It's time:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Im accepting that part of the analogy. I simply don’t think it allows for a causally efficaceous deity.

How does it preclude it? Why does the Bard's inability to incarnate himself in his plays forbid the miracle at Bethlehem?
 

Furion

Well-known member
Oh no, things can exist without time, in my opinion.
Is that your mathematical opinion or a theoretical philosophical opinion?

They can’t be causally efficacious without time because ‘cause’ implies an arrow of time. That aside, proof and disproof of the existence of entities in reality is different than mathematical proof. I think that has been pretty well recognized for a long time.
So then no mathematical proof is forthcoming. I sensed that with my little brain. Hey, sometimes it surprises even me.

And my little brain also tells me that the only way for you to glimpse outside of your time box is for something outside of your time box tells you, explains it to you, enlightens you, let's you peer into the unknowable.

That would be Christ, He is the one who said He came from that place.

After all you can describe and explain, best that you are able, life inside this box. The percentage of your knowing is limited by science, the ever changing method. So far we've discovered some things and know nothing about what we don't know, and little about many things, like how many quarks dance on the head of a pin.

I'm not impressed with high falutin arguments, even when I use them. So just consider us down the road from them and get down to the nubbies.
 

Algor

Active member
Is that your mathematical opinion or a theoretical philosophical opinion?
What is a mathematical opinion?
So then no mathematical proof is forthcoming. I sensed that with my little brain. Hey, sometimes it surprises even me.

......

I'm not impressed with high falutin arguments, even when I use them. So just consider us down the road from them and get down to the nubbies.
I will endeavour not to falute.
 

Algor

Active member
How does it preclude it? Why does the Bard's inability to incarnate himself in his plays forbid the miracle at Bethlehem?
The bard's inability to incarnate himself in his plays simply demonstrates the limits of the metaphor. More importantly, the limit of the metaphor is precisely the reason why an "existence outside time" is problematic for a causally efficaceous deity, or a deity that thinks or feels.
 

Algor

Active member
I ask once again; Explain how the analogy (not metaphor) LIMITS an omnipotent God's ability to incarnate Himself in time.
It can't be extended to demonstrate that the ability to be both outside time and causally efficaceous is reasonable. That's all.
 

Komodo

Active member
Take some entity, X. Now consider all points of time. Is it true at any of these moments that X exists? If so then X has at least one temporal property and therefore does not exist without time. If not, then by definition X does not exist now or ever. QED.
I think the claim "God is outside of time" is meant to indicate that God is not subject to the "rules" of time, rather than that God has no connection to time. So I've read, for example, that (unlike us mortals) God exists simultaneously in past, present and future. Of course I don't understand what that means, but it's conceivable that somebody does.
 

Torin

Active member
I think the claim "God is outside of time" is meant to indicate that God is not subject to the "rules" of time, rather than that God has no connection to time. So I've read, for example, that (unlike us mortals) God exists simultaneously in past, present and future. Of course I don't understand what that means, but it's conceivable that somebody does.
Who cares? Why are we trying to disprove something there is no reason to take seriously in the first place? You could waste a lot of time disproving every version of every nonsensical concept ever developed. Is this how useful things are usually demonstrated in science, or history, or philosophy, or any field? Or does life require looking at reality?
 

5wize

Well-known member
So then your philosophy proves to you nothing can exist outside of time.

Yet you also don't actually know what lays outside the box, seeing how you are stuck in the box, incapable of proving or disproving anything really.
Yet Christians claim to know what lays outside the box of our reality and proclaim what they cannot possibly know is truth.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Is that your mathematical opinion or a theoretical philosophical opinion?


So then no mathematical proof is forthcoming. I sensed that with my little brain. Hey, sometimes it surprises even me.

And my little brain also tells me that the only way for you to glimpse outside of your time box is for something outside of your time box tells you, explains it to you, enlightens you, let's you peer into the unknowable.

That would be Christ, He is the one who said He came from that place.

After all you can describe and explain, best that you are able, life inside this box. The percentage of your knowing is limited by science, the ever changing method. So far we've discovered some things and know nothing about what we don't know, and little about many things, like how many quarks dance on the head of a pin.

I'm not impressed with high falutin arguments, even when I use them. So just consider us down the road from them and get down to the nubbies.
The assertion that timelessness is explained by Christ is as vapid a claim as saying Rumpelstiltskin explains timelessness.

Tell you what Furion, if you think that it would be Christ that enlightens us to timelessness, and you claim to be enlightened on such a glimpse out of the box, show us the math.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Yet Christians claim to know what lays outside the box of our reality and proclaim what they cannot possibly know is truth.

Why "yet," as though there is a contradiction? Christians believe in revelation, emanating from beyond the material world. Atheists do not.
 

Algor

Active member
Who cares? Why are we trying to disprove something there is no reason to take seriously in the first place? You could waste a lot of time disproving every version of every nonsensical concept ever developed. Is this how useful things are usually demonstrated in science, or history, or philosophy, or any field? Or does life require looking at reality?
And yet I am not so sure that the idea is necessarily complete nonsense. I would agree that a causally efficaceous being outside time is a contradiction in terms, but this in and of itself is not necessarily an objection to its reality. Part of the way that useful things happen is that people pay attention to important stuff that isn't known, and not spend their time trying to claim that stuff is known when it is not. And of course I include Christians and atheists in that.

As an addendum, I would say that "There is a God outside of time" is not a phrase that cannot be said to have been demonstrated true or definitively false. It can be said that the statement cannot be literally true except as a loose approximation or perhaps metaphor, in the same way as saying the universe began at the big bang is a loose approximation.
 
Last edited:

Torin

Active member
I would agree that a causally efficaceous being outside time is a contradiction in terms, but this in and of itself is not necessarily an objection to its reality.
This is plain mysticism. You cannot be dealt with by reason on this issue.
 

Algor

Active member
This is plain mysticism. You cannot be dealt with by reason on this issue.

I firmly disagree. I am not susceptible to mysticism, but there are well accepted ideas with definite utility that make no sense to me and contradict all my intuitions: the square root of -1, uncaused events, quantum entanglement and so forth. Now, the only reason we accept them is because mathematically rigorous formulations allow us to use these ideas to predict and manipulate reality. Could someone do that with this religious idea, I'd be on board with it. Could I have predicted quantum physics them 600 years ago? No. So I don't get excited about verbal contradictions in such constructs. I just say that they are meaningless to me, and move on.

If someone asks me to consider them important, I ask them to demonstrate the utility to me. If all I get is a SteveB type verbal fog, it doesn't add anything. If I get anything remotely rigorous, I'll tell you. I am not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:

Torin

Active member
I firmly disagree. I am not susceptible to mysticism, but there are well accepted ideas with definite utility that make no sense to me and contradict all my intuitions: the square root of -1, uncaused events, quantum entanglement and so forth. Now, the only reason we accept them is because mathematically rigorous formulations allow us to use these ideas to predict and manipulate reality. Could someone do that with this religious idea, I'd be on board with it. Could I have predicted quantum physics them 600 years ago? No. So I don't get excited about verbal contradictions in such constructs. I just say that they are meaningless to me, and move on.

If someone asks me to consider them important, I ask them to demonstrate the utility to me. If all I get is a SteveB type verbal fog, it doesn't add anything. If I get anything remotely rigorous, I'll tell you. I am not holding my breath.
Any acceptance of an explicit contradiction is mysticism.

You argue for "well accepted" contradictions based on their "utility," but although it may be useful to pretend that these contradictions are true, that does not mean there are true contradictions.

I note also that you call the contradictions "verbal," making language your scapegoat as do many mystics.
 
Top