It's time:

Algor

Active member
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.
I dunno. I think it was pretty well accepted for a long time that a particle wasn't a wave. I seem to recall Lord Kelvin weighed in pretty heavily on the question, so the idea that it was a contradiction didn't come from me.

I'd call that a verbal or conceptual contradiction. I'm still unclear how wave particle duality works, and I doubt it will be anything other than a fact to me, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

I mean, what about Cantor's ideas that some infinities are larger than others?
How about the sum of the infinite series 1+2+3+....n being -1/12? Does that make a heck of a lot of sense to you? You add positive integers to infinity and it comes out as less than one (heck, less than ZERO). If that isn't an intuitive contradiction in terms, I don't know what is.


There's no pretense here, and accusing me of some intellectual dishonesty is odd. I think people who pretend they "understand" this stuff are usually faking it, but whatever. Some might not be, but I don't really care. Some things that are logically rigorous simply do not make any sort of intuitive sense. But we accept such things when they become useful for predicting and manipulating empirical, objective reality. The key here is that you have to have a way of modelling the weirdness that isn't just verbal, so that the test can be rigorously carried out.I don't see anything in any religion that suggests that.

And of course the contradictions are verbal. What else would you call them?
 
Last edited:

Torin

Active member
I dunno. I think it was pretty well accepted for a long time that a particle wasn't a wave. I seem to recall Lord Kelvin weighed in pretty heavily on the question, so the idea that it was a contradiction didn't come from me.

I'd call that a verbal or conceptual contradiction. I'm still unclear how wave particle duality works, and I doubt it will be anything other than a fact to me, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

I mean, what about Cantor's ideas that some infinities are larger than others?
How about the sum of the infinite series 1+2+3+....n being -1/12? Does that make a heck of a lot of sense to you? You add positive integers to infinity and it comes out as less than one (heck, less than ZERO). If that isn't an intuitive contradiction in terms, I don't know what is.


There's no pretense here, and accusing me of some intellectual dishonesty is odd. I think people who pretend they "understand" this stuff are usually faking it, but whatever. Some might not be, but I don't really care. Some things that are logically rigorous simply do not make any sort of intuitive sense. But we accept such things when they become useful for predicting and manipulating empirical, objective reality. The key here is that you have to have a way of modelling the weirdness that isn't just verbal, so that the test can be rigorously carried out.I don't see anything in any religion that suggests that.

And of course the contradictions are verbal. What else would you call them?
Let's not prolong an unpleasant conversation. Just accept that I am thoroughly and implacably opposed to your belief in true contradictions.
 

Algor

Active member
Let's not prolong an unpleasant conversation. Just accept that I am thoroughly and implacably opposed to your belief in true contradictions.
I think we merely differ on the ability of our intuitions to alert us as to what is a true contradiction and what is not. But that said, the horse is dead, so let it lie.
cheers.
 

Nouveau

Well-known 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.
What are the 'rules of 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.
That sounds contradictory. The past, present, and future by definition are not simultaneous.
 

Komodo

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?
I wasn't trying to disprove anything, or demonstrate anything; only to describe something.
 

Komodo

Active member
What are the 'rules of time'?
Something like, "everything that exists travels in only one direction along the 'time' axis of spacetime."

That sounds contradictory. The past, present, and future by definition are not simultaneous.
I wouldn't attempt to defend the proposition against the charge of incoherence; I'm only saying that this seems to be the general line that people take when they say "God is outside of time."
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Something like, "everything that exists travels in only one direction along the 'time' axis of spacetime."
I think that may also be incoherent. Travel is a change in location over time, so no-one literally travels through time, at least not in any non-tautological sense that gets you directionality. The arrow of time seems to be a function of entropy - which doesn't apply to a non-physical God - and perception, which is purely subjective.

I wouldn't attempt to defend the proposition against the charge of incoherence; I'm only saying that this seems to be the general line that people take when they say "God is outside of time."
Understood, and I don't want to press you into defending something you don't support. In the past I've had several Christians here try to defend exactly the position I was arguing against, claiming that God either has no temporal properties, or at least none that change over time. I agree that many may mean something quite different, though I suspect few have thought it through far enough to really have anything coherent in mind. I would consider it coherent to say that God might subjectively perceive things atemporally from an eternal perspective, but I think this position is then inconsistent with the idea that God has any of the regular mental attributes of belief/desire psychology, and mental causation for God then becomes difficult as well.
 

Algor

Active member
I think that may also be incoherent. Travel is a change in location over time, so no-one literally travels through time, at least not in any non-tautological sense that gets you directionality. The arrow of time seems to be a function of entropy - which doesn't apply to a non-physical God - and perception, which is purely subjective.


Understood, and I don't want to press you into defending something you don't support. In the past I've had several Christians here try to defend exactly the position I was arguing against, claiming that God either has no temporal properties, or at least none that change over time. I agree that many may mean something quite different, though I suspect few have thought it through far enough to really have anything coherent in mind. I would consider it coherent to say that God might subjectively perceive things atemporally from an eternal perspective, but I think this position is then inconsistent with the idea that God has any of the regular mental attributes of belief/desire psychology, and mental causation for God then becomes difficult as well.
Serious question, as I had a similar conversation with a friend...(yes, I have really boring friends): do you think the arrow of time is a function of entropy, or is it that the idea of entropy implies an arrow of time (third option: neither).
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Serious question, as I had a similar conversation with a friend...(yes, I have really boring friends): do you think the arrow of time is a function of entropy, or is it that the idea of entropy implies an arrow of time (third option: neither).
I'm really not sure, but I suspect the former. I think entropy requires a dimension of time, but that it determines the directionality rather than presupposes it. Either way, Tenet was a great movie and you won't change my mind on that :)
 

Furion

Well-known member
The assertion that timelessness is explained by Christ is as vapid a claim as saying Rumpelstiltskin explains timelessness.

The assertion you assert was never an assertion for you. You don't know and you never will fella.

That is your lot in life, ignorance.

Maybe you can use some maths, or dazzle me with some sophistry thus proving the unprovable for bags of mostly water.
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.
You are blind in darkness, 5alive.

You, stuck in the box with no way of knowing anything. That's too bad.
 
Last edited:

Furion

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.
The only way you can know is if something outside your box informs you. It's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Atheists are such nincompoops.
 

Komodo

Active member
I think that may also be incoherent. Travel is a change in location over time, so no-one literally travels through time, at least not in any non-tautological sense that gets you directionality.
It might not be quite as cut-and-dried as that, since I was talking about movement along the "time" axis, which is a representation of time as a dimension rather than the "stuff" of time itself, so it's only figuratively "traveling through time." Maybe the rule which God violates would be more precisely stated as "for any existing entity, the 4-D graph representing that entity's history will show movement along the 'time' axis in only one direction."

The arrow of time seems to be a function of entropy - which doesn't apply to a non-physical God - and perception, which is purely subjective.
At which point the Christian I'm "representing" here might say something like, "precisely; God is not physical, and so is not bound by the rules which constrain physical objects in space-time. That is what I meant in saying God was outside of time." But you'd probably be better off talking to him directly, rather than to me. :)
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
It might not be quite as cut-and-dried as that, since I was talking about movement along the "time" axis, which is a representation of time as a dimension rather than the "stuff" of time itself, so it's only figuratively "traveling through time." Maybe the rule which God violates would be more precisely stated as "for any existing entity, the 4-D graph representing that entity's history will show movement along the 'time' axis in only one direction."
I get that. What I'm saying that this rule is either incoherent or tautological. Say an object is here at t=0. If I look forwards to t=+1 I find the object at t=+1, and if I look backwards to t=-1 I find the object at t=-1 (assuming it still exists at both times). But this is all tautological - it's not like I could have found that object at that time at any other time. So it's not really travel. And there's not really any directionality either. What would a change in direction even look like? Could the object from t=0 change direction and then at the next moment (i.e. t=+1) then exist at t=-1 instead? That would be contradictory - if the object exists at all at t=+1 then it exists then at t=+1. We know it also already existed at t=-1, but the only time it could possibly have existed at t=-1 is then at t=-1. It can't go back and exist at that time again as a second and distinct event. Perhaps the confusion rests on the distinction between A and B theories of time.

At which point the Christian I'm "representing" here might say something like, "precisely; God is not physical, and so is not bound by the rules which constrain physical objects in space-time. That is what I meant in saying God was outside of time." But you'd probably be better off talking to him directly, rather than to me. :)
Then I would encourage the Christian to express himself more clearly :) If he means only to say that God is not bound by the laws of physics then just say so. That's not particularly controversial, and avoids the incoherence problems of saying God is inside or outside of time.
 

Komodo

Active member
I get that. What I'm saying that this rule is either incoherent or tautological. Say an object is here at t=0. If I look forwards to t=+1 I find the object at t=+1, and if I look backwards to t=-1 I find the object at t=-1 (assuming it still exists at both times). But this is all tautological - it's not like I could have found that object at that time at any other time. So it's not really travel. And there's not really any directionality either. What would a change in direction even look like? Could the object from t=0 change direction and then at the next moment (i.e. t=+1) then exist at t=-1 instead? That would be contradictory - if the object exists at all at t=+1 then it exists then at t=+1. We know it also already existed at t=-1, but the only time it could possibly have existed at t=-1 is then at t=-1. It can't go back and exist at that time again as a second and distinct event. Perhaps the confusion rests on the distinction between A and B theories of time.
OK, let me think about that one.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The only way you can know is if something outside your box informs you. It's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Atheists are such nincompoops.
But whatever message from beyond you think you are receiving is merely a marble rolling around in your own head if it cannot be consistently relayed to others. How convenient that each of these messages are personal unverifiable internal experiences, that when attempted to be verified and shared end up in about 45,000 different beliefs about some immutable God.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The assertion you assert was never an assertion for you. You don't know and you never will fella.

That is your lot in life, ignorance.

Maybe you can use some maths, or dazzle me with some sophistry thus proving the unprovable for bags of mostly water.

You are blind in darkness, 5alive.

You, stuck in the box with no way of knowing anything. That's too bad.
Quit blathering on about that isolated personal marble rolling around in your own head and just show us the math. You remember the math challenge you gave us right?
 

Furion

Well-known member
Quit blathering on about that isolated personal marble rolling around in your own head and just show us the math. You remember the math challenge you gave us right?
Hey 5alive, what do you get when you combine your maths and your philosophical masterbation over "existence outside of time"?

lol
 

5wize

Well-known member
Hey 5alive, what do you get when you combine your maths and your philosophical masterbation over "existence outside of time"?

lol
I get understanding concerning the entanglement between time and existence. You get Christian unicorns and cotton candy rainbows shooting time and matter out of god's timeless arse.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Hey 5alive, what do you get when you combine your maths and your philosophical masterbation over "existence outside of time"?

lol
I get understanding concerning the entanglement between time and existence. You get Christian unicorns and cotton candy rainbows shooting time and matter out of god's timeless arse.
 
Top