RE: Argument for a Beginningless Existence
April 18, 2015 at 4:09 pm
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2015 at 4:11 pm by Mudhammam.)
@Mystic
"Time is temporal" is redundant. Time may be eternal. There is no logical argument or empirical evidence that precludes the possibility that time only exists in instants rather than instants in time. You have no evidence that time is a "property" of anything other than internal and external records in which your mind constructs a continuous line from A to F and presumes ABCDE to no longer exist in some sense. There is no more reason to think that the moment you perceive as "now" requires a Creator than the "now" we conceive as an event in the deep past. Now simply is. Past and future are concepts we rely on to measure duration, and that is itself largely ambiguous.
"Time is temporal" is redundant. Time may be eternal. There is no logical argument or empirical evidence that precludes the possibility that time only exists in instants rather than instants in time. You have no evidence that time is a "property" of anything other than internal and external records in which your mind constructs a continuous line from A to F and presumes ABCDE to no longer exist in some sense. There is no more reason to think that the moment you perceive as "now" requires a Creator than the "now" we conceive as an event in the deep past. Now simply is. Past and future are concepts we rely on to measure duration, and that is itself largely ambiguous.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
