Impossibility of time travel

[RCSaunders]

SO. Prove Panentheism is not the nature of reality (God).

Every religion contradicts all other religions. Even if any were were true, all the others would be impossible. Since there is no reason to believe any of them are true, it just stupid to waste one's credulity on mystic nonsense. It doesn't have to be, "proved."

It's like asking you to prove you're not actually only a fiction.

The only folks interested in proving anything about religion, are atheists.

Well that's a lie!

I'm not an atheist and know little about what they do, but I do know there are hundreds of religious apologists who do nothing but try to prove their religions are right. For example, these, "The Top 20 Christian Apologists." All religions have their apologists.

The one thing they have in common is their penchant for declaring things, like you, which are simply not true.

[RCSaunders]

SO. Prove Panentheism is not the nature of reality (God).

Every religion contradicts all other religions. Even if any were were true, all the others would be impossible. Since there is no reason to believe any of them are true, it just stupid to waste one's credulity on mystic nonsense. It doesn't have to be, "proved."

Whether every religion contradicts all other religions doesn't negate Panentheism as a plausible 'religion'.

It in fact encompasses everything, even all the ridiculous concepts that man has made into part of their religion, as per wo/man in any culture possibly having experience of this PAN entity.
btw - atheists are in it too, like it or not.

Whatever. There are endless idiologies, all absurd and wrong. I do not hold any ideology, including atheism.

[Age]

If ANY one just wants to KNOW how to, what is Wrongly called, "time travel", then just let me know. I am, after all, here with 'you' NOW, ready to divulge and REVEAL what is YET to be learned and understood.

Consider the fragmenting of human identity, especially these days with attention being pulled here and there by the lies being told. Oh, the lies those politicians and gubberment folks tell.

Okay, I have considered this, ONCE AGAIN.

One of the reasons WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, had NOT YET been able to work out and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS EXACTLY is because 'you' do only LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from a very FRAGMENTED perspective.

But, back to CAPS. A fragmented identity that has been growing in consciousness is one’s identity as words. In other words, no matter who you think you are, in certain situations you are only words. This is one of those situations.

I have ALREADY expressed this view. I just WORD 'it' a bit DIFFERENTLY.

We can surmise that in the future, awareness of oneself as words will expand like a food-junkie’s wasteline in February. What’s insignificant now will become significant and informally regulated in the future, just as certain words spoken in the past have become so significant now as to now alter lives (Joe Rogan).

Thus, the significance of CAPS will change in the future, as the fragments of identity shrink and expand. In the future, CAPS just might be the word no one dare utter with tongue or fingertips. Future inappropriate CAPS will be the social ammo that it now is not, but is trying to become, just like the word that no one dare utter is now on par with nuclear-handling.

What is the word that SUPPOSEDLY NONE of 'you' dare utter in the days when this is being written?

And, is this CLAIM of 'yours' here one of those LIES, which you were speaking of before?

Your usage of CAPS is your reaction to transmissions from the future.

If you say so.

With total and complete knowledge of conditions, and with capacity altered to withstand the full energy frequency of total comprehension, not to mention apprehension, you could easily explain the future in detail, even the climate.

Okay, if you say so.

Furthermore, because of your wisdom you very well can explain the future in detail, but refrain to do so in order to save the planet, and so occupy attention in hopes of leading folks away from ennui.

What are 'you' basing this CLAIM on EXACTLY?

Not surprising for a Time Lord, which of course is a possibility subject to probability.

[attofishpi]

Every religion contradicts all other religions. Even if any were were true, all the others would be impossible. Since there is no reason to believe any of them are true, it just stupid to waste one's credulity on mystic nonsense. It doesn't have to be, "proved."

Whether every religion contradicts all other religions doesn't negate Panentheism as a plausible 'religion'.

It in fact encompasses everything, even all the ridiculous concepts that man has made into part of their religion, as per wo/man in any culture possibly having experience of this PAN entity.
btw - atheists are in it too, like it or not.

Whatever. There are endless idiologies, all absurd and wrong. I do not hold any ideology, including atheism.

How do you know that Panentheism is wrong?

[RCSaunders]

Whether every religion contradicts all other religions doesn't negate Panentheism as a plausible 'religion'.

It in fact encompasses everything, even all the ridiculous concepts that man has made into part of their religion, as per wo/man in any culture possibly having experience of this PAN entity.
btw - atheists are in it too, like it or not.

Whatever. There are endless idiologies, all absurd and wrong. I do not hold any ideology, including atheism.

How do you know that Panentheism is wrong?

The same way I know there is no such thing as phlogiston or fairies. They are just things someone makes up for which there is no evidence at all.

[attofishpi]

lol.

[Age]

Hardly! 99% of the things most people think and believe are impossible. Every religion, for example.

SO. Prove Panentheism is not the nature of reality (God).

Every religion contradicts all other religions.

Will you provide ANY examples of where one religion supposedly contradicts another one?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Even if any were were true, all the others would be impossible.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Since there is no reason to believe any of them are true, it just stupid to waste one's credulity on mystic nonsense.

To me, there is NO reason whatsoever to BELIEVE ANY thing here.

It doesn't have to be, "proved."

What, EXACTLY, supposedly does NOT have to be 'proved'?

It's like asking you to prove you're not actually only a fiction.

[Age]

- It is quite simple, however it does hinge on the premise of an infinite universe.
- An infinite universe implies infinite potentiality.
- Infinite potentiality implies infinite unique conditions.
- Infinite unique conditions permits infinite possibilities.
- Infinite possibilities encompasses anything imaginable.
- Infinite possibilities implies that nothing is impossible.
- All that's required to know how anything imaginable can be, is total and complete knowledge of every possible condition.
- Short of that divine insight, endeavour to persevere.

The problem with all of that was identified by Leibniz, co-inventor of the Calculus with Newton. He pointed out, given infinite possibility, anything could be possible, but only one reality is "co-possible," that is, "possible with all that actually exists." Of course he used the argument for his absurd notion of, "the best of all possible worlds," but the point remains, whatever actually exists makes all other imaginable existences impossible, because what actually is excludes everything else. There can only be one actual existence.

But in the infinite Universe there is an actual infinite length for what 'actually exists' to evolve or morph into what could be argued ANY thing.

Obviously, 'whatever actually exists' only exists at that very 'moment' and actually does CHANGE into other imaginable, and even unimaginable, existences. As ALREADY PROVED True.

[Age]

Every religion contradicts all other religions. Even if any were were true, all the others would be impossible. Since there is no reason to believe any of them are true, it just stupid to waste one's credulity on mystic nonsense. It doesn't have to be, "proved."

It's like asking you to prove you're not actually only a fiction.

The only folks interested in proving anything about religion, are atheists.

Well that's a lie!

I'm not an atheist and know little about what they do, but I do know there are hundreds of religious apologists who do nothing but try to prove their religions are right. For example, these, "The Top 20 Christian Apologists." All religions have their apologists.

The one thing they have in common is their penchant for declaring things, like you, which are simply not true.

Instead of just saying things like; "things, which simply are not true", you PROVIDE some of these 'things' so that we can LOOK AT and SEE if what you are CLAIMING is actually True, or False?

[Age]

Whatever. There are endless idiologies, all absurd and wrong. I do not hold any ideology, including atheism.

How do you know that Panentheism is wrong?

The same way I know there is no such thing as phlogiston or fairies. They are just things someone makes up for which there is no evidence at all.

What does the word 'panentheism' even mean or refer to, to you, that there is supposedly NO evidence AT ALL for.

[Walker]

Well that's a lie!

Simmer down, now. Easy fella.

More of a try, not a lie, a try in the sense of eliciting a coherent and informative response, perhaps even a philosophical musing or two, under the assumption that an aged one such as yourself would be more concerned with principles, guided by an intent persevering towards the absolute, which is where we’re all freedom bound to go.

Although it is ancillary to the thread topic, a case certainly can be made that those secure in their faith have no need to prove their faith, whereas atheists are of a different breed. They don’t necessarily care to prove the non-existence of God. No. It goes deeper than that. Atheists are more concerned with destroying another's faith in God.

Don’t think it’s mean and nasty. It’s probably a branch of philosophy. Critical thinking, with the addendum of “capacity dependent.”

Now, that’s another elicitation, in the hopes of a coherent and informative response in the form of agreement or intelligent, logical rebuttal.

It’s not an invitation for you sit on your lazy intellectual ass and cast dispersion.

Bring it on back now. Be worthy of the equanimous trust given to the time required for attention, an invitation if you will, to express the truth within the essence of all those moments that have led up to now. Ticket to ride?

[Walker]

I'm not an atheist and know little about what they do, but I do know there are hundreds of religious apologists who do nothing but try to prove their religions are right. For example, these, "The Top 20 Christian Apologists." All religions have their apologists.

The one thing they have in common is their penchant for declaring things, like you, which are simply not true.

Without even checking the links ...

Regarding the content of your response, there is a distinction to be made.

Evangelism is an aspect of some religions, as a tool to swell the ranks of the religion. Persuasion is an aspect of evangelism used to swell the awareness of the intellectual heathen, however, evangelism is not an attempt to prove to the evangelist him/herself, the existence of God.

Now, since this is your area of interest, it is incumbent upon you, out of respect to quirk, to steer all this into slavery.

[Walker]

- It is quite simple, however it does hinge on the premise of an infinite universe.
- An infinite universe implies infinite potentiality.
- Infinite potentiality implies infinite unique conditions.
- Infinite unique conditions permits infinite possibilities.
- Infinite possibilities encompasses anything imaginable.
- Infinite possibilities implies that nothing is impossible.
- All that's required to know how anything imaginable can be, is total and complete knowledge of every possible condition.
- Short of that divine insight, endeavour to persevere.

The problem with all of that was identified by Leibniz, co-inventor of the Calculus with Newton. He pointed out, given infinite possibility, anything could be possible, but only one reality is "co-possible," that is, "possible with all that actually exists." Of course he used the argument for his absurd notion of, "the best of all possible worlds," but the point remains, whatever actually exists makes all other imaginable existences impossible, because what actually is excludes everything else. There can only be one actual existence.

There are no actual contradictions between your proof and perceived "problem."

There can be only one actual existence at any particular time, and time is an aspect of any manifestation, e.g., although within his time, da Vinci was ahead of his time, thus, somewhat outside of time.

[RCSaunders]

The only folks interested in proving anything about religion, are atheists.

Well that's a lie!

I'm not an atheist and know little about what they do, but I do know there are hundreds of religious apologists who do nothing but try to prove their religions are right. For example, these, "The Top 20 Christian Apologists." All religions have their apologists.

The one thing they have in common is their penchant for declaring things, like you, which are simply not true.

Instead of just saying things like; "things, which simply are not true", you PROVIDE some of these 'things' so that we can LOOK AT and SEE if what you are CLAIMING is actually True, or False?

Why? Any reasonably intelligent individual will understand exactly what I mean. I don't care if you don't understand it.

[RCSaunders]

Well that's a lie!

Simmer down, now. Easy fella.

I wasn't accusing you of lying, only observing that what you said was not true. I don't think you were trying to deceive me, but I do think you've been deceived.

They don’t necessarily care to prove the non-existence of God. No. It goes deeper than that. Atheists are more concerned with destroying another's faith in God.

Unless one actually states their purpose, I do not think it is possible to know what anyone's intention is. Your description of what atheists intend is based on nothing but your own impressions. I know many individual's who have no belief or interest in any concept of a God who also have no interest whatsoever in what anyone else chooses to believe. Only a very few so-called, "atheists," actually try to promote their views.

Now, that’s another elicitation, in the hopes of a coherent and informative response in the form of agreement or intelligent, logical rebuttal.

It is not possible to respond, "coherently," to a false premise except to point out that it is false. [/quote]