And yet 'Outside of time' has no scientific merit, no reference, no definition, it is merely an abstract to aid the support of supernatural beliefs.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As for the objection that Christians are only coming up with arguments to validate their belief, I'd say that this is probably true, but not a problem. If arguments are coming from the quarter of scientific language, then that is the language with which Christianity must speak to defend itself.
?
This is inaccurate- action is only understood through the properties of the universe, but that does not mean that God cannot act, as we perceive it.
It does if you are talking about creating things that previously did not exist in any material form. I think a lot of people would challenge your definition of time anyway.
How so? Things still occur. If, for God, the notion of doing things is different, how does that make action meaningless? Or even, as far as we are concerned, any different?Then you are completely changing the idea of action, making it meaningless.
How so? Things still occur. If, for God, the notion of doing things is different, how does that make action meaningless? Or even, as far as we are concerned, any different?
God doing anything in anything time spot.
past................now................future
God in all time spots and in forever spots, God can do anything.
Yes, and thus they apply perfectly to a universe which is constrained by time.An action has a beginning middle and an end. Those are concepts of time.
No one is arguing that time does not exist, but rather that God is unbound by it.If there is no time, you can't have a beginning, middle or end.
Why? He doesn't have to perform actions in that way, and probably does not perceive action and change in the same sense that we do, but that hardly implies that She couldn't. Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.By saying that God can do actions that have a beginning, middle and end yet not be in time is incoherent.
I don't really understand how your statement follows from the premise. Even accepting your limited portrayal of God, which paints him as being every bit a slave to his circumstances as a human might be in the same, I don't think your conclusion is required. Why can't, for instance, God be "trapped" in a perpetual state of doing something, rather than nothing?He would be in a perpetual state of doing nothing, because you can't start something without time.
[time]God is unbound by it.
Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.
We proceed through time in one direction, at one speed, and have little say in the matter. This is not true of the omnipresent God, to whom the linear nature of time has little meaning.What does this mean ?
What does it mean that an agent is unbound by time ?
There is no "prior" to the creation of the universe, time and all of its related concepts are part of the universe.And prior to the creation of the universe, before god created matter and light and time how did he action his motives ?
I have no idea. However, the universe clearly exists at present.There was no temporal nature to existence, no future, no past, how did he execute the process of design ?
To the former, I reiterate that time-related concepts have no meaning in a discussion of that which is not the universe. To the latter, I don't know that either, though personally I view the creation as an ongoing process, not something that had an endpoint some time in the past.Prior to god's creation of time, how did he advance to the point where he began creation ?, how did he execute creation at all, even the creation of time needs a frame of reference larger than zero.
I'd be willing to concede this (the debate is starting to feel rather pointless to me) but realize that your own arguments are no more sensical.It is sheer nonsensical language.
This I don't agree with. I don't believe in God because of some silly semantic debate- I play the game only because you seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God, and this is not the case.Of course if we are to be honest the context of the conversation is nothing more that an abstract absurdity, the pivotal point in this conversation is not what god can and cannot do 'inside' and 'outside of time' - it is that those who wish to support the idea of a supernatural need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits.
Would you be saying this about any theory you disagree with? Since when is it unusual for someone to defend what they believe to be true? If I come up with some clever new argument against the death penalty, is it "trickery" for you to produce a counterargument in favor of it? I mean, if we were talking about actual data that would be different, but this is all just word games. Frankly I severely doubt that any of us truly understand time, its nature, or its implications, any more than Newton understood quantum physics.Using the tools and logical trickery many Christians employ to explain the whimsical ideas they hold as inerrant fact can be employed to conjure up absolutely anything.
Semantics. I explained the latter, as I meant it. And upon later reflection, I think that "outside of time" is probably a poor metaphor, with its misleading spatial implications.What does 'outside of time' mean ?
What does 'unbounded by time' mean ?
We proceed through time in one direction, at one speed,
...and have little say in the matter. This is not true of the omnipresent God, to whom the linear nature of time has little meaning.
There is no "prior" to the creation of the universe, time and all of its related concepts are part of the universe.
I have no idea. However, the universe clearly exists at present.
I'd be willing to concede this (the debate is starting to feel rather pointless to me) but realize that your own arguments are no more sensical
This I don't agree with. I don't believe in God because of some silly semantic debate
I play the game only because you seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God, and this is not the case.
Since when is it unusual for someone to defend what they believe to be true?
If I come up with some clever new argument against the death penalty, is it "trickery" for you to produce a counterargument in favor of it?
I mean, if we were talking about actual data that would be different, but this is all just word games. Frankly I severely doubt that any of us truly understand time, its nature, or its implications, any more than Newton understood quantum physics.
I agree with you, though not for the same reason. Speed is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, many times expressed as distance d moved per unit of time t. It doesn't need a reference, but it does need to physically move through space. Although time is often referred to as having a "speed" or "flowing" in colloquial speech, and this was how I intended my statement, it does not exhibit the technical physical property of speed. (In fact, if all you need is a reference, then time does have a speed. Plenty of references occur between one moment and another. Immanuel Kant thought that all time was merely a measuring system used by the brain in an attempt to piece together reference frames.)Time has no speed, for something to have the attribute of speed it would need a reference.
Actually, time does differ from place to place. An extreme example would be in the vicinity of a black hole. An observer tumbling into one would experience the event at a "normal" pace, where to an outside observer it would seem to take an extremely long period of time. In fact, given the curved nature of space-time, the "speed" of time is not a constant between any two given locations in the universe.Would you know if this mysterious property of time you call 'speed', slowed down or sped up ?
If, as in the previous example, one had another observer placed in an area where time had the original "speed" one could infer by the differences in their perceptions, or better yet their pocketwatches, that time had affected them differently.Or if we suddenly rushed through time at twice the 'speed' we are 'travelling through time' now would you notice - how could you tell ?
That's a silly way of talking about it. I suspect this is your point. But we can only talk about time relatively, not absolutely.Maybe you can tell me time's current 'speed' ? - is it one minute per minute perhaps ?
Probably not. Sequence of events would reverse, but then I assume my perception and thought processes would as well.And the direction ? Is that 'forward" ? Would you know if it started to travel backwards tomorrow ?
Not mine, really. However, time does affect people at a certain rate, depending. Direction is irrelevant in a literal sense, but not in the relational sense. Time might, as you suggested, "reverse" without our noticing, but in no circumstances would an event suddenly begin with an effect and end with a cause.This 'one direction / one speed' of time is a profoundly parochial understanding.
There is no constant, but there is a certain order of occurence, and one which was used to structure the argument we've been feeding off of. I retract my statements concerning speed and direction, as linguistic oversimplifications of a complicated concept, but the concept is not wholly devoid of meaning, just too simple to be wholly accurate.'Linear' suggests a constant, a constant we have no bench mark to validate it consistency against.
How does that follow? Eternal things can exist, therefore the universe is eternal? Why does the universe need something to proceed it? If that something existed, it too would be part of the universe by definition.We have at least established the intellectual notion that eternal is logically sensical, indeed it is attributed to god - so we know entities can be eternal and we know the universe has no period prior to its creation - so the universe is eternal.
The creation of the universe need not be a temporal event. Temporality is part of the universe.The question remains how, without a temporal dimension, can temporal actions be acted ?
I never claimed to be inerrant about anything... Nor would I. Nor would I ever compel someone to accept my conclusions on a subject, for any reason except the genuine value of my arguments.If you say you have no idea then how can you be inerrant in your beliefs that god did create ?
I am questioning your arguments, and you are accusing me personally of charlatanry and "vacuous notions".No Daily Blessings, my arguments are sound, feel free to question me on any of my arguments, I have the advantage of not having to conform my thoughts to a pre-decided immovable set of ideas to which I must conform all future knowledge, this means I am free to be right.
The subject at hand, I believe, is the relationship between God and time. Not the personal characteristics of those involved in the discussion. We are not here to discuss me. Or you. And that's the last I'll say on the matter.Daily blessings, let us stick to the subject at hand, your missuse of language to defend a position.
Why not?1. God isn't in time, assuming he exists.
'k2. Humans are in time.
Why?3. God is therefore irrelevant to humans, assuming he exists.
Untrue. My existence may be irrelevant to the experience of a Mongolian sheep herder, but neither one of us are non-existent. Especially if I decide to travel to Mongolia.Irrelevance is existentially equivalent to non-existence.
Yes, and thus they apply perfectly to a universe which is constrained by time.
No one is arguing that time does not exist, but rather that God is unbound by it.
Why? He doesn't have to perform actions in that way, and probably does not perceive action and change in the same sense that we do, but that hardly implies that She couldn't. Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.
I don't really understand how your statement follows from the premise. Even accepting your limited portrayal of God, which paints him as being every bit a slave to his circumstances as a human might be in the same, I don't think your conclusion is required. Why can't, for instance, God be "trapped" in a perpetual state of doing something, rather than nothing?
You just said that your terms were "concepts of time." I agree. If not everything is constrained by time, then your terms, which are concepts of time, are not the only way to talk about things happening.No, we're not talking about a universe constrained by time. We're talking about anything that does something.
Why?Which means that he cannot act.
Time is what was being created. Creating a universe is not the same thing as creating a batch of eggs, nor is it subject to the same "rules."Action is defined as an event, an event occurs in time. All events occur within a context of time. God creating something was an event, therefore it occured in time.
I don't. God is temporal. Temporality is not the sole descriptor of his nature, however, and neither time nor sequence constrain God. It is you, in demanding that God is unable to take actions, that would place her entirely outside the realm of time.Explain why you have trouble with this, and why it's unacceptable that God is temporal.
Well, the temporal distance between God's actions can be measured from our perspective. It's been, for instance, 1 974 years since Christ walked our world. But this fact has more meaning to us than it would to God.Because doing something implies time. You can't do anything without a measure between events.
Well, if I existed outside of time, I might well be "trapped" there. But I am not an omnipotent being, nor did I create time and the universe to begin with. If God can create time, he can probably also do whatever he wants with it.How is it a limited portrayal? How does it paint him as being a slave to his circumstances?
*shrug* It's not that kind of argument. Your arguments aren't backed up evidentially either- you've only made an appeal to logic, which doesn't sound at all logical to me, and is therefore useless.You're making all these assertions and you so far haven't really backed up much logically or evidentially.
You just said that your terms were "concepts of time." I agree. If not everything is constrained by time, then your terms, which are concepts of time, are not the only way to talk about things happening.
Why?
Time is what was being created. Creating a universe is not the same thing as creating a batch of eggs, nor is it subject to the same "rules."I don't. God is temporal. Temporality is not the sole descriptor of his nature, however, and neither time nor sequence constrain God. It is you, in demanding that God is unable to take actions, that would place her entirely outside the realm of time.
Well, the temporal distance between God's actions can be measured from our perspective. It's been, for instance, 1 974 years since Christ walked our world. But this fact has more meaning to us than it would to God.
Well, if I existed outside of time, I might well be "trapped" there. But I am not an omnipotent being, nor did I create time and the universe to begin with. If God can create time, he can probably also do whatever he wants with it.
*shrug* It's not that kind of argument. Your arguments aren't backed up evidentially either- you've only made an appeal to logic, which doesn't sound at all logical to me, and is therefore useless.
I think the debate is mostly pointless, if interesting.
Do you consider time to be an autonomously existent struture/dimension or not? In the next paragraph you insist that time is merely a cognitive construct, "never created, it is just the measurement between two events". This is a fine and valid opinion, but if that is the case saying that God is "in" or "out" of it is a meaningless phrase. Moreover, there's really no reason why God would be shackled and unable to act simply because he does not fit into an existing cognitive precept.Asimov said:Because actions occur within time.
I'm not complaining about the use of logic to solve problems- I can and will complain about the use of bad logic. Logic simply does not imply the nonsensical stance that you seem to be taking. At least, you've so far given me no reason to believe that it does.Logic isn't subjective, so just because you don't like the logic doesn't mean it's useless.
I agree with you, though not for the same reason. Speed is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, many times expressed as distance d moved per unit of time t.
It doesn't need a reference, but it does need to physically move through space.
(In fact, if all you need is a reference, then time does have a speed. Plenty of references occur between one moment and another.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?