see the teleological connection and meaning of the terms eternity, timelessnes and infinite time as pointing to just about the same thing within the context of the threader.

This does not mean that we take for granted the astute distinction that timelessness is 'the state of being unaffected by time', which I agree with you on that in post #67. We can't even begin to articulate an existence in 'timelessness' other than our believing that is the prerogative of 'God'. But it does mean that even in His transcendence, God exists within 'time' - or we would never have known or experienced Him.

Mavenb0x:

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view.

And that is MY POINT to DeepSight. I can say zero (nothingness) is to timelessness, what infinity is to eternity.

I'm just still wondering about DeepSight's transformation there, especially where he said that 'Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.' How did he infact work out that domain to arrive at that inference? What applicable examples do we see where that axiom holds any substance? On what basis then could anyone come to such an inference without a groundwork to closely follow? Hmm.

I was going to proceed along that line, but the fundamental statement that nothingness has eternal properties, is in itself, flawed, IMO!

Viaro, I suggest you take time to read my 2 previous posts (#73 and #75). Cheers.

I read them, right from #67. I'm still carefully going through this entire thread and related others just to get the gist of DeepSight's discourses.

Who will adopt this orphaned thread, abandoned in the evil forest?

InesQor:



Who will adopt this orphaned thread, abandoned in the evil forest?

Why don't you adopt it after all you were a good "student" of OOI in your mavenbox days

What happened to this thread?

I want the Christians to apply it to prove their 3 entities of gods, each fully God to arrive at their statement and claim that they only serve One God instead of 3 gods.

Oshobu, get going on it.

I just found out that Sweetnecta is nopuqeater.

By an intuitive process, I simply avoided sweenecta's threads and posts the way I used to do with nopuqeater. Imagine how I smirked when I found out it was the same guy

InesQor:

I just found out that Sweetnecta is nopuqeater.

By an intuitive process, I simply avoided sweenecta's threads and posts the way I used to do with nopuqeater. Imagine how I smirked when I found out it was the same guy

I could tell as soon as read his first post. It was the bad grammar that exposed him. It was beyond typo error. They were either the same person or they had been subjected to the same terrible education.

Pastor AIO:

I could tell as soon as read his first post.  It was the bad grammar that exposed him.  It was beyond typo error.  They were either the same person or they had been subjected to the same terrible education. 

Actually I discovered this: He SAYS he is nopuqeater  and its undeniable. . .

Sweetnecta:

Who is Olabowale? I know who Nopuqeater was. The ID is dead. Spam bolt, is spam bolt. I really dont give a hoot.

Sweetnecta:

Since Nopuqeater is not my real name, its death is worthless to reality of who I am. Real God does not death, just like Nairaland cant terminate the real me.

Sweetnecta:

Abeg, woman. Enough of the insincerity. Why would I changed from Nopuqeater when it actually fits my personality? Ask Seun and his crew why they killed it.

@InesQor: « #84 on: Today at 04:33:16 PM »
[Quote]I just found out that Sweetnecta is nopuqeater.
By an intuitive process, I simply avoided sweenecta's threads and posts the way I used to do with nopuqeater. Imagine how I smirked when I found out it was the same guy Tongue Huh Undecided Cheesy[/Quote]And the intuition failed you to recognize that Jesus plus ghost plus yahweh couldnt be just One God, considering the 2 pluses? Such a good head on your shoulders.


[Quote]Light the dark "The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies" Isa 28:17[/Quote]Apply it to 3 is 1, and see how sweeping the hail is to the lies of the absurdity of bad arithmetic of Trinity.


@Pastor AIO: « #85 on: Today at 05:47:02 PM »
[Quote]Quote from: InesQor on Today at 04:33:16 PM
I just found out that Sweetnecta is nopuqeater.

By an intuitive process, I simply avoided sweenecta's threads and posts the way I used to do with nopuqeater. Imagine how I smirked when I found out it was the same guy Tongue Huh Undecided Cheesy

I could tell as soon as read his first post. It was the bad grammar that exposed him. It was beyond typo error. They were either the same person or they had been subjected to the same terrible education.[/Quote]I am sure that your Ifa oracle didnt tell you that 3 is never going to be 1, especially when each of the 3 is a full 1. pastor Onifade, I always enjoy your silliness. You could even imagine that this board is a classroom in your deviant mind.


@InesQor
[Quote]At the place where I lost my marbles and found my bearings.[/Quote]in this case balancing, finding bearing doesnt require sound marble.


[Quote]« #86 on: Today at 06:04:11 PM »

Quote from: Pastor AIO on Today at 05:47:02 PM
I could tell as soon as read his first post. It was the bad grammar that exposed him. It was beyond typo error. They were either the same person or they had been subjected to the same terrible education.

Grin Actually I discovered this: He SAYS he is nopuqeater Smiley and its undeniable. . .

Quote from: Sweetnecta on October 25, 2010, 09:02 PM
Who is Olabowale? I know who Nopuqeater was. The ID is dead. Spam bolt, is spam bolt. I really dont give a hoot.

Quote from: Sweetnecta on October 25, 2010, 08:57 PM
Since Nopuqeater is not my real name, its death is worthless to reality of who I am. Real God does not death, just like Nairaland cant terminate the real me.

Quote from: Sweetnecta on October 25, 2010, 08:39 PM
Abeg, woman. Enough of the insincerity. Why would I changed from Nopuqeater when it actually fits my personality? Ask Seun and his crew why they killed it.[/Quote]And in all your arguments, the Ifa Oracle and you did not even approach the "Oneness of Infinity" to educate us something about Trinity. Is Trinity not One anymore? The christian elites are docking from the reality that is challenging their falsehood.

What a waste.

I guess is time to abuse when 2 christians can put their knowledge together to tackle a simple question.


The Ifa oracle didnt help the clown pretending to be a pastor. And that one; the thing.


Imagine them! Imagine that!

Enter Room *Claps Like an Illitrate who doesn't understand a Thing they are Talkin about, Finally Realized that i'v wasted Years of Education*
Runs out of Room in Shame,

Ps: i Thought Pastor AI0 already Concluded this oneness of Infinity Hypothesis in 1 of d most amazin Thread,