Time doesn't exist.

[Right Divider]

One step at a time. Do you agree with oxford dictionary? (RE: definition of time)

From https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=time

time, n., int., & conj. ​

​

The fundamental quantity of which periods or intervals of existence are conceived as consisting, and which is used to quantify their duration.​

BOLDing is mine.

 

[Stripe]

Can one exist without the other?

I just answered that.

 

[Lon]

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Was it Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute! ?

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers, but that's okay

Does time exist? The answer to this question may seem obvious: of course it does! Just look at a calendar or a clock.

phys.org

Are you arguing with Enyart? An absolute and a 'doesn't exist' don't appear to be the same thing.

 

[Right Divider]

An absolute and a 'doesn't exist' don't appear to be the same thing.

Apples and walruses.

Time is a CONCEPT. In THAT SENSE it "exists".
It does NOT exist in the same way that a rock "exists".

 

[Clete]

This is very simple, can God exist without time, or can Time exist without God, or are they Mutually inclusive.

Time does not exist ontologically. Time is an idea. It exists only as a convention of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

Instead of stating your opinions, just demonstrate either of the before mentioned propositions by giving examples of just how the two are separate and can exist that way.

Done!

And it isn't my opinion, either. It is a specific and very valid form of argument called an argument from definition.

As far as your definition of time: "it is an idea" that is not a widely held belief and it is certainly not a definition used by the English speaking world.

Yes, it is. I didn't make it up.

Oxford says time is "the indefinite continued progress of existence" and I will go with their definition rather than yours.

It is the same. All Oxford has done is expressed the idea and implied both duration (continued) and sequences (progress). It uses different words but it's not essentially different in that their wording does not imply the ontological existence of time.

Insults, hiding or rule violations is what I have come to expect on this TOL, rather than debate. I pray that Debate will win this day. Amen and amen.

Oh, brother. Would you like some cheese with that?

 

[Clete]

"God has always been alive, therefore there has always been time" I agree but can one exist without the other or are they mutually inclusive? I haven't been able to build a scenario (context-entary) of either one existing without the other, I wonder if can you?

The reason you cannot do it is because it is a contradiction. In fact, it is a specific kind of contradiction known as a stolen concept fallacy. The concept of existences presupposes (i.e. it is logically dependent upon) the concept of duration and when you speak of duration you are employing the concept of time. To postulate existence outside of or absent from time is therefore to "steel the concept" of existence. It is to contradict yourself.

 

[tieman55]

As @Clete tried to explain to you, time does not "exist". It's a concept... an idea.

That's rich.

God is the being that Created the universe and all that is in it.
Time is a concept about the relationship of events.

Who cares?
Truth is not determined by how many people agree with it.

So what?
Appeals to authority or popularity are logical fallacies.

Says the guy that keep giving his opinions instead of debating.

Indeed, you should try it.

Since you don't agree on the world wide accepted definition of time, the debate if you don't hide from it will go slow, as each word we use will have to be checked against their world wide accepted , lets start with these two.
Do you accept the world wide accepted definition of Concept? and idea?

From https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=time

time, n., int., & conj. ​

​

The fundamental quantity of which periods or intervals of existence are conceived as consisting, and which is used to quantify their duration.​

BOLDing is mine.

Your dancing around words only changes words, not ideas or concepts (at least by their world wide accepted definition), Now it is God and the idea or concept of time are mutually inclusive.

 

[Right Divider]

Your dancing around words only changes words, not ideas or concepts (at least by their world wide accepted definition), Now it is God and the idea or concept of time are mutually inclusive.

That definition is FROM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY that you were touting as the "gold standard".

I did not "dance around" anything. It is you that is doing the dance. Hypocrite!

And, again, your appeals to various fallacies will not win you any arguments.

 

[tieman55]

That definition is FROM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY that you were touting as the "gold standard".

I did not "dance around" anything. It is you that is doing the dance. Hypocrite!

And, again, your appeals to various fallacies will not win you any arguments.

Your insulting, which is your forte, and your bold type, won't win arguments; And this remains, I say, God and the idea/concept of Time are mutually inclusive.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your insulting, which is your forte, and your bold type, won't win arguments; And this remains, I say, God and the idea/concept of Time are mutually inclusive.

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since you don't agree on the world wide accepted definition of time,

Appeal to popularity.

Don't use logical fallacies to support your position.

the debate if you don't hide from it will go slow, as each word we use will have to be checked against their world wide accepted,

Again, appeal to popularity.

Just because "the world" accepts something as true doesn't make it true.

lets start with these two.
Do you accept the world wide accepted definition of Concept? and idea?

I, and RD, accept the ACTUAL definition of words, not what is "world wide accepted."

Your dancing around words only changes words, not ideas or concepts (at least by their world wide accepted definition), Now it is God and the idea or concept of time are mutually inclusive.

Whatever that's supposed to mean... But you won't define it, so you leave your audience clueless...

 

[Right Divider]

Your insulting, which is your forte,

You tell me that I'm "dancing around words" and that's not an insult? Again, you show yourself to be a hypocrite.

and your bold type, won't win arguments;

The bold type is not to win the argument, but to make sure that YOU know what I'M talking about. I used the definition from the dictionary that YOU mentioned.

And this remains, I say, God and the idea/concept of Time are mutually inclusive.

What in the world is that supposed to mean anyway?

God is a BEING and time is a CONCEPT. How, in any way shape or form, can they be considered "mutually inclusive". (Hint: They cannot be).

 

[Avajs]

Question in general, is there time before creation? Did time as we know it begin at creation?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Question in general, is there time before creation? Did time as we know it begin at creation?

Time isn't something to be created.

Note how in order to even ask that, you have to use "time" words to even describe what you're asking.

A good indication that such a concept as "before time" is self-contradictory, and therefore false.

 

[Clete]

Question in general, is there time before creation? Did time as we know it begin at creation?

No!

JR made the whole argument above.

Time is not a thing, its an idea and the question cannot even be asked without employing a self-contradiction. There can be no such thing as "BEFORE" time. The proposition is as textbook an example of a self-stultifying concept as there could ever be.

 

[Lon]

Question in general, is there time before creation? Did time as we know it begin at creation?

I'm having an existential moment trying to think of your questions inside a thread that says it doesn't exist.

1)Time = a duration, an interval between two points.

--It'd seem that duration happens. It'd seem that there is such a thing as an interval between two points. It'd seem a clock measures something observable. Does it mean then that time, as a concept, as a tangible of some sort, exists?

2) Since God is Spirit, are there two points in His existence prior to two noticeable points as related to Creation?
It'd explain, given that/if time exists, and is a valuation between two things, that it may only apply to Creation.
Is 2 Peter 3:8 Palam 90:4 merely simile or alluding to metaphor? How is a thousand years and a day alike to God and not to us?

Assumptions and interpretation on these, as they interact with other scriptures and our concepts; will drive our respective ideology/theology.

 

[Lon]

No!
....
Time is not a thing, its an idea and the question cannot even be asked without employing a self-contradiction. There can be no such thing as "BEFORE" time. The proposition is as textbook an example of a self-stultifying concept as there could ever be.

It'd seem to take care of the debate on any given point. The Summit Clock Experiment was about God's ability/ inability to traverse increments in more than a linear direction (time). Skip to the last sentence* if I cloudy this up:

If time doesn't exist, for me or another on the other side of the debate: it seems "time doesn't exist" is a concession on a greater debate of God's ability to know. God wouldn't be thought constrained by anything that doesn't exist (other than as a construct of definition for a meaning of duration and change). It'd mean time isn't there that omniscience would be but a simultaneous observance from God's perspective as the argument would go. Such at least seems on a logical first-glance to damage a paradigm against 'God would simultaneously know everything nor would need to ask Adam where He was,' because He only doesn't know where Adam is, in the constraints of time. Time only a construct of meaning in a physical universe between points a and b and doesn't exist thus non- binding; Simply an idea, an idea that it isn't tangible removes it from being a factor as it doesn't exist, in omniscience for argument from an Open Theist, doesn't it?

* IOW, doesn't the assertion of the thread argue 'timelessness' of God (includes other omnis and immutability)? Why or why not?

 

[Clete]

It'd seem to take care of the debate on any given point. The Summit Clock Experiment was about God's ability/ inability to traverse increments in more than a linear direction (time). Skip to the last sentence* if I cloudy this up:

If time doesn't exist, for me or another on the other side of the debate: it seems "time doesn't exist" is a concession on a greater debate of God's ability to know. God wouldn't be thought constrained by anything that doesn't exist (other than as a construct of definition for a meaning of duration and change). It'd mean time isn't there that omniscience would be but a simultaneous observance from God's perspective as the argument would go. Such at least seems on a logical first-glance to damage a paradigm against 'God would simultaneously know everything nor would need to ask Adam where He was,' because He only doesn't know where Adam is, in the constraints of time. Time only a construct of meaning in a physical universe between points a and b and doesn't exist thus non- binding; Simply an idea, an idea that it isn't tangible removes it from being a factor as it doesn't exist, in omniscience for argument from an Open Theist, doesn't it?

Sorry, Lon! I couldn't follow any of that.

* IOW, doesn't the assertion of the thread argue 'timelessness' of God (includes other omnis and immutability)? Why or why not?

Probably not in the sense you mean it, although I'm having dificulty knowing just what you're getting at here, so it depends, I suppose.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say that God isn't timeless because He experiences both duration and sequence and so the concept of time applies. However, time does not exist in the ontological sense of the term "exist" and so, in that sense, we are all timeless.

 

[Lon]

Sorry, Lon! I couldn't follow any of that.

Good thing I asked the short in the last sentence! (thank you for weighing in). In a nutshell, the Summit Clock Experiment

Was it Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute! ?


Are you arguing with Enyart? An absolute and a 'doesn't exist' don't appear to be the same thing.

It was one of those points where I was trying to see if Open Theists among themselves disagree, or whether I was missing a subtle difference because of importance for discussion.
Basic point: One Open Theist argues for time not existing, the other that time 'marches on and is consistent sequential' in a one-directional manner (the past is past). Perhaps because I've argued God's past is still going by a necessity of comprehension (an eternal nonbeginning) :idunno:

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say that God isn't timeless

I may be missing it, but it seems you are with Enyart on point, that time is consistent and progresses in a forward manner?

If time doesn't exist, we could consider God 'timeless' if it isn't even there in the first place. What it'd mean is God can know all things because only time would be a factor of Him not knowing any given thing.

This might be important: Some Open Theists believe God is capable of knowing all, but believe any freewill would be negated (kind of like the discussion we are having in the other thread). I'm not exactly sure where your belief lies on 'ability' of omniscience as a proposition (not arguing whether God has it, just how you'd have to respond).

because He experiences both duration and sequence and so the concept of time applies.

Yes, that is the question being asked. If the thread premise is/were correct, it'd cancel this view out, no?

However, time does not exist in the ontological sense of the term "exist" and so, in that sense, we are all timeless.

I agree: I cannot go back to 'yesterday' some say, but we can if we eliminate the reckoning of 'past/passed and yesterday as insurmountable.'

Example: I exasperated you by my examples, yesterday, While I cannot exactly undo what transpired previously, I can affect 'exasperation' even yet (time not a factor and along your line of 'timeless).'

This is one support of an eternal 'now' not just for us, but for God. We tend to think of 'past' as water under the bridge, with a marker that 'cannot be changed or traversed.' We buy a lot of paradigm truths to get that idea that can be questioned ("Is it true we cannot relive what has already happened? How do estranged people manage it in the future then?" etc). What if there was no sun or moon? Our reckoning would always just be 'now/today.' It is hard to explain. Again skip if there is no clarity. I'm synthesizing a lot of old ideas, theology and philosophy but don't always remember which is which. Sometimes, with these, it seems OV is reinventing some of our same traditional views, it is just that we may have grown lax understanding in what ways 'we' are also timeless as humans. We have a beginning, but we have no end, thus also have a sense of timelessness. In the fore-mentioned Time Clock Experiment, I argued something similar with a segment, ray, and a line. One is infinite, the other goes into the infinite, and the segment is stagnant.

This thread can be a good link between differing theology perspectives because it merely troubles concepts of time. I reckon "time" is like "inches." It is a construct, an invention, of measurement to be able to do thing Repeatedly, like bake a cake or build a squared house.

Some Open Theists have argued with me that time is an absolute and God cannot but move unidirectional with us. If, as you believe, we are timeless, (and I do to a degree other than as we are in physical constraints and interactions), then we'd have to revisit 'when' God didn't know where Adam was or when he didn't know what was going down in Sodom Gomorrah.

 

[Stripe]

Attempting to tie the nature of time to a theological outlook seems like a painful exercise with no obvious benefits.