God isn't in "time"

[DailyBlessings]

Yes, this is the commonly understood explanation of speed, the rate of motion.

Thank you. Yours was a bit weird.

I am not sure I am following you here ?

Are you saying that time 'needs' to 'physically move through space' ?

No, an object does. Speed does not apply to time in a literal sense, as I conceded in this same post (which I suspect you skimmed.)

Are you seriously suggesting time's reference frame is itself ?

No, but time does elapse between two reference frames. At any rate, I was merely pointing out a severe logical inconsistency with your two statements.

You can judge the speed of time by measuring time (the temporal space between one moment and another) ?

No, though you could draw some relativistic conclusions by performing such a calculation from different locations.

Do you know that a meter is measured by the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second - or historically - 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris.

Yes, in fact.

It is a pity you were not around when all those scientists were wasting their time deciding on the reference frame for a meter - you could have simply told them that "plenty of references already occur between one centimeter and the next" - or maybe just divide 10 meters in to 10 and that will give you a meter.

What?

Either your understanding of the concept of time is overly simple and you genuinely do not understand that time has no speed, no reference frame, no 'outside' and so on - or you do understand what we are taking about but choose equivocation because of the need your supernatural beliefs places on these conceits to shore up its magical tales.

Or you aren't actually attempting to engage in a discussion. I've said three times that I don't agree with the "outside of time" phrase for instance, and you continue to bring it up. And please lay off the random insults, it's hardly conducive to conversation. If you want to ramble about god being a "magical tale" or whatever, start a thread in GA.

- God is either bound by time or he is not. If he is then he is not god. If he is not, then he is not “in” time.

While I am getting increasingly tired of the "in" and "out" of time metaphors, can you give me any particular reason why God cannot be both in and out? I exist in the first and second dimensions, and yet are not bound by them- I can move in three. At any rate, God is omnipresent, at least so states centuries of belief.

- Because he is out of time and we are in it. Men are from Mars, but god is from, not Venus, but planet X in another dimension. Q.E.D.

God is from both Mars, Venus, and Planet X etc. He can, if we wishes, be on earth, but he can be on Mars too. Or planet X. And I don't think spatial metaphors are helping us anyway. Time is a property, or, if you like, a mental construct. But it most certainly is not a place.

Until you and the sheep herder on the other side of the world have some sort of actual contact, your existence and his existence are a complete irrelevancy to each other, just as if one or both of you do not exist.

But your argument is that I cannot possibly have contact with the sheep herder. And this is ridiculous. Especially if I were God, which thank God I am not.

 

[Tynan]

Tyana: Yes, this is the commonly understood explanation of speed, the rate of motion.

Thank you. Yours was a bit weird.

DailyBlessings, you must concentrate !

I have given no description of 'speed' anywhere in my posts, I have simply agreed with your description.

Which part was weird ?

My conversation is about 'time', it is you who has attributed the quality of 'speed' to time.

Speed does not apply to time in a literal sense, as I conceded in this same post (which I suspect you skimmed.)

I did read all what you wrote, I might have not taken that point in, so if I have misunderstood you I apologize.

Tynan: Are you seriously suggesting time's reference frame is itself ?

No, but time does elapse between two reference frames.

And what might those reference frames be ?

Yards? Fathoms? pounds, kilos?

Would they just happen to be time ?

Which would mean you are using time as its own reference.

So we know that time runs at one minute per minute because if we measure it with a stop watch it takes one minute for a minute to elapse.

Do you see the problem with this ?

No, though you could draw some relativistic conclusions by performing such a calculation from different locations.

Then could you tell me what these conclusions might be ?

I am not asking for an in-depth scientific explanation, could you tell me what you understand might be concluded about time by performing calculations in different locations ?

Tynan: It is a pity you were not around when all those scientists were wasting their time deciding on the reference frame for a meter - you could have simply told them that "plenty of references already occur between one centimeter and the next" - or maybe just divide 10 meters in to 10 and that will give you a meter.

What?

The point I was making, somewhat sarcastically, is that you seem to think that time can be referenced by time, that is does not require an external measure, you can judge the 'speed' of time by measuring a minute on a clock.

This is as useful as measuring a meter with the centimeters marked on itself - or a better analogy would be to measure an arbitary value by its own divisions without recourse to external measure.

" DailyBlessings: In fact, if all you need is a reference, then time does have a speed. Plenty of references occur between one moment and another"

The temporal space between moments is time, the thing we seek a reference for is time, we cannot use time as reference frame for itself.

Or you aren't actually attempting to engage in a discussion. I've said three times that I don't agree with the "outside of time" phrase for instance, and you continue to bring it up. And please lay off the random insults, it's hardly conducive to conversation. If you want to ramble about god being a "magical tale" or whatever, start a thread in GA.

Perhaps I can come over as hostile and like you say this is not conducive to conversation.

So I will bring to clarity to the proceedings by stating the basics of my argument.

Emre1974tr stated that "God isn't in "time" (Verbatim).

You responded 'I... think I agree with you.'

Then the usual round of what god can and cannot do within and 'outside' of time and all the related nonsensical language.

My point is that firstly, these conceits of 'outside of time' and time having a speed or a direction and god being able to exist 'outside' of time and when he wishes 'come into time' to interact with the temporal space, then leave time to his non physical location 'outside of time' (and so on and so on) are nothing more than fanciful flights of language and have no actual meaning.

My second point is that these conceits are predicated on the need to support the magical tales of devils and gods, ghosts and hell, heaven and miracles, there is literally no support for a legitimate engagement in magic or supernatural events, so as the conversation is prosecuted successfully and every available rational tool is shown to be ineffective in supporting the supernatural, those who need is to see the supernatural as real are forced into increasingly abstract language, divorced from any actual meaning.

'Outside of time' is literally meaningless, I would go as far as saying that Emre1974tr does not even know what his own statement means and when asked will supply nothing more than a reassignment of the term he has employed - describing gods existence 'outside of time' as something to the effect of 'not effected by time' or even 'above and beyond time' - it is poetry, not knowledge.

 

[Emre1974tr]

İ said you, if you come to speak Turkish, i will giving details of this

And you are speaking about God like "in space too"(or in dimensions). No this is wrong too.

God is not in time and God is not in space-Universe(or universes)

You are thinking with Biblical datas. But Quran's God is very different.

Regards.

 

[Tynan]

God is not in time and God is not in space-Universe.

Yes.

 

[DailyBlessings]

DailyBlessings, you must concentrate !

I have given no description of 'speed' anywhere in my posts, I have simply agreed with your description.

Which part was weird ?

You said, and I quote, "for something to have the attribute of speed it would need a reference." I thought it was a weird definition of speed, and said so.

I did read all what you wrote, I might have not taken that point in, so if I have misunderstood you I apologize.

Apology accepted!

And what might those reference frames be ?

Yards? Fathoms? pounds, kilos?

Would they just happen to be time ?

Which would mean you are using time as its own reference.

There is, as I said, no absolute measure of time, nor could you contrive one. Time does, however, "flow" at different rates in different locations due to the curvature of space-time.

So we know that time runs at one minute per minute because if we measure it with a stop watch it takes one minute for a minute to elapse.

Do you see the problem with this ?

Yes. You are trying to describe something with itself.

Consider this, however. I'm not trying to say that time in fact goes at x mph, merely pointing out a problem with your objection. Suppose you were in a falling elevator (not glass). How fast are you falling? Can you tell, by any method available to you while inside? Yet this does not mean that the elevator is not moving, however much it may feel like it, in that sublimely weightless hiatus- merely that you cannot possibly determine your speed while every reference point available to you is moving at the same rate.

Nevertheless, time does not "move" three dimensionally, so speed is not a good way to describe it, though it is done in some cases, simply for lack of a better word. English vocabulary is not well suited for discussing non-spatial properties, for the most part.

Then could you tell me what these conclusions might be?

I am not asking for an in-depth scientific explanation, could you tell me what you understand might be concluded about time by performing calculations in different locations ?

No dude, I'm pretty sure I cannot explain general relativity to you without an in depth scientific explanation. and really, truly, it is not my field. You'll have to research, or take my word for it, that such experiments have been done, that time does not have the same properties from place to place, and that result was precented by mathematics.

The point I was making, somewhat sarcastically, is that you seem to think that time can be referenced by time, that is does not require an external measure, you can judge the 'speed' of time by measuring a minute on a clock. This is as useful as measuring a meter with the centimeters marked on itself - or a better analogy would be to measure an arbitary value by its own divisions without recourse to external measure.

Oh. Well, you don't have to measure a meter by a meter, to know that one meter is half as long a distance as two. This is more in the realm of things we can determine where time is concerned.

Anyways, meters are pretty arbitrary measurements, they only work because everyone agrees on the length. If one were to convince everyone that time at a given location is "normal" you could do the same kind of thing with time. For all I know, someone already has. As I said, physics isn't really my field.

Perhaps I can come over as hostile and like you say this is not conducive to conversation.

So I will bring to clarity to the proceedings by stating the basics of my argument.

Emre1974tr stated that "God isn't in "time" (Verbatim).

You responded 'I... think I agree with you.'

English is clearly not Emre1974's first language. I was indicating agreement with the concept he was espousing, that of an omnipresent God not constrained by time, not his wording per say. Indeed, I'm still not entirely clear what "time spots" were meant to describe. However, I think I have the gist of what he was saying, and agree with it.

My second point is that these conceits are predicated on the need to support the magical tales of devils and gods, ghosts and hell, heaven and miracles, there is literally no support for a legitimate engagement in magic or supernatural events, so as the conversation is prosecuted successfully and every available rational tool is shown to be ineffective in supporting the supernatural, those who need is to see the supernatural as real are forced into increasingly abstract language, divorced from any actual meaning.

Inadequate linguistics hardly constitute conceits. And the only one who has brought any angels and ghosts into the discussion is you. I maintain that your biases are severely tainting your judgement in this regard.

Describing gods existence 'outside of time' as something to the effect of 'not effected by time' or even 'above and beyond time' - it is poetry, not knowledge.

Why? You keep accusing Christians of using obfuscating language, but then you make unpredicated and ridiculous statements like "views contrary to mine are not knowledge." And no, I don't want to get into another semantic discussion of what "knowledge" is.

 

[JGL53]

DailyBlessings -

Zen Buddhists have a saying: "Infinity = Zero." This means that if something is everything, then it is also nothing, and forever beyond dualistic concepts - the only way humans can "think".

I think your god is like that - here, there, everywhere and nowhere - and completely undetectable in any way, shape, form or fashion - only to be "believed in" by "faith" - which also totals to Zero. - As I said before, irrelevant. Unless you can actually demonstrate a relevancy, and you would do that how......?

 

[DailyBlessings]

DailyBlessings -

Zen Buddhists have a saying: "Infinity = Zero." This means that if something is everything, then it is also nothing, and forever beyond dualistic concepts - the only way humans can "think".

I think your god is like that - here, there, everywhere and nowhere - and completely undetectable in any way, shape, form or fashion - only to be "believed in" by "faith" - which also totals to Zero. - As I said before, irrelevant. Unless you can actually demonstrate a relevancy, and you would do that how......?

Do your Zen Buddhists believe that zero is meaningless? I think not.

 

[Tynan]

Why? You keep accusing Christians of using obfuscating language, but then you make unpredicated and ridiculous statements like "views contrary to mine are not knowledge." And no, I don't want to get into another semantic discussion of what "knowledge" is.

DailyBlessings, I am simply saying 'outside of time' is a meaningless phrase, I have not said "views contrary to mine are not knowledge." - to misquote me is dishonest.

Let us simpy agree to disagree, I do not share your need to co-opt 'time' to underwrite supernatural beliefs.

I shall let you have the last word.

 

[EverlastingMan]

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;

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."

It has none.

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.

 

[JGL53]

Do your Zen Buddhists believe that zero is meaningless? I think not.

In some situations - yes - in other situations - no.

Humans create meaning. Or, some believe they find intrinsic meaning in reality, the way you find a interesting rock on a river back.

Conjuring up a "personal god" - a disembodied, all-knowing, all-powerful mind or intelligent force that acts with intention - that gives one a meaning, based in imagination and wish. And I am supposed to be impressed by this slight-of-hand abstraction, uh, why.....?

 

[Tynan]

...some ranting....

Yes, you are right about everything, well done.

 

[DailyBlessings]

DailyBlessings, I am simply saying 'outside of time' is a meaningless phrase, I have not said "views contrary to mine are not knowledge." - to misquote me is dishonest.

Let us simpy agree to disagree, I do not share your need to co-opt 'time' to underwrite supernatural beliefs.

I shall let you have the last word.

Thanks mate. I'll use it to apologize for the above cited "translation". It was disingenuous, made in a spirit of frustration, and I am sorry.

 

[DailyBlessings]

In some situations - yes - in other situations - no.

Humans create meaning. Or, some believe they find intrinsic meaning in reality, the way you find a interesting rock on a river back.

I would agree with this statement, but it applies equally well to all means of human inquiry. The "objective" universe, such as it may be, is beyond our ability to understand without filters and paradigms, and this is the role of science, philosophy, religion, dharma, other human constructs. The thing is, that the lens you are using to understand the nature of our world does not disqualify the knowledge you obtain through it necessarily, even if the lens is severely flawed. If you do believe that an objective universe does, on some level, exist, then the way we determine the truth of a claim is on its merits, not the methods that were used to obtain it. Communication and discussion (and sometimes experience) are the tools we use to winnow out the truth, but this process is never finished.

Conjuring up a "personal god" - a disembodied, all-knowing, all-powerful mind or intelligent force that acts with intention - that gives one a meaning, based in imagination and wish.

You have little reason to assume the latter two conditions. For one thing, it assumes an overly homogeneous view of human religion, a very broad and varied topic. Suggesting that all human belief can be chalked up to hopeful thinking is really a bit naive, for not all beliefs that fall under the umbrella of religion satisfy any such relief against the sometime unfriendliness of the universe.

And yet, it seems very clear to many people, indeed most people, that we do not exist without purpose, nor our universe. You wish to deny this, and that is perfectly okay, but do not pretend that the logic or common sense accessible to all people is on your side. Your belief is just that, a belief. There is nothing wrong with this. Many beliefs are true.

And I am supposed to be impressed by this slight-of-hand abstraction, uh, why.....?

If you aren't, than you aren't.

 

[JGL53]

DailyBlessings quote: "And yet, it seems very clear to many people, indeed most people, that we do not exist without purpose, nor our universe. You wish to deny this, and that is perfectly okay, but do not pretend that the logic or common sense accessible to all people is on your side. Your belief is just that, a belief. There is nothing wrong with this. Many beliefs are true."


Most people can believe the earth is flat and that proves nothing.

As in all cases of competing concepts, there must be a burden of proof somewhere. People - most people you say - believe there is a purpose to life. And their proof of this hidden truth is....?

IOW, I can't see how I have some burden to prove that the existence of the phenomenal universe has NO hidden purpose.

Thus, it is for you to teach and for me to learn. So, what is this grand purpose of experienced existence that I and the other misguided folks (atheists) have just inexplicably overlooked?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Most people can believe the earth is flat and that proves nothing.

This is quite true. But I would point out that while it does not prove that the earth is flat, neither does it prove that the earth is not flat.

As in all cases of competing concepts, there must be a burden of proof somewhere. People - most people you say - believe there is a purpose to life. And their proof of this hidden truth is....?

No, there is never proof. Proofs are for mathematicians and fools. You have no proof tha the earth is round. You have an idea, and that idea is probably sound because it is well supported, but you cannot prove it.

IOW, I can't see how I have some burden to prove that the existence of the phenomenal universe has NO hidden purpose.

You don't, unless you want someone else to accept your opinion as fact.

Thus, it is for you to teach and for me to learn. So, what is this grand purpose of experienced existence that I and the other misguided folks (atheists) have just inexplicably overlooked?

There's the question isn't it? Are you suggesting that I produce, in a pat little message board response, the answer to the great question of life the universe and everything?

Fine. It's 42.

 

[JGL53]

This is quite true. But I would point out that while it does not prove that the earth is flat, neither does it prove that the earth is not flat.

No, there is never proof. Proofs are for mathematicians and fools. You have no proof tha the earth is round. You have an idea, and that idea is probably sound because it is well supported, but you cannot prove it.

You don't, unless you want someone else to accept your opinion as fact.

There's the question isn't it? Are you suggesting that I produce, in a pat little message board response, the answer to the great question of life the universe and everything?

Fine. It's 42.

Then we agree - the answer "42" makes just as much sense, maybe even more, than some imaginary invisible all-powerful person as regards the purpose and meaning of the phenomenal universe.

So you agree it's a nonsensical question and concern?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Then we agree - the answer "42" makes just as much sense, maybe even more, than some imaginary invisible all-powerful person as regards the purpose and meaning of the phenomenal universe.

No. 42 is a valid answer, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

So you agree it's a nonsensical question and concern?

Is human knowledge useless because it is incomplete? Biologists do not fully understand the workings of, say, a functioning ecosystem. In all likelihood, they never will, at least not in the immediate future. Is this just cause to cease looking for the answer? Especially since the knowledge they do have is of immediate value to the human condition.

 

[JGL53]

No. 42 is a valid answer, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Is human knowledge useless because it is incomplete? Biologists do not fully understand the workings of, say, a functioning ecosystem. In all likelihood, they never will, at least not in the immediate future. Is this just cause to cease looking for the answer? Especially since the knowledge they do have is of immediate value to the human condition.

I didn't say it was correct - I said it made no more or less sense than an invisible person behind the curtain, a.k.a. god. speaking all into existence ex nilio.

Looking for the answer? Uh, what is the question?

 

[EverlastingMan]

Yes, you are right about everything, well done.

Sarcasm? (Curse the internet) If not, thank you. Nice to see that we aren't all just tied to ideologies and will scream until we can't scream any longer. If that was sarcasm . . . go to the place where RefusalofPennace's nickname namesake lives. And be sure to post a response before you go.