In a discussion on Facebook I stated that the definition of “time” is incorrect.

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Time is the relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.

In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

1) Universe without events is Universe without time.

Some people will argue that there will be time although it will be impossible to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

How do we measure time? – with constantly looping event.
What is to MEASURE time? – it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

2) We need two or more events to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with least two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with least two events.

If there is universe with one only object, that object can not show motion and cannot exist in time.
It can only exist as motionless in space.
The definition of time does not apply to such Universe.

If the Universe is created from two objects, which are moving away from each other, according to definition of time we should have time, but how can we explain and how can we measure time in such universe?
In this case we can only claim that an event occurs in space, but not in time.

3) When you argue the above, do not refer to the already built mind concept of time.
- Have in mind, that you already have the time concept from at least two events in your life.
Note that your thinking is an event too.
- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.
- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.
- Every time-measuring tool is “event”
- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

Well, this is my idea about “time”.
Most probably I missed something, but that is why I put it on discussion :-)

—

With my Google friends (in Google forums) we have interesting discussion and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:

—

I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named “matter” in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.

When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said – “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.

Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.
I’ll use part of the Big Bang theory to make my point.
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time..
Note that some of you can be deceived from the “particle” part in the “wave-particle” name.
That entity is not particle. It is entity said to behave either as wave or as particle, but behavior is not consistence.
Therefore, it would be safer to think of it as wave.

Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

I can imagine the difficulties many of you would have comprehending my idea.
It is not that difficult to understand that your observation makes the things appear in their sensible nature. Your minds are like medium, in which the wave turns into particle and becomes interactive sensible part of your surrounding.
The mind as part of the “awareness-wave” (God) can observe its own interference thus creating delusion about existence out of the self.

From this point on, the science can be right in most of its conclusions, but also very wrong in some of its bases.

Religious people BELIEVE that God created the world.
Creation implies deliberate action, intention.
The world wasn’t intentionally created therefore we can not call it creation.
It is appearance.
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.
You read about many such awakened people who brought the knowledge for God in this world.
That knowledge was given in different times to people with different intellectual levels and the explanations about God had to mach the intellectual capability of the auditory.

People with low intellectuality tend to accept old explanation without questioning and become blind religious followers.
The need for salvation brings obedience to rules, which was (and still is) used by the church for self-interests.

Possible argument:

- We may not hear the sound but it is still there. We can not say that only what is heard is sound.

Answer to the above:

The “sound” word has no absolute value because it describes our perception for certain vibration frequency.
That is valid for any word, which describes our perceptions.

Why our senses have no absolute value?
Lets take “red” (the color) for example.
It is word for color.
We named a range of light spectrum with the name “red”.
We agree on the fact that most humans can recognize that certain range, but we can not know how each of us see the color with that name.
Therefore, we conclude that perceptions have no absolute value.

In other words, one must not put absolute value for what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
It is only our perception of the wave interference, which we call Universe.
To make it even more clearer I’ll reverse it: The Universe is wave interference and our senses are making us see it the way we see it.
And now to make it complete: The Universe is wave interference + conscious observation
We can not apply noise, and light as property of the Universe, because for sentient being without the ability to see and hear it is not noisy and visible.
To say that the noise and the light are still there is illogical knowing that we are using not absolute values.
The absolute values are in the length and the phase of the interfering waves not in our perception of those values.

Another possible argument:

- Do you know what “wave function collapse” is?

Answer to the above:

Yes I know.
In not simplified language, I mean that we as measuring (observing) tools are defining the value to which the set of calculated probabilities will collapse. All around us is set of systems interfering with each other and us. We are defining the values for the wave function collapse of all that systems.

I don’t like seriousness and in support of my statement I’ll say – it sucks.

Now imagine that I’m the serious Bertrand Russel and I say: “human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter”, which will make you BELIEVE that this is the truth about belief.
Now, that sucks.
Because your belief will be put on Russell’s authority in philosophy and that will prove Russell wrong in his understanding about “belief”.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Well, let me explain myself.

Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Russell is right is not behavior.
Then what is it?
It is a strong positive position in your uncertainty.
You believe that Russell is an authority to trust and that position is the most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately the belief does not always reflects the truth.

But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.

What “knowledge” is?

There are few types of knowledge.

BASIC KNOWLEDGE

It is the knowledge collected in experience.
I can give you an information about the taste of unknown fruit, but that would be only information.
The knowledge will come with the experience – taste the fruit and know the taste.

We can actually say that basic knowledge comes in observation.
The understanding that “observation” can be done only with eyes is wrong.
Since the eyes are one of the five senses we can say that we also observe with the rest of the senses.

So, everything that can be observed and is observed is bringing basic knowledge in us.

INFORMATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

As I previously said one can give you an information about certain object or its properties.
That wouldn’t be knowledge but only information.
If the same information is given by great number of observers provided that evidences are included and verified by authority we conclude that the information reflects the truth and we assign it as knowledge.
One does not need to personally observe the existence of London in order to have the knowledge about London’s existence.

LOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

A is greater than B.
C is greater than A.
Therefore C is greater than B.
That is certain knowledge based on information and derived from logic.

That is all about KNOWLEDGE.
Isn’t it simple?

What BELIEF is?

I already said – Belief is strong positive position in your uncertainty.

Belief arises in few different ways.

BELIEF based on TRUST

I trust Jim because he has proved that he is always truthful.
I don’t know how many balls are in the box, but if Jim says that there are five balls I believe that there are five balls in the box.

BELIEF based on LOGIC

I don’t know the taste of this fruit.
As far as I know, fruits are never salty.
I believe that this fruit is not salty.

BELIEF based on PERSONAL PREFERENCES

“I like sex and I belief that sex is good for the mental health.”
“I don’t like pork and I believe that pork is bad for the health.”

In all beliefs there is no certainty (knowledge), but strong positive position over one of all the possibilities.

BELIEF is not GUESS

Guessing does not take strong position.
Guessing is a a random choice from possibilities with equal (or close to equal) chances.

BEHAVIOR BASED ON KNOWLEDGE

Human behavior is based mainly on knowledge.

Russell sucks by saying:

human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter, but animals equally seek the shade. It would seem, therefore, that belief, if it is not a mere characteristic of behavior, is causally unimportant.

Nonsense!

People and animals KNOW from experience that the shade is pleasanter.
It is not belief and it never was. It was always a knowledge.

Animals can not have a belief for the simple fact that they can not question uncertainty and take STRONG position in it.
They simply take a random choice if they don’t have knowledge as base for the choice.

Most of human’s decisions are based on type of knowledge.

BEHAVIOR BASED ON BELIEF

“Belief” doesn’t necessarily take a decision.
The belief that God exist does not necessarily leads to church, rules and acting in certain way.
That belief can simply be state of the mind (or the soul if you prefer so) which brings comfort in life with the idea for afterlife.

The belief that the unknown fruit is not salty does not make us taste the fruit.
It is the desire for knowledge which is tasting the fruit.

Of course acting out of belief is not unusual behavior and we can observe it in our everyday life.
Yet, one must be very conscious about the characteristics of behavior.
A dog knows (like I do) that the bell is sign for lunch.
But if the bell is in Russell’s hand it can be used as proof that dog can have unfulfilled belief.

Not being offensive to Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know (any answer).
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.

“I Know”? is wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge”? is the right statement.

As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
(How can we know what knowledge are we missing if we don’t already have the knowledge about the subject?)

The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
What “knowledge” is?

The self-awareness does not use words and meanings.
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object. Something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.

We may combine meanings and concepts and create knowledge which doesn’t particularly refer to an observation, but all concepts used in the created knowledge are possible only because of our previous observations. The very fact that we talk about knowledge comes from the existence of something which is not me.
“Existence” itself is knowledge.

Now we use “I exist” as explanation for self-awareness, but that is not true explanation since “exist” came as knowledge when the self-awareness observed the first thing which was not “me”.
The self-awareness is not existence.

The mind lives in sentence.
All logic is hidden in the first observation which broke “me” in pieces and brought out “existence”.

Once the “knowledge” meaning is created we substitute “lack of observation” with “lack of knowledge”.
The same way we use “lack of knowledge” for our impotence to connect meanings and concepts for explaining behaviors and results.
“Knowledge” can not be put out of us and set as goal to achieve.
We are the creators of “knowledge” and it all depends on the ability to connect meanings and concepts.

There is no such thing as “member of itself”. All things are members of our understanding.

The Universe is empty of paradoxes.
All paradoxes are improper wording, conscious delusions arouse in improper sentence, falsely connected meanings and concepts.

“Paradox” itself is a meaning for self-contradiction, but there is no such thing as “self-contradiction”. The mind sets contradiction between the member and its properties creating member with impossible properties.
The paradox is the easiest mind creation.
Create a member and assign properties which are contradictory to the nature of the member assigned in the name and you will have paradox.

In reality (using “reality” meaning as “out of us”) the mind can not create “members”. It can only create knowledge about “members”.
No “members” exist out of our observation.
Mathematics could not be associated with logic if “logic” did not exist as concept.
Any mathematical result is nothing more but proof of logic.
Substituting meanings does not change the nature of a “member”.
There is hierarchy in the meanings and the lower serves the higher.

“Existence” is awareness for presence in our observation.
The mind falsely applies “existence” to the object.
“Existence” is a concept which sets the awareness to the understanding for something different than its own self (the self-awareness).

The awareness does never deal with “reality” since it always deals with past.
There is no present moment in the life since there is time needed to deliver the observed information to the awareness.
If we can set present moment, that would be the awareness itself.
In that “present moment” the existence is only concept.

What is the use of the existence as a member of the “reality” if it is not member of the awareness?
Is the Universe existent if it doesn’t take place in the awareness?

Now knowing that existence is impossible without observation we can easily conclude that awareness is needed before the “existence” arrives.
Then we can ask the question; if awareness is not matter, space and time what is the “existence” which appears in the awareness?
How can awareness “observes” something different than its own nature, because not being space, matter and time the awareness can not be in space, matter and time in order to “observe” them?

Oh, we are obviously wrong having that question, because it comes from the concepts created by the awareness about space, matter and time.

An existence is claimed only after observation.
Existence is state of presence in observation.
The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually is) awareness about presence.
Awareness is needed in order to make the existence valid.

—

Explanation

We work with “existence” more like a meaning (concept), but after it was created by the awareness the mind deceivingly is applying it to the object.
Actually the existence is applicable to the awareness.

We wouldn’t talk about existence if we never observed it.
If we only have self-awareness without any other knowledge, existence is impossible as a concept (meaning, knowledge).

Because any existence is observed through our five senses we can say that all things are already known to us through the concepts created in the observation.

Details in 50/50 (Part One) throughout Part Two, Part Three, Point of Exit and Clarification for dummies as well as the first comment in this topic

Once an existence is registered in observation the “existence” concept is created and from then on the mind applies the existence to an object.
That is wrong. The mind forgets that the existence applies to its own awareness for a presence in an observation.

In other words existence is a mind awareness for a presence.
After the concept is created we apply it to objects and that makes it mind deceiving.
Mind starts to think of existence as something out of its awareness.

To see “existence” in its true nature we must go back and see it as a concept created by the awareness.
Existence applies to the awareness not to the object.

Now after repeating it few times I hope most dummies will get closer to the concept “Awareness beforehand” :D

- – -

Part One
Part Two
Part Tree
Point of Exit

- – -

POINT OF EXIT

We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.
Until you prove me wrong atheists don’t have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God’s non-existence.
Why 49%?
Wasn’t it 50/50?
It was, but not anymore.
There is no way for science to prove that brain produces awareness.
How is that?
Because any evidence must be approved by awareness.
Matter can not approve itself without awareness, while awareness is self-evident.
- – -
Humans intellectuality grows, concepts changes as the intellectuality grows, but the truth is always present and unchanged.
Many thousand years ago Enoch talk about the observers with different words and conceptions.
Then Buddha talk about the Spirit with different word and conceptions and after Him Jesus talk about the Spirit and the awaken Son with different words and conceptions.
Today I talk to you and that is prove that I respect you as grown intellect.
Otherwise I wouldn’t waste my time to do it.
Everything is known to you, my friends and it is delivered to you as light, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You have nothing more to observe.
Start looking for the exit.
- – -
I came in this forum because I found your attitude as deserving respect.
It will be valued much higher if you pin this topic at the top of your forums and let everybody know that you have unarguable statement about the possibility of God’s existent.
Let it be only possibility.
Every belief which tends to certainty create delusion on top of which Religion takes place.
I’m forgiving person but I wouldn’t forgive myself if my knowledge creates RELIGION.
Thank you for showing respect and acceptance and for giving me the real pleasure of being your opponent.

Love to All
Truden

aiia wrote:

You have the burden of proof dumb ass.
Your argument is empty garbage. When you pulled “spirit” out of your ass, did you wash your hands?

Truden wrote:

There are many ways to pull out Spirit if you don’t think with your ass.
Assume the non-material awareness is Spirit and is first (before the matter).
This is what actually the topic discuss – need of awareness for the existence of the matter.

Part One
Part Two
Part Tree
Clarification for Dummies

All we (with small exceptions) share the same way of observation, the same meanings and concepts.
We have the property of the spirit to observe and we create knowledge through it.
We have self-awareness.
Animals also have the same, but they don’t question (at least we think so) their existence.
I think that the first intelligent human thought was to question an existence – sort of “What is this and where it comes from?”.

Now, we observe that we are not the only observers, and the Universe is existent even when particular observation over it is ceased. That leads as to the conclusion that we are not the main observer.
Am I saning now that if the main observer stops its observation the Universe will disappear.
Yes.
How is that possible?
As part of the Spirit we share the Spirit’s properties.
If the ability of observation is withdrawn we will not be able to observe the Universe, therefore it will not be existent for us except trough the knowledge for its past or presumably present existence.
It actually happens in similar way and it is called “death”.

The main point is the ability to observe thus creating meanings and concepts.

Let’s look in to that.

What is “existence”?
It is the state of observed object separated as different from the self-awareness.
(Do not look in the dictionaries. They suck.)
We observe objects and waves with our five senses.
We create meanings and concepts.
The weak point in the “existence” meaning is that ones we created it we started to apply it to different objects by saying “it exists” or “possibility to exist”.
We forget that existence is notion explaining presence of object in our observation.
We must not apply the “existence” word (and all words derived from it) to objects, because we speculate with it and deceive our understanding. Or at least we must be aware of the way we use it.

Is it possible the existence of rock in the middle of nowhere without being observed.
Yes it is possible and there are existing objects which we do not observe. The process of observation comes from the fact that there was existence which we were not aware off.
But we are also aware of the “existence” meaning and the question comes from that awareness.
The question wouldn’t come if we did never observe anything but only be aware of our existence without having five senses.
So, the mind speculates with created meanings.
Again: the question “is it possible existence of…?” stays in the already possible meaning “existence”.
The answer is: Yes existence is already possible because we KNOW the “existence” meaning.
From then on, everything which we already know as existent stands the possibility to exist in nowhere.
We don’t make the rock existent with our observation, because it is already existent in our understanding.
When we observe it, we will simply observe known object – matter.

The parallel with the “sound in the forest” can explain something very important.
If there was no creature to observe the sound, there was no sound but vibrations with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz. The “sound” meaning applies only to creatures which have sense to perceive it and interpret it as… sound. Otherwise there is silence.

Let’s play again with “existence” to make an explaining parallel.

We hypothetically assume that in our universe exists an entity which has no senses and has the capability to move through matter. This entity is aware of itself and the space which we call Universe. It keeps itself alive by moving through the space and matter. Actually the matter is giving (him) the energy required to keep its existence. That entity does not know that there is matter and that the matter is keeping (him) alive.

We do not exist for this hypothetic entity and the entity does not exist for us.
So, we exist and the entity exists but that existences do not interrelate and do not appear to each other.

What is the Universe?
Is it what we observe or what the hypothetical entity “observes”.
Which Universe is existent, the entity Universe or our Universe?

Because we are made from the matter which we observe does that mean that all entities in the universe are made of matter and interrelate with it as we do?

The Universe is what we observe and our senses for observation are limited to five.
The Universe except everything includes us.
All evidences are based on observation (us)

We can not have evidence of what we can not observe and… for our awareness which is self evident.

Now, back to the Spirit (God, Main Observer).
The spirit gives us the possibility to be self-aware and to be aware of existence through observation.
The Spirit’s properties are evident in us, which makes us part of the Spirit regarding its properties.
Our personalities are based on knowledge.
Our shared properties are based on the Spirit.
In that regard we are different personalities but one as part of the Spirit.
If there is God, it is in everybody as its shared properties – self-awareness and observation.

- –

Part One
Part Two
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

In my opening of this topic I did not want to mention the “God” word and to set you on that track.
I simply wanted to talk about the Universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.

I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.
In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.

If you take a deep thought you’ll probably come to the feeling that this Universe is more like a dream world which we inhabit.
That’s why I offered you to comment on the Big Bang and Guth’s theory and in the same time take a thought on my questions about them.
Instead most of you jumped in conclusions and requested from me to clarify my understanding about God.
Why would you need that?
You should comment on the Universe, not on God.

I thank to all who did comment on the subject.
I gave you an example how the limited by borders volume of the Universal mass creates unlimited Universal space in the modern Big Bang and Guth’s theories.
If we assume borders for the Universal mass in the Singularity we must assume that there was space out of the Universe, which can not be called Universal.

Why am I digging in to this?
Isn’t it easier to give my supportive evidences for God’s existence?
After all this is what most of you want.
Based on what must I give my evidences?
Based on your believe about the nature of the Universe?

What evidence about the sound and the light can I give to a person who was born blind and deaf?
You think that this is not a serious argument?
Why?

But let’s talk about God.

The religions make it simple, because they put it on belief.
Every religion has a belief about God but all religions explain it as Spirit.
My English is not good enough for definitions, but I’m sure that all of you will agree that Spirit is consciousness in non material body.

Most religions put personality in God.
God which I’m presenting is not a personality but Spirit which has one only property – capability to observe.
I used few times the “consciousness” word and I found out that it is hard for you to imagine consciousness without intelligence.
As I said few times intelligence is knowledge created in the process of separating subjects and events.
Spirit or Pure Consciousness has no knowledge, but only awareness for itself – “I exist”.
That Spirit will create intelligence only when observes subject or event which must be separated from its own existence.
Hope that the above explanation is clear enough.
Now, let see what we have as evidence for our own existence.

We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.

Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and controls the body.
Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.
You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.
But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.

- – -

Part One
Part Three
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies