Calling God a creator is limiting God and time is an illusion

[Nyseto]

There are two main things I wanted to bring up which undermine the Bible. The first one is the very word 'God' and whatever definitions are associated with it (love, creator). God is regarded as infinite and transcendent in Christianity. As such, God is beyond all definition which means that any definition of God falls short of God, they are not completely accurate and are pointers at best. If we simply define God as the creator and just stop at that definition, we have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition. For example, when you go to a restaurant, you first gloss over the menu. However, the menu itself is not the food. The map is not the territory. Even to say the word ‘God’ is already saying too much.

The Bible also relies heavily on the existence of time with Genesis. However, time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this. If time is an illusion then so is space. Time is a measurement for change, used as a tool. My actual raw experience is that I am here and now. Whether it is 1992 or 2022 or I’m in Florida or China, I am here and now. My experience is the simple evidence for this. Time and space are constructs that are superimposed on reality. What I’m saying is that ‘now’ is where eternity and the world of form intersect. Anything that has happened or will happen, takes place now. Anything that has happened is a mere memory acknowledged in the present as well as any future projection. Now is timeless. How long does now last? Moreover, if now is eternal and timeless and so is God…is it not fair to say that God dances in time and space as the here and now?

Also, with what do we know anything at all? Who is the ‘I’ to which we all refer? We say my mind, my name, my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my soul, my spirit, my beliefs, etc. All of these things belong to you. So then who is the actual ‘you’ to whom all these things belong? Could it be that the perceiving consciousness from which we derive the word ‘I’, is God? Only something changeless perceives change. Consciousness is changeless, so is truth. When I go to sleep, I am still perceiving a dream or the absence of a dream. When you take a hard look at your experience (not what you learned or believe), you find that this ‘I’ all by itself is limitless. It has no form, it is nowhere yet everywhere. Where is ‘here’ and how many ‘here’s’ are there? Whether you’re on Earth or in heaven, will it still not be here and now?

 

[amadeus]

There are two main things I wanted to bring up which undermine the Bible. The first one is the very word 'God' and whatever definitions that are associated with it (love, creator). God is regarded as infinite and transcendent in Christianity. As such, God is beyond all definition which means that any definition of God falls short of God, they are not completely accurate and are pointers at best. If we simply define God as the creator and just stop at that definition, we have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition. For example, when you go to a restaurant, you first gloss over the menu. However, the menu itself is not the food. The map is not the territory. Even to say the word ‘God’ is already saying too much.

The Bible also relies heavily on the existence of time with Genesis. However, time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this. If time is an illusion then so is space. Time is a measurement for change, used as a tool. My actual raw experience is that I am here and now. Whether it is 1992 or 2022 or I’m in Florida or China, I am here and now. My experience is the simple evidence for this. Time and space are constructs that are superimposed on reality. What I’m saying is that ‘now’ is where eternity and the world of form intersect. Anything that has happened or will happen, takes place now. Anything that has happened is a mere memory acknowledged in the present as well as any future projection. Now is timeless. How long does now last? Moreover, if now is eternal and timeless and so is God…is it not fair to say that God dances in time and space as the here and now?

Also, with what do we know anything at all? Who is the ‘I’ to which we all refer? We say my mind, my name, my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my soul, my spirit, my beliefs, etc. All of these things belong to you. So then who is the actual ‘you’ to whom all these things belong? Could it be that the perceiving consciousness from which we derive the word ‘I’, is God? Only something changeless perceives change. Consciousness is changeless, so is truth. When I go to sleep, I am still perceiving a dream or the absence of a dream. When you take a hard look at your experience (not what you learned or believe), you find that this ‘I’ all by itself is limitless. It has no form, it is nowhere yet everywhere. Where is ‘here’ and how many ‘here’s’ are there?

@ScottA Into your understanding here?

 

[ScottA]

There are two main things I wanted to bring up which undermine the Bible. The first one is the very word 'God' and whatever definitions are associated with it (love, creator). God is regarded as infinite and transcendent in Christianity. As such, God is beyond all definition which means that any definition of God falls short of God, they are not completely accurate and are pointers at best. If we simply define God as the creator and just stop at that definition, we have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition. For example, when you go to a restaurant, you first gloss over the menu. However, the menu itself is not the food. The map is not the territory. Even to say the word ‘God’ is already saying too much.

The Bible also relies heavily on the existence of time with Genesis. However, time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this. If time is an illusion then so is space. Time is a measurement for change, used as a tool. My actual raw experience is that I am here and now. Whether it is 1992 or 2022 or I’m in Florida or China, I am here and now. My experience is the simple evidence for this. Time and space are constructs that are superimposed on reality. What I’m saying is that ‘now’ is where eternity and the world of form intersect. Anything that has happened or will happen, takes place now. Anything that has happened is a mere memory acknowledged in the present as well as any future projection. Now is timeless. How long does now last? Moreover, if now is eternal and timeless and so is God…is it not fair to say that God dances in time and space as the here and now?

Also, with what do we know anything at all? Who is the ‘I’ to which we all refer? We say my mind, my name, my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my soul, my spirit, my beliefs, etc. All of these things belong to you. So then who is the actual ‘you’ to whom all these things belong? Could it be that the perceiving consciousness from which we derive the word ‘I’, is God? Only something changeless perceives change. Consciousness is changeless, so is truth. When I go to sleep, I am still perceiving a dream or the absence of a dream. When you take a hard look at your experience (not what you learned or believe), you find that this ‘I’ all by itself is limitless. It has no form, it is nowhere yet everywhere. Where is ‘here’ and how many ‘here’s’ are there? Whether you’re on Earth or in heaven, will it still not be here and now?

This is good.

Most who are born into time see Time as reality, as if the realm of the clay is reality and "literal", rather than the realm of the Potter. From that perspective it is difficult to imagine that time is [only] created and passing away, as an "image", just as it was first proclaimed--only an illusion and a manifestation made in the likeness of what is written above. It is as if they expect that eternity is actually endless time, rather than the absence of time. But that is not what is meant by "I am." I am, means time is finished. As it is written, in the realm of God...there is "no shadow of turning" as there is in this world, no time.

Nor do most understand that time is simply the medium (or media) by which God has purposed all things to be revealed--that is, that all that is written on high, is revealed to His children which are slow to learn and therefore need time in baby steps to understand "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

However a caution about the "now" that is taught by some in the world, wherein yesterday and tomorrow (2 out of 3) are mindfully eliminated to simplify the "now" of ones time in the world--which does in fact simplify life in the world. But that does not speak of what is of God and timeless. On the contrary, it is only a world within this world and of the world.

Thus, if we speak of "now" as it pertains to God, we speak of eternity and the kingdom of God, and not that of the world.

 

[amadeus]

This is good.

Most who are born into time see Time as reality, as if the realm of the clay is reality and "literal", rather than the realm of the Potter. From that perspective it is difficult to imagine that time is [only] created and passing away, as an "image", just as it was first proclaimed--only an illusion and a manifestation made in the likeness of what is written above. It is as if they expect that eternity is actually endless time, rather than the absence of time. But that is not what is meant by "I am." I am, means time is finished. As it is written, in the realm of God...there is "no shadow of turning" as there is in this world, no time.

Nor do most understand that time is simply the medium (or media) by which God has purposed all things to be revealed--that is, that all that is written on high, is revealed to His children which are slow to learn and therefore need time in baby steps to understand "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

However a caution about the "now" that is taught by some in the world, wherein yesterday and tomorrow (2 out of 3) are mindfully eliminated to simplify the "now" of ones time in the world--which does in fact simplify life in the world. But that does not speak of what is of God and timeless. On the contrary, it is only a world within this world and of the world.

Thus, if we speak of "now" as it pertains to God, we speak of eternity and the kingdom of God, and not that of the world.

For your information:
I did obtain your book and read it a while ago. Being in the process of physically moving, I have not mentioned it to you before. It was worth the read and I will likely be reading it again once established in my new residence.

 

[Rudometkin]

There are two main things I wanted to bring up which undermine the Bible. The first one is the very word 'God' and whatever definitions are associated with it (love, creator). God is regarded as infinite and transcendent in Christianity. As such, God is beyond all definition which means that any definition of God falls short of God

For any readers out there, notice how this argument undermines itself. The conclusion that all definitions fall short of God means that the description "infinite and transcendent" is not an accurate description of God. But that description of God is the very basis that the argument rests on.

Thus the argument refutes itself. The Bible on the other hand stands absolutely perfect and irrefutable.

...We have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition... Even to say the word ‘God’ is already saying too much....

But the title of the argument uses 'God' twice: "Calling God a creator is limiting God..."

If we are to take this argument seriously, then we must affirm that this argument says 'too much', and has therefore 'turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition.' This argument does the exact thing it attacks.

The one who affirms this argument has not even begun to address God by their own standards.

The Bible also relies heavily on the existence of time with Genesis. However, time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this.

This argument undermines itself along with the Bible and appeals to the fallible unbelieving Einstein. How can a true believer regard this argument as good?

 

[lforrest]

How can a true believer regard this argument as good?

It is good in so far as it agrees in part with Scott's understanding. So I read between the lines that it is a good start in his opinion.

 

[Nyseto]

Rudometkin, thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes, the argument I make about God being beyond all definition refutes itself because it is already doing what it states. Language is finite and it cannot encapsulate the infinite, it is however the only tool I have at my disposal to communicate here. At best, the main purpose of the argument is to point to the greater meaning of it: that God is beyond all definition even though it refutes itself from a logical point of view. I have to use the word 'God' in the argument for namesake so people can understand what I'm talking about.

Now about your comment on Einstein, I only mentioned that he said time is an illusion. 'Time' has been in his scope of study for most of his life so I would presume Einstein knows a thing or two about time. He may of not studied Christianity or the Bible, but he studied time and we definitely rely on some of his theories and work to this day. For someone who has studied time for so long only to conclude that it's an illusion, doesn't it have any merit?

I have a question for you. In your experience, you have your beliefs and then there is also the knowing of those beliefs with which you know them. What is more real? Your beliefs, or the knowing with which you know them? Belief automatically creates doubt as its opposite. But are you able to doubt that you are aware or knowing?

 

[Rudometkin]

Rudometkin, thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes, the argument I make about God being beyond all definition refutes itself because it is already doing what it states. Language is finite and it cannot encapsulate the infinite, it is however the only tool I have at my disposal to communicate here. At best, the main purpose of the argument is to point to the greater meaning of it: that God is beyond all definition even though it refutes itself from a logical point of view.

Thank you for replying to me.

The main point of your self refuting argument is not a logical point. Got it. I see what we are dealing with.

But you say the main point is that God is beyond all definition. Where or how did you learn this?

Language is finite and it cannot encapsulate the infinite

What about when the infinite describes the infinite?

I have to use the word 'God' in the argument for namesake so people can understand what I'm talking about.

You say the term falls short. Then you rely on the term to perform adequately.

So how does the term fall short?

Now about your comment on Einstein, I only mentioned that he said time is an illusion. 'Time' has been in his scope of study for most of his life so I would presume Einstein knows a thing or two about time. He may of not studied Christianity or the Bible, but he studied time and we definitely rely on some of his theories and work to this day. For someone who has studied time for so long only to conclude that it's an illusion, doesn't it have any merit?

Notice what purpose your Einstein reference serves.

"The Bible also relies heavily on the existence of time with Genesis. However, time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this."

If the Bible relies on the existence of time, and time is merely an illusion with no actual existence, then the Bible has fallen short.

You are obviously fighting the Bible with Einstein as your support. Einstein could study forever, but he would have no merit over Scripture according to the true Believer.

I have a question for you. In your experience, you have your beliefs and then there is also the knowing of those beliefs with which you know them. What is more real? Your beliefs, or the knowing with which you know them? Belief automatically creates doubt as its opposite. But are you able to doubt that you are aware or knowing?

I'll think about it.

 

[Nyseto]

Rudometkin, what I am suggesting regarding God being beyond all definition is that definitions are mere pointers. They are not the actual 'thing' that they are pointing to...much like a menu vs. the actual food. It's not a mathematical problem to solve, it's an understanding.

The reason I say God is beyond all definition is because God is infinite. Something that's infinite has no dimensions, it cannot be defined. The Bible acknowledges that God is outside of time and creation-transcendence. I said the very word 'God' falls short because it is merely a word along with 'creator', 'love', etc. I am only relying on that term so you know what I am referring to. The word 'tomato' falls short of an actual tomato, for example. There's a difference between knowing God intellectually and the actual experience of God which I go into regarding the here and now. I can sit here and talk to you about sugar all day long and even give you books about it. You will never know what sugar really is until you taste it. This is why I am saying definitions fall short-because they can be an obstacle when you're only stuck on the definition.

"It is like a finger pointing to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." -Bruce Lee

And no, I am not fighting the Bible with Einstein because I only mentioned Einstein just one time in the entire post regarding time being an illusion only, which is in line with my actual experience. You seem to have only taken that tid bit out without reading the rest.

 

[Enoch111]

If we simply define God as the creator and just stop at that definition, we have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition.

But there is no Christian who simply stops with calling God the Creator. God is the Creator, as well as the Redeemer, as well as the King, as well as the Judge, as well as the Rock, as well as...(many other things). At the same time God and Christ have many name and titles. Furthermore it is God "the Word" (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is the Creator (John 1:1-3). But He is also the Savior. Therefore He is called God our Savior. But He is also designated as Judge, and King of kings and Lord of Lords. And then He is called the Lord God Almighty and He calls Himself "I AM" as well as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So in fact the Bible does not limit God to one designation, and Yahweh is sometimes called Jehovah, but generally called "the LORD" (all small caps) which stands for YHWH. Jesus is from the Greek Iesous, but from the Hebrew Yehoshua, which is then condensed to Yeshua, and in fact means Yahshua [God (YAH) is [our] Salvation (Shua)].

 

[Nyseto]

But there is no Christian who simply stops with calling God the Creator. God is the Creator, as well as the Redeemer, as well as the King, as well as the Judge, as well as the Rock, as well as...(many other things). At the same time God and Christ have many name and titles. Furthermore it is God "the Word" (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is the Creator (John 1:1-3). But He is also the Savior. Therefore He is called God our Savior. But He is also designated as Judge, and King of kings and Lord of Lords. And then He is called the Lord God Almighty and He calls Himself "I AM" as well as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So in fact the Bible does not limit God to one designation, and Yahweh is sometimes called Jehovah, but generally called "the LORD" (all small caps) which stands for YHWH. Jesus is from the Greek Iesous, but from the Hebrew Yehoshua, which is then condensed to Yeshua, and in fact means Yahshua [God (YAH) is [our] Salvation (Shua)].

Even though no Christian stops with calling God the creator only, all the other examples you gave are still names and labels for 'something' that is beyond them. That is my point. All of those names belong to God, but God doesn't belong to any of them. The moment you slap a definition or name onto the infinite, you make it finite. To really know God means to know that any words, descriptions, or definitions for God aren't absolutely true. Rest in not-knowing.

I will say this, 'I AM' would be the most accurate one. Why? Because I AM is existential, you can find it in your own experience. Before I say anything about myself, I first have to say, 'I AM'. Therefore God's being is also my being and the being that underlies everything else. 'I AM' is the only absolute knowledge I have before I even learned the words 'I AM'. I AM a human. I AM male. I AM Christian. I AM an engineer. Take away every name and label from yourself, what remains? Is it not I AM (God)? Aren't we all just pretending we are something else? Sure people have claimed to be God in the past and were persecuted, but it was only problematic because they didn't attribute it to everyone else. How different would the world be if we all saw everyone and everything as ourself?

 

[ScottA]

How can a true believer regard this argument as good?

It is good, not because it is better or contrary to the scriptures, which I concur are perfect. But rather, it is good because it expresses the lowliness of how we think compared with the higher thoughts and greater infinite reality of God.

More importantly, it is a start, a suggestion to begin the renewing of our minds from our natural inclination to think in terms of this world, to the actual ways of God and that heavenly destination He has appointed us.

To explain further...my own salvation--the thought of God, came to me as a last resort. That is the inclination of most who, even believing in God, live and think. Fortunately, God did not honor my own first intentions, but carried me to that place where I could cry out to Him and ask for the One thing that is needed (Luke 10:42). When I did, it was for "answers" and "what life here in the world is all for"...and He answered. And I am here to tell you--those thousands of other ways of perceiving His truth that seem right to men--are mostly wrong.

Praise be to God and His Son Jesus Christ, for they have been faithful to carry us through to the End!

 

[GEN2REV]

It is good in so far as it agrees in part with Scott's understanding. So I read between the lines that it is a good start in his opinion.

What???

Since when is Scott the measuring stick as to what's accurate about God or scripture?

Are you being serious?

 

[Nyseto]

It is good, not because it is better or contrary to the scriptures, which I concur are perfect. But rather, it is good because it expresses the lowliness of how we think compared with the higher thoughts and greater infinite reality of God.

More importantly, it is a start, a suggestion to begin the renewing of our minds from our natural inclination to think in terms of this world, to the actual ways of God and that heavenly destination He has appointed us.

To explain further...my own salvation--the thought of God, came to me as a last resort. That is the inclination of most who, even believing in God, live and think. Fortunately, God did not honor my own first intentions, but carried me to that place where I could cry out to Him and ask for the One thing that is needed (Luke 10:42). When I did, it was for "answers" and "what life here in the world is all for"...and He answered. And I am here to tell you--those thousand other ways of perceiving His truth that seem right to men--are mostly wrong.

Praise be to God and His Son Jesus Christ, for they have been faithful to carry us through to the End!

Do you think that the lowliness of how we think is a result of Christianity having been filtered through Greek and Roman thinking or having been taken over by the West? Greek thinking is very dualistic and differentiating.

 

[Nyseto]

What???

Since when is Scott the measuring stick as to what's accurate about God or scripture?

Are you being serious?

Scripture makes more sense when it's read with an open mind rather than being taken at face value. I don't think it was meant for those who are very fundamentalist who take scripture to be the absolute truth. I think it points to the truth at best and there is more sacredness in the trees, sky and birds for example than any scripture for that matter. If the truth is free, how could it ever be captured in a phrase or book? Why is there so much hypocrisy among those who describe themselves as fundamentalist or staunch believers? They will tell me that ultimately it's because humans are born in sin and aren't perfect. But to that I would say that it's a bit too convenient to just dismiss hypocrisy as 'not being perfect'.

 

[GEN2REV]

God is regarded as infinite and transcendent in Christianity. As such, God is beyond all definition which means that any definition of God falls short of God, they are not completely accurate and are pointers at best. If we simply define God as the creator and just stop at that definition, we have turned the infinite into the finite by giving it a definition.

This post is loaded with New Age expressions and perspectives. That is an epidemic in modern Christianity unfortunately. It takes basic Christian ideas and mixes them with science and New Age concepts to the point that it looks nothing like Christianity anymore. I am well aware because I basically mastered all New Age doctrine and concepts for 14 years prior to my discovering the Bible and being enlightened to the Truth of God.

God is not beyond all definition. He tells us all about Himself throughout His Word and He is very definable. He has opinions, emotions and a very structured personality. He gets angry, sad and even experiences regret. Yes, He's infinite because He exists eternally. He created time, space and matter so He exists outside of them. He is not confined to time and space, but we are. And to us, physically at least, the 3 dimensions are very real.

Time is not an illusion in the physical sense. If we look upon our world from a spiritual perspective, sure, it can be held as an illusion, but New Age philosophies go way too far in these regards, to the extent they highly imply that everything in our world isn't even real. This is a lie and leads to all manner of distorted beliefs and attitudes about reality.

... time is an illusion and even Einstein has said this. If time is an illusion then so is space.

Einstein, and science, are not my God. And I don't take anything they say as gospel Truth.

Science changes its opinions on everything once or twice a decade. God and His Word never change and have been proven true repeatedly throughout history, to this very day.

I think the bottom line for any of us is that we have to make a decision who our God is.

If it's science, that will lead us to embrace certain beliefs.

If it's New Age religions/philosophies, that will lead to another set.

If it's God and the Bible, that will not coincide with any others, and none of these can fully agree as one.

 

[GEN2REV]

Scripture makes more sense when it's read with an open mind rather than being taken at face value. I don't think it was meant for those who are very fundamentalist who take scripture to be the absolute truth. I think it points to the truth at best and there is more sacredness in the trees, sky and birds for example than any scripture for that matter. If the truth is free, how could it ever be captured in a phrase or book? Why is there so much hypocrisy among those who describe themselves as fundamentalist or staunch believers? They will tell me that ultimately it's because humans are born in sin and aren't perfect. But to that I would say that it's a bit too convenient to just dismiss hypocrisy as 'not being perfect'.

Your opinions on these things are strongly influenced by your base beliefs. If you embrace the belief that the Bible was written by pre-historic men who just climbed down from the trees, or out of the caves, you are going to see it in a very loose, and irreverent, way.

If science is your god, you embrace evolution and the Bible holds no power in your opinion so it's open to any and all interpretation. If you believe, as you say, that it should be read with an open mind, that opens its contents to any interpretation that anybody desires to put upon it. It might as well be a piece of literature then, read as a novel.

Let me ask you this. Why do you profess to be a Christian? How familiar are you with what that word really means and what convinces you that you fall into the category of a Christian.

Sincere question with no disrespect intended. It is fundamental to this discussion.

 

[lforrest]

What???

Since when is Scott the measuring stick as to what's accurate about God or scripture?

Are you being serious?

That is why I was speaking of his opinion and not my own. I'm more inclined to show people the scriptures and not try to influence them with arguments of my own.

 

[Nyseto]

This post is loaded with New Age expressions and perspectives. That is an epidemic in modern Christianity unfortunately. It takes basic Christian ideas and mixes them with science and New Age concepts to the point that it looks nothing like Christianity anymore. I am well aware because I basically mastered all New Age doctrine and concepts for 14 years prior to my discovering the Bible and being enlightened to the Truth of God.

God is not beyond all definition. He tells us all about Himself throughout His Word and He is very definable. He has opinions, emotions and a very structured personality. He gets angry, sad and even experiences regret. Yes, He's infinite because He exists eternally. He created time, space and matter so He exists outside of them. He is not confined to time and space, but we are. And to us, physically at least, the 3 dimensions are very real.

Time is not an illusion in the physical sense. If we look upon our world from a spiritual perspective, sure, it can be held as an illusion, but New Age philosophies go way too far in these regards, to the extent they highly imply that everything in our world isn't even real. This is a lie and leads to all manner of distorted beliefs and attitudes about reality.
Einstein, and science, are not my God. And I don't take anything they say as gospel Truth.

Science changes its opinions on everything once or twice a decade. God and His Word never changes and has been proven true repeatedly throughout history, to this very day.

I think the bottom line for any of us is that we have to make a decision who our God is.

If it's science, that will lead us to embrace certain beliefs.

If it's New Age religions/philosophies, that will lead to another set.

If it's God and the Bible, that will not coincide with any others, and none of these can fully agree as one.

.

Your opinions on these things are strongly influenced by your base beliefs. If you embrace the belief that the Bible was written by pre-historic men who just climbed down from the trees, or out of the caves, you are going to see it in a very loose, and irreverent, way.

If science is your god, you embrace evolution and the Bible holds no power in your opinion so it's open to any and all interpretation. If you believe, as you say, that it should be read with an open mind, that opens its contents to any interpretation that anybody desires to put upon it. It might as well be a piece of literature then, read as a novel.

Let me ask you this. Why do you profess to be a Christian? How familiar are you with what that word really means and what convinces you that you fall into the category of a Christian.

Sincere question with no disrespect intended. It is fundamental to this discussion.

Something that is infinite has no dimensions. You say God has a personality and gets angry, sad, etc. This is ultimately objectifying and reducing God, that's the contradiction.

My opinions are not influenced by my beliefs. They are influenced by my raw experience exactly as it is. Even though Einstein said time is an illusion, that is my actual experience. New Age thinking has made me a better Christian and brought about a renewal by allowing me to close the gap between a belief and experience.

Science is a religion like Christianity is, it's just a more objective version. The problem is Christians can at least be honest and acknowledge that they have beliefs. Scientists, not so much. Science relies on the belief that there is a material world outside of consciousness. However, no one has ever found a universe, a world, or a rock. To this day science still can't figure out consciousness because science is objective by nature and consciousness has no objective qualities.

 

[Nyseto]

GEN2REV, leaving Einstein saying time is an illusion aside, you said we are confined to time and space. Taking an honest look at your experience, are you not always here and now regardless of the month, year, hour, or physical location? When you remember something from the past, is it not now? When you plan for the future, is it not now? Have you ever had the experience of not being here and now? Actually go to what 'here now' points to in your experience. No thinking or belief needed, just a simple experiment. Then tell me about the existence of time and space.

Your body, mind, name, beliefs, and thoughts belong to you. Who are you then if those things belong to you but aren't you?