Huggy74 Wrote:Mister Agenda Wrote:Re-read my post. I was very clear about which sense of the word is a contradiction and which was not. By using the word as a synonym for 'eternal', you're having a completely different conversation from the rest of us. We're talking about William Lane Craig's interpretations and expansion on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In that argument, 'timeless' is used in the sense of 'there being no time'. If there's no contradiction, then you're off topic.
We wouldn't need to be arguing semantics if you were using the term consistently with what's actually being discussed.
I'm sorry webster jr. but it's not up to YOU to define the word timeless how ever you see fit, I gave you the dictionary definition.
Time does not exist for an eternal being, because is has no beginning or end, so at what point are you going to measure time? As I have constantly been trying to explain to you guys, time is relative, it can only be measured in relation to something else, hence why we measure it by the rotation / revolution of the earth in relation to the sun, but that measurement is only unique to the earth.
Since there is no time for an eternal being, trying to make a distinction between "eternal" and "there being no time" IS ARGUING SEMANTICS.
No time, no eternity.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
