God is timeless

[Rational AKD]

I may have read something slightly different, but to be honest as soon as people talk about maybe's and untestable things then I switch off as I see it as pointless. Pontificating on something you can't physically demonstrate actually exists is a bit silly really.

there are many things you can't physically demonstrate that you accept. that the speed of light is constant, rather than fluctuating with an average speed of what we clock it. that what we observe is in fact what is true of reality. science has many improvable assumptions, many of which are fundamental to it. I think it's contrived of you to suggest physical demonstration is the only kind of evidence there is.

Throughout the history of science when people have assumed things to be correct, many times they have been shown to be completely wrong. There could well be a C theory* of time that explains observations better than these two.

if that's how you think then how can you accept anything is true knowing full well science can prove it wrong in the future?

*These should all technically be hypotheses, otherwise you end up with "evolution is only a theory" nutters coming after you.

disagree with the semantics all you want it makes no difference. and it's not like the theories of relativity further our understanding of time, right?

You do get points for at least trying to be rational, compared with some of your compatriots. Total respect to you if you can answer the question "How can I test whether something is timeless"

you can't, any more than you can observe something beyond your consciences. it's logically impossible.

[FreeTony]

Ok, you really need a better understanding of science and the difference between an observation, hypothesis and theory. It would take me a while to correct everything you've said, but the most important thing is this:

If you can't test whether something has a property, you can't say it has that property.

[pocaracas]

I can't fathom why it is logically impossible to destroy a space-time container and not expect time (the one on that container) to go on flowing...

ouch... too many double and triple-negatives in there... let me try to rephrase that...

Why should we expect to observe the flow of time once the space-time container is destroyed? Why is it logical that time goes on flowing once it is destroyed?

what you said first and what you rephrased aren't the same. you first asked why should time cease if space-time is destroyed, then rephrased to why does time continue once it's destroyed. maybe you should clarify what you say before you say it so I can properly address it.

One should be the negative of the other.
You (via WLC) implied that it is logical to think that time goes on, even in a situation where space-time doesn't exist. I simply stated the negative of that, asking why is that illogical.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous... It just doesn't make sense.
The act of creation would have to be done in the absence of space and time. So the creation cannot be before anything else... nor after... these qualities don't make sense.

I think you're a little confused here. the creation of time could be said to be before all events in time, it just could not be said the creation of time happened before time was created. later events can still occur after the first event, but no events could occur prior.

I wouldn't presume to know how time is created, but my best guess would put that creation outside of time.
There is no "before all events in time"... you wording is still a bit sloppy...

WUT?!

let my try and break it down in steps.
P1: a chandelier hung by the ceiling is that which the ceiling caused the chandelier to be hung.
P2: the ceiling could not have supported the chandelier before the chandelier was hung, but must have supported it at the exact moment it was hung.
C1: simultaneous causations are possible.
P3: time has a cause.
C2: the cause of time must have a simultaneous causational relationship with time.

this shows how it is possible for God to create time without the need for it in the first place.

I... I don't remember ever having mentioned the requirement for time to exist in order for the god entity to create time...
And it seems you're wanting to entertain the idea that time is created in tandem with time itself.

You're careless in your language and it shows... "creating time before time"... what does that 'before' means?!

you do realize when I said "creating time before time" it was presented as a logical absurdity, not as a possible explanation right?

I must have missed that detail... sorry.
Sarcasm doesn't translate very well into writing...

[LostLocke]

That has absolutely nothing to with the question I asked.

Would you like to try again?

What you are speaking of is either such minute amount it makes no difference in a life time.

And that's part of my question.
Some differences are so small it won't matter much. Why did god make it that way? If he directly created time just for us, why add those tiny things to it?

The rest are theories that are not proven.

Not the part about time changing based on your proximity to gravitational sources.
That physically occurs. We can see it today. Why would he make it do that?
If you don't know what I'm referring to, you might want to do a bit of research before claiming that time is made just for us.

[Rational AKD]

Ok, you really need a better understanding of science and the difference between an observation, hypothesis and theory. It would take me a while to correct everything you've said, but the most important thing is this:

If you can't test whether something has a property, you can't say it has that property.

tested in what manor. if you mean tested by experiment, then you will have to show why that is true... and that's something that can't be proven by experiment. the position you're presenting is not a scientific one, but a philosophical position called positivism, and it's self refuting since the statement "it must be tested by experiment to be shown true" can't by tested by experiment and thus can't itself be shown to be true.

One should be the negative of the other.
You (via WLC) implied that it is logical to think that time goes on, even in a situation where space-time doesn't exist. I simply stated the negative of that, asking why is that illogical.

maybe you should watch the second vid 2:49-3:40 again. WLC is claiming that if space-time was created it can't be annihilated since it would always make since to say "the universe did exist." so he's not saying that time goes on without space-time, he's saying he can't stop space time since it has been set into motion.

I wouldn't presume to know how time is created, but my best guess would put that creation outside of time.

I don't think that would be necessary. the creation of time could occur in time if it was simultaneous to time. it could simply be said "the creation of time was an event in time occurring at the very moment time emerged into existence."

I... I don't remember ever having mentioned the requirement for time to exist in order for the god entity to create time...

you said that the creation of time would have to be an event outside time, but i'm saying since no time is necessary between cause and effect, the creation of time could be an event within time at the exact moment of time emergence.

[pocaracas]

One should be the negative of the other.
You (via WLC) implied that it is logical to think that time goes on, even in a situation where space-time doesn't exist. I simply stated the negative of that, asking why is that illogical.

maybe you should watch the second vid 2:49-3:40 again. WLC is claiming that if space-time was created it can't be annihilated since it would always make since to say "the universe did exist." so he's not saying that time goes on without space-time, he's saying he can't stop space time since it has been set into motion.

And to which I replied: Puny god!
If a god destroys space-time, then time goes along into oblivion.
If it can't destroy time, then we've found a limitation to this god.
Need better god.

I wouldn't presume to know how time is created, but my best guess would put that creation outside of time.

I don't think that would be necessary. the creation of time could occur in time if it was simultaneous to time. it could simply be said "the creation of time was an event in time occurring at the very moment time emerged into existence."

I... I don't remember ever having mentioned the requirement for time to exist in order for the god entity to create time...

you said that the creation of time would have to be an event outside time, but i'm saying since no time is necessary between cause and effect, the creation of time could be an event within time at the exact moment of time emergence.

OK, I understand your case, but I'm saying, that may not be the only possibility... we can't know how time is created.... we can't say if it is indeed simultaneous with our universe's time, or something else.


Allow me to masturbate a bit...
Let's say there's this realm of the infinite imagination of god, where god resides (or which is itself god).... I'll call that realm G.
Realm G, for all I know, can have no time, can have time just like ours, can have multi-dimensional time, can have multi-dimensional curved time, or can have backwards time, whatever....
At some point of realm G, god creates the Universe, let's call it realm U.

1) If realm U's space-time is a subset of the dimensionality in realm G, then before and after the universe are terms which make some sense. This is not what WLC is meaning.
2) If realm U's space-time is apart from realm G, then the temporality in realm G is independent from the temporality of realm U. Hence it also makes sense to speak of before and after realm U, however, not in accordance to our realm U understanding of time... It's related only to realm G's concept of time, whatever that may be.
3) If realm U's space-time is apart from realm G and realm G has no time dimension, then it makes no sense to speak of before and after realm U's existence, in realm G's concepts, given that realm G does not have a concept of time.
4) If realm G has no time dimension and realm U is created with time and appended to realm G, then realm G will have gained the time dimension. It makes no sense to speak of "before realm G gained the time dimension", nor an "after realm G lost the time dimension" and god would be puny if it couldn't undo the time dimension in realm G as easily as it was created... One can say realm U was created at time t = 0 and destroyed at time t = t_f, but this time would only refer to the time axis of realm U.

Feel free to add more cases!

[FreeTony]

tested in what manor. if you mean tested by experiment, then you will have to show why that is true... and that's something that can't be proven by experiment. the position you're presenting is not a scientific one, but a philosophical position called positivism, and it's self refuting since the statement "it must be tested by experiment to be shown true" can't by tested by experiment and thus can't itself be shown to be true.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Rational AKD]

And to which I replied: Puny god!
If a god destroys space-time, then time goes along into oblivion.
If it can't destroy time, then we've found a limitation to this god.
Need better god.

i'll tell you what... you come up with a method to which that is possible, and i'll grant you your point. if it is impossible, then you have no more reason to call God "puny" for that than you do for the fact he can't create a square circle, a married bachelor. your objection is as worthless as someone who asks "why can't God Disney a purple?" when you have a phrase with an internal contradiction, it becomes a nonsensical or meaningless phrase. to square a circle isn't actually something you can do, but is a combination of words that collectively negate all meaning from them.

1) If realm U's space-time is a subset of the dimensionality in realm G, then before and after the universe are terms which make some sense. This is not what WLC is meaning.
2) If realm U's space-time is apart from realm G, then the temporality in realm G is independent from the temporality of realm U. Hence it also makes sense to speak of before and after realm U, however, not in accordance to our realm U understanding of time... It's related only to realm G's concept of time, whatever that may be.
3) If realm U's space-time is apart from realm G and realm G has no time dimension, then it makes no sense to speak of before and after realm U's existence, in realm G's concepts, given that realm G does not have a concept of time.
4) If realm G has no time dimension and realm U is created with time and appended to realm G, then realm G will have gained the time dimension. It makes no sense to speak of "before realm G gained the time dimension", nor an "after realm G lost the time dimension" and god would be puny if it couldn't undo the time dimension in realm G as easily as it was created... One can say realm U was created at time t = 0 and destroyed at time t = t_f, but this time would only refer to the time axis of realm U.

first off, I disagree with your base presumption that there is a realm G. I don't think there is a realm G, but an essence G. if realm G now exists, it was created by essence G, not in itself necessary as essence G is. but looking over your possibilities, I would most agree with 4, though I don't think the fact that he can't remove the time component from that dimension makes him "puny" since as I've stated before it's logically impossible for him to do so. that objection along with the "rock too heavy to lift" paradox fail as arguments against God.

[pocaracas]

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.

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

"is in"... "remain"... dammit, see how easy it is to fall on the damn pitfalls of the dependence of language with time?

[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."