MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 25, 2009 23:27:26 GMT -5
Everywhere: There is no where where it is not.
Everywhen: There is no when when it is not.
Everything: There is nothing it is not.
But are they the same thing? Are they all synonymous?
I think so.
Everywhere and everything are simple, because space and time are continuous. If something is nowhere it cannot be in any when because something must be somewhere to be somewhen. If something is no when it cannot exist because it cannot be somewhere.
But when you get to everything and everywhere, it gets a little more convoluted. If something is everywhere it encompasses everything. Meaning everything must be part of everywhere because each thing encompasses it's own where.
So with everything and everywhen it is very simple. Since everything is everywhere and everywhere is everywhen, everything must be everywhen. So, if I'm a theist, but I'm not, I would have to be a deist or a pantheist.
Am I right, or is this just crazy midnight rambling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Mar 26, 2009 4:08:13 GMT -5
If I may ask, what point are you trying to make here?
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 26, 2009 5:12:18 GMT -5
Good pot, that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 26, 2009 12:30:53 GMT -5
Have you ever gotten really high and thought about the nature of thinking about the nature of things? I mean, really thought about it? I haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 26, 2009 12:35:28 GMT -5
Quick, now do Baba O'Reily!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 26, 2009 12:56:41 GMT -5
Am I right, or is this just crazy midnight rambling? Those are not mutually exclusive. Right about what? The equivalence of everywhere, everywhen and everything? Possibly, but I think it depends on definitions and what's implied by each word. We usually take everywhere to mean all space at a single point in time. We sometimes consider "everything" to include abstracts, which don't have a location, etc. About every theist having to be a pantheist/deist? Don't think so. The definition of god does not imply ubiquity. This assumes I understand what you posted. If do not, feel free to correct me or ignore me. |
|
|
|
Post by gotpwnt on Mar 27, 2009 17:30:49 GMT -5
Everywhere: There is no where where it is not. Everywhen: There is no when when it is not. Everything: There is nothing it is not. But are they the same thing? Are they all synonymous? I think so. Everywhere and everything are simple, because space and time are continuous. If something is nowhere it cannot be in any when because something must be somewhere to be somewhen. If something is no when it cannot exist because it cannot be somewhere. But when you get to everything and everywhere, it gets a little more convoluted. If something is everywhere it encompasses everything. Meaning everything must be part of everywhere because each thing encompasses it's own where. So with everything and everywhen it is very simple. Since everything is everywhere and everywhere is everywhen, everything must be everywhen. So, if I'm a theist, but I'm not, I would have to be a deist or a pantheist. Am I right, or is this just crazy midnight rambling? ...? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Mar 27, 2009 21:00:05 GMT -5
Everywhere: There is no where where it is not. Everywhen: There is no when when it is not. Everything: There is nothing it is not. But are they the same thing? Are they all synonymous? I think so. Everywhere and everything are simple, because space and time are continuous. If something is nowhere it cannot be in any when because something must be somewhere to be somewhen. If something is no when it cannot exist because it cannot be somewhere. But when you get to everything and everywhere, it gets a little more convoluted. If something is everywhere it encompasses everything. Meaning everything must be part of everywhere because each thing encompasses it's own where. So with everything and everywhen it is very simple. Since everything is everywhere and everywhere is everywhen, everything must be everywhen. So, if I'm a theist, but I'm not, I would have to be a deist or a pantheist. Am I right, or is this just crazy midnight rambling? Um...What? |
|
ouabache
Junior Member
Official Pope
Posts: 73
|
Post by ouabache on Mar 27, 2009 23:57:46 GMT -5
So, if I'm a the same this just because it is verywhen. So, if I'm not, I would have to every simple, because something is no when, everything and everything is not.
But are simple. Since everything must be somewhere it is no where it get to be part of everywhere it is thing: There it cannot exist because each thing is no when it cannot exist be somewhen because something and time are convoluted. If somewhen. If something and time are thing and everywhen. If something? Are they they all synonymous?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Mar 28, 2009 2:31:36 GMT -5
Tee hee, doing drugs is fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 28, 2009 6:11:35 GMT -5
As I reread the OP, it reads more like a mushroom induced thought process, combined with many bong tokes. I could be wrong, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 28, 2009 23:10:05 GMT -5
Some of the best philosophizing I have heard came as a result of inebriation and/or alternative intoxication. Don't discount it out of hand simply because of an implied or explicit source.
That being said, I have not sufficiently imbibed for to partake in this exchange. Mayhap in a bottle of wine or two...
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 29, 2009 13:58:46 GMT -5
SRY, I'm sober rt now -- maybe Wednesday, after my check comes in, I'll be able to make sense of this.
(Whoever's holding needs to puff-puff-pass!)
|
|
