God is timeless

[Rational AKD]

Science doesn't deal with truth. You can never prove something. It deals with evidence that either support a hypothesis or do not. All the evidence suggests that science does work. Me talking to you via a computer is evidence of this.

science doesn't deal with truth? well, then you'll have to enlighten me on what science tries to do with the evidence it compiles. here, i'll start you off... it helps us to find what is _______.

I do get what you are saying but I think you are mixing this with logic, much like the difference between mathematics and science. In maths you prove something, in science you gain evidence to support a hypothesis. You wouldn't try to prove pythagoras' theorem by making hundreds of triangles and measuring them, but you would if you took a scientific approach (but you wouldn't be "proving", you'd be gaining evidence to support the Pythagorian hypothesis).

I actually do get the function of science more than you give me credit. though science is still in the business of finding truth, but not by proving it; in that sense you are correct. what science does is it compiles evidence to find what is most likely to be true about... whatever the field of the science is. there is never absolute certainty in science since science is built upon unverifiable assumptions.

For example you said "time has a cause", which is an assertion. Time is a physical property, which in order to understand you must examine. How the hell can you come to a conclusion about something without examining it? You could come to any conclusion about anything, purely based on your assumptions of it.

are you really so blind as to think science of examination is the only source of knowledge? there are many other ways to draw conclusions. one of the best ways to gain knowledge outside of observation and examination is through deduction. if we can explore all the possibilities that exist, and find a way to determine which are truly impossible then we have just furthered our knowledge without any physical examination necessary. more importantly, information gathered through deduction is much more useful than information gathered though examination. as you stated, science doesn't prove anything, but deduction does. we can have certainty in what we deduce, but not what we examine.

You are doing what theists tend to do. Reduce everything to a point where anything goes and you can just state something and it is just as "truthful" as anything else. It becomes absurd.

funny, I've not once argued here that God actually does create time a certain way. I've not argued that possibilities equate to reality. I've merely answered your question, which is an inside question, on how God can exist timelessly. I find it funny that you ask a question of possibility, and yet you're dissatisfied when I answer, consistently with the topic, by giving possible answers. you instead demand an answer of certainty concerning proof or evidence that God in fact created time a certain way, which is not what you asked in the OP. maybe you should be a little more consistent with your questions.

---

The logic of realm U need not be the same as the logic in realm G...
All of my hypothesis are equally logical, considering the unknown that lies beyond our Universe.
And what you think about this realm G or essence G is just that, a hypothesis about what is unknowable and beyond our universe.
There is no way you, or anyone, can claim that one of these hypothesis is more likely, or in accordance with the laws of physics, than any other hypothesis.
There is no way for you to know if there's a realm or an essence, or a fluffy bunny beyond the Universe.
That's why we refer to all this as mental masturbation.

in modal logic, there are terms to classify degrees of possibility. necessary, possible, contingent, and impossible. the term most relevant here is impossible. impossible is defined as something that "must be false in all possible worlds." so when you say "The logic of realm U need not be the same as the logic in realm G" this is simply false. what is impossible in a modal sense in realm U is impossible in every realm, because that's what it means to be impossible. if it was possible in realm G, then it must also be possible in realm U. you can't simply state "the law of non-contradiction is not necessary in realm G." if it is necessary in realm U, it is necessary in all realms. so no, you can't shrug off contradictions in your hypothesis by claiming logic doesn't apply there.

Now, back to hypothesis 4). Time, as a dimension, is an axis. Why is the removal of this axis illogical?

as you said

It makes no sense to speak of "before realm G gained the time dimension", nor an "after realm G lost the time dimension"

so this means God can't destroy the time component in realm G and still exist in realm G since that would entail an "after realm G lost the time dimension." if time was destroyed, it would have to be the last event and yet can't be unless there's nothing left in that realm or universe.

My mind cannot comprehend timelessness. Our words depend way too much on the existence of time... within that limitation, I find no reason why an entity which creates time (and is in a timeless state) cannot destroy it (and remain in that timeless state).

your personal incredulity is not good for argument. whether you understand being in a state of timelessness is irrelevant, what can be said for certain is a state of timelessness can't exhibit behaviors that are unique to time, such as sequence of events. thus you can't have an "after time was destroyed."