God did not create time

[shnarkle]

Geesh.... Faster and faster.... Do you even think before you post such? You say there isn't anything but a single point shared in all of reality and then use the words "faster and faster".....

I'm not the one promoting science here. I'm just pointing out what they say.

Here. Let me help you, "scientists" are always disagreeing and contradicting one another. That is the "human way".

Doesn't sound like much of a foundation for establishing facts, much less the truth. Regardless, your ideas of time are still nothing more than ideas.

 

[Simpletruther]

Obviously.

Your consensus doesn't refute the fact that addressing the person has no bearing on the content posted. I provided the reasons why which you've chosen to spurn and continue to waste time with this pointless line of questioning.

I never claimed you did. Strawman argument.

Quite simple and quite irrelevant.

Not in this case.

In this case, it's pointless and irrelevant. That's what's wrong with it.

Obviously we disagree. Your claim of ad hom was pointless and irrelevant. And goes against well the established meaning of the word.

It's bad communication not to use the well established meanings and usages.
It's a continued waste of time and pointless irrelevant typing on your part.

 

[shnarkle]

Obviously we disagree. Your claim of ad hom was pointless and irrelevant. And goes against well the established meaning of the word.

False. It makes no difference who I am. The facts speak for themselves regardless of who may present them. Your obsession with pointless labels only spotlights that you have no argument. Address what is posted and stop wasting time with this nonsense.

It's bad communication not to use the well established meanings and usages.

Here it is for your edification:

Ad Hominem: "c. 1600, Latin, literally "to a man," from ad "to" (see ad-) + hominem, accusative of homo "man" (see homunculus). Hence, "to the interests and passions of the person." Originally an argument or appeal to the known preferences or principles of the person addressed, rather than to abstract truth or logic.

Aristotle (Topics, viii 11) remarks that it is sometimes necessary to refute the disputant rather than his position, and some medieval logicians taught that refutation was of two kinds, solutio recta and solutio ad hominem, the latter being imperfect or fallacious refutation. [Century Dictionary]

It's a continued waste of time and pointless irrelevant typing on your part.

Then why not just drop it??? You're typing just as much so why not just address the content of what I've posted? The obvious answer is because you can't address it much less refute it.

 

[Simpletruther]

False. It makes no difference who I am. The facts speak for themselves regardless of who may present them. Your obsession with pointless labels only spotlights that you have no argument. Address what is posted and stop wasting time with this nonsense.

Here it is for your edification:

Ad Hominem: "c. 1600, Latin, literally "to a man," from ad "to" (see ad-) + hominem, accusative of homo "man" (see homunculus). Hence, "to the interests and passions of the person." Originally an argument or appeal to the known preferences or principles of the person addressed, rather than to abstract truth or logic.


Then why not just drop it??? You're typing just as much so why not just address the content of what I've posted? The obvious answer is because you can't address it much less refute it.

I neither made an argument nor an appeal to your person. It was not ad hom, your own source affirms my point.

You made a mistake, life goes on.

 

[shnarkle]

I neither made an argument nor an appeal to your person.

You most certainly did. You asked about ME, not what I posted. Q.E.D.

It was not ad hom, your own source affirms my point.

Prove it. I just supplied you with the origin and usage of the Ad Hominem which literally means "to address the man" which is exactly what you were doing. Your pointless obsession with my religious denomination has nothing to do with the validity of what I posted which is exactly why it is a logical fallacy.

You made a mistake, life goes on.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Simpletruther]

You most certainly did. You asked about ME, not what I posted. Q.E.D.

Prove it. I just supplied you with the origin and usage of the Ad Hominem which literally means "to address the man" which is exactly what you were doing. Your pointless obsession with my religious denomination has nothing to do with the validity of what I posted which is exactly why it is a logical fallacy.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sorry but no. A question is neither an argument nor an appeal.

You made a mistake, life goes on.

 

[Exeter]

Calling it whatever you want doesn't make it so.

Not according to entanglement which points out that distance makes no difference whatsoever. These "events" happen simultaneously regardless of distance.

The double slit experiment provides us with proof that simply observing particles or beams of light changes their course. This happens regardless of your perception of time. In other words, light that you claim took hundreds of thousands of years to reach the earth suddenly changed the course it took to reach your eyes. So the course it took the reach your eyes no longer even exists, but is now changed to a completely different path that reaches back all of those hundreds of thousands of light years.

See above, and note that those courses can be changed simply by observing them, and just as importantly, wherever they should be can't be observed. The science tells us where they should be, but then we're really just dealing with potential probabilities.

You will be familiar with the fallacy of composition.

Such a fallacy would be the conclusion that because some phenomena, such as entanglement, indicate the existence of "infinite velocity force" acting on events separated by distance, that time is not concurrent with this happening.

It is true that at infinite velocity a force or agent can be everywhere and anywhere in no time at all, but concurrent with this we do have all things at lesser velocities being of duration in location, which is consistent with the Genesis Creation Account where God says "Let" this or that happen on each of the days He worked. Evening and day are indicators of time passing due to motion at velocity.

Measuring something makes it finite, which the Genesis Creation Account reveals with the delineation of 6 days of work and 1 day of rest indicating that time is of the Divine Essence.

Even in heaven time is still a factor for some aspects of eternity, with months being the marker for fresh crops from the Tree of Life.

Rev 22:1-2 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (2) down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

 

[shnarkle]

" we do have all things at lesser velocities being of duration in location,"

Not in relation to infinity or eternity.

which is consistent with the Genesis Creation Account

Eternity is also referred to in the bible.

where God says "Let" this or that happen on each of the days He worked. Evening and day are indicators of time passing due to motion at velocity.

Measuring something makes it finite,

And eternity makes those measurements irrelevant.

1 day of rest indicating that time is of the Divine Essence.

Interesting claim. Perhaps you might present some sort of argument to prove it.

Even in heaven time is still a factor for some aspects of eternity, with months being the marker for fresh crops from the Tree of Life.

Rev 22:1-2 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life,

This word for life is "zoe" which has NOTHING to do with biological life so those crops are not biological crops.

 

[Simpletruther]

I do not see that taught in scripture.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

Notice time is implied before the world began.

Time seems to be merely a conceptual reference point for events. One event happens after another.

Time has always existed because it's not a think but an idea. God in trinity was continually loving and glorifying one another from eternity past. Events were happening in eternity past.

Notice I said past. We can't even imagine an action without conceiving of a before and after.


It fits scripture well enough. And it fits the evidence of what science says as well as another view.
Most think of Einstein's space-time model as evidence of some tangible "thing". But he himself said it was merely conceptual term and that time was an illusion.

Thought I would bump this in light of a recent OP on time.

 

[4Him]

Thought I would bump this in light of a recent OP on time.

Do not drag up old dead threads.