I'm just going to jump on in here.
The idea of a god outside of time rests on the idea of time being a dimension, which I think is true. There are very few people that contend that our dimensions are the only ones in existence: religious people say that God is in (an)other dimension(s); and just about all atheistic theories on the origins of the world find it necessary to invoke other dimensions.
The statement "outside of time", does not necessarily mean there is no time. What it does mean really is that there is no time as we define and understand it. And to go from the statement "outside of time" to "no time", is really quite ridiculous:Jack(in Hawaii): So, I'm out of the ocean. Lovely stuff.
Jill(in Paris...Texas): Really, so there's no water in where you are then?
Jack: Um, no. I'm outside of the ocean.
Jill: Right, right. But it's not really water is it. I mean it's not like a river or a pond, now is it? So you know, I always kinda thought there was water in Hawaii and all. I've seen pictures, but I guess it's just false advertising. Shameless really.
Jack: Umm. No. I'm outside of the ocean. There is water.
Jill: Right, but there is no water.
Jack: No you &*&%^%$) dumb @$$!
Of course, that's not a very good example, but I trust you get the point.
Oh, and since some of you seem to want to quit . . . there's fresh blood to-well, I don't know destroy sounds kinda weird after "fesh blood".
And here is where the debate seemed to go rotten;
Tynan (I think) said:
Time has no speed, for something to have the attribute of speed it would need a reference.
Eh, no. For us to be able to really do anything sensible with the knowledge that it has speed requires some sort of reference, but not the fact that it actually nas speed. Before we invented MPH or Km/H things had speed; we just couldn't do anything practical besides say "Yup. I reckon that there wheel is moving at us at about . . . really fast."
Well, I don't know. What do we call all these little minute and second and hour thingees on my watch then? Non-referential-references? The fact is that
all references are bogus. They are entirely arbitrary. They exist only in our--
knock!, knock!--minds. Is it really moving at 20 MPH. Well, I don'o. Maybe, as I understand it, yes. But whose to say somewhere in this infinite universe some other chaps aren't saying it's moving 2 MPH?
Would you know if this mysterious property of time you call 'speed', slowed down or sped up ?
No not really. Because we're in it, see. It's like riding in a plane with no windows through complete darkness. Devil if we know how fast it's going. Presumably it's still flying because my gut isn't in my throat, but I don't really know. We can tell how fast it is going by using sensors that are on the
outside of the plane though. But since we're in it and can't--in this life anyway--get out of it, we're screwed. God apparently forgot to make a speedometer for our plane.
Or if we suddenly rushed through time at twice the 'speed' we are 'travelling through time' now would you notice - how could you tell ?
See above rather hairbrained thought.
Maybe you can tell me time's current 'speed' ? - is it one minute per minute perhaps ?
If you're right, we get the point. If you're not you're only making yourself look stupid.
And the direction ? Is that 'forward" ? Would you know if it started to travel backwards tomorrow ?
Well, yes I would know. Because then I'd see myself typing this .sith ekil ,sdrawkcab (backwards, like this). Aside from that no. Just like we couldn't tell if the plane was going backwards until it crashed.
This 'one direction / one speed' of time is a profoundly parochial understanding.
Well, whatever understanding you have probably just complicates things.
'Linear' suggests a constant, a constant we have no bench mark to validate it consistency against, there is nothing to show time is linear.
And amazingly there is nothing to show it
isn't.
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.
Right, but I see where you're going, so wrong!
So then the universe is eternal and if it is eternal then it was not created.
Not necessarily. I mean, that could be the case, but it's not the only option.
Merriam-Webster defines
eternal as:
1 a : having infinite duration
: [SIZE=-1]EVERLASTING[/SIZE] <
eternal damnation>
b : of or relating to
eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit
eternal life? -- Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission
: [SIZE=-1]PERPETUAL[/SIZE] <an
eternal flame>
b : seemingly endless <
eternal delays>
3 archaic : [SIZE=-1]INFERNAL[/SIZE] <some
eternal villain...devised this slander -- Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times
: [SIZE=-1]TIMELESS[/SIZE] <
eternal verities>
So, it may go on forever, but that doesn't mean it did not start at one.
Tynan: There was no temporal nature to existence, no future, no past, how did he execute the process of design ?
There was no past, present, or future in our time. If God is in another dimension then there very easily could have been. God may be out of the pool (time), and thus he can see all. But that doesn't mean His own world is dimensionless.
The question remains how, without a temporal dimension, can temporal actions be acted ?
I rather hope it doesn't remain.
If you say you have no idea then how can you be inerrant in your beliefs that god did create ?
If you look at most atheistic theories of the origins of the earth, most of them end in the phrase "I don't know".
Tynan: It is sheer nonsensical language.
My forte.
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.
Eh, no. We all have to conform really. Some to a different exstent than others, naturally. But we all do. And just because DB conforms to a preset idea does not mean they are not free to be right, the question is whether or not they are.
Tynan: 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.
I don't suppose you've read up much on any ideas of how the universe began have you? Let me tell you, they are all utter nonsensical. None of them make the slightest ounce of sense, and all of them are terrifying, at least to me.
I said 'support' not 'believe' - I am saying you need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits to support your beliefs.
You know, calling ideas nonsensical at every step is not exactly constructive. But, haha, "
Deny! Deny! Deny!"
I do not believe you think god is a real object because of language, that is an entirely different conversation, I just think that to defend your beliefs and all their absurd baggage you are compelled to fall back onto magical language that on even the most cursory inspection can be shown to be meaningless.
Not that your own has shown to be much more. You have a nice veneer though. Almost fooled me. But really, lets stop insulting each other here. It does no good, trust me. Every time I'm insulted I refuse to back down--which was really a problem when I was a touchy fellow--even when I know and everyother fool knows I am 100% wrong. I don't give a hoot. I've been insulted. Hopefully DB is more rational than I am, but trust me it does no good.
For example if I had to defend the 16,000,000 'magic blue time horses' that live in France, people may ask why they have not been sighted, I may have to employ the idea that they are invisible, when asked why nobody has knocked in to one as there are so many, I then might have to employ the idea that when you almost touch them they go back in time to 5 minutes prior when you did not try and touch them.
And if I had to tell how the universe started without a god I would say "Energy!". If asked where the energy was I would have to say it disappeared after the big bang. If asked where the energy came from if there was nothing, I would have to say it came from a parallel universe. Same deal, more rational sounding language. It's all ridiculous and until everyone accepts that about origins theories--and I'm talking about the beggining of the beggining not things like the big bang--we'll all go batty and start lopping off each others heads.
"It was through little energy waves!" (swings sword)
"Well then where did they come from" (cuts off head of first guy)
"He can't exactly answer you can he, you killed him!" (lops off head of second guy)
Ect. (ect.)
Horses going back in time is no less meaningless than a diety existing outside of time, in fact with the horses at least we know horses exist.
But not purple horses in france. Speaking of which, I have a new god! You're brilliant. I'll send you a complimentry copy of my new book of scripture
On the Great Purple (Horses) . . . (In France too!!) as soon as I finish it.
I have made no attempt to disprove the existence of God.
Well, actually this is a pretty fundamental idea of God (notice not god).
Why not check each of my 678 posts here on CF and see if I have ever sought to disprove god in any manner whatsoever - the cognition which informs you that I "seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God" is mistaken, the same cognition that tells you with such inerrancy of gods and demons, inside and 'outside of time' and other such fanciful flights of the imagination.
Erm, no. I'll take your word for it.
The subject here is the nonsense of ideas such as 'outside of time', I am not here to disprove invisible, incorporeal, undetectable, silent objects that don't exist in time !
Namely, God.
It is not unusual at all, it is commonplace, I have made no claim that your defense of your supernatural beliefs is 'unusual'.
Just ridiculous, absurd, nonsensical, and the result of branwashing. Nevermind. Haha, you didn't actually say that last part, you just hinted at it. Sorry, I couldn't resist a little jab. But really, ltes all be nice. I promise to stop insulting if everyone else does; if not, though, don't expect me not to join in. Holy as thou, not Holier than thou, that's my philosphy. Good thing I have fairly good friends eh?
I have made the claim that you defend it with nonsensical and abstract language devoid of any real meaning, I also make the further claim that the nature of these religious thought patterns forces you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops in order to hold together a rational conversation on the subject.
Note that any language used to describe time is absract and ultimately abritrary.
The magic in the bible is a stricture to rational conversation and to even hold your own you must rely on entirely vacuous notions.
No not really. And mate, if anyone was ever trying to disprove God you are. You haven't said "God is bogus"! But you have said He is irrational, which means of course that God
is bogus.
The trickery is not in the engagement in discourse but the tools employed.
Namely 'outside of time'.
Pshaw. Fiddlesticks.
And yet you can say with certainty that god exists 'outside of time' this god can create time, he can action temporal acts without a temporal reference frame, and that we proceed through time in one direction and at one speed, you can say all this, you can guarantee its inerrancy and then add that you don't truly understand time ?
Right. No one "understands" time; we don't have a single solid thing we can base it on. God actually provides a rather convient way of doing so, time is based in God.
But apart from a God, our understanding will always be purely arbitrary. You may say time is moving foreward, but I could retort with just as much logical force that it is moving leftwards.