Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Change without time and the law of identity

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes". With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:40:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I do not agree.

Time is infinite, it doesn't start with our universe, not does it end with it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:41:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.

What? That seems nonsensical.

Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.

I disagree. Without time, there cannot be change; because without time, you have two different things existing at the same non-time, thus violating the law of identity...A = A+B
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:49:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.

You could not have written that post fruity without the existence of TIME.
Because there is a BEFORE you wrote it and an AFTER you wrote it.
If YOU were timeless, as you claim your god is, then YOU could not write that post.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:06:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!

Sahih means authentic: ie all the chain including Al bukhari(the author) is made of Identified and trusted men and women.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:10:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:49:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.

You could not have written that post fruity without the existence of TIME.
Because there is a BEFORE you wrote it and an AFTER you wrote it.
If YOU were timeless, as you claim your god is, then YOU could not write that post.

The time gives meaning to changes, it doesn't cause them.

Time is infinite, God is infinite. why do you guys use the world timeless as if there was a moment when there was no time ?!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:10:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:40:44 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I do not agree.

Time is infinite, it doesn't start with our universe, not does it end with it.

Then an infinite regress is possible, and arguments like the KCA fail.

Remember that when someone attacks an argument, by doing so they do not prove the conclusion untrue. It's not "the KCA fails, therefore there is no God". If the KCA is the ONLY argument for god, then, yes, "the KCA fails, therefore there is no reason to believe in god" would apply. But don't get too defensive if it's an argument you already disagree with as being legitimate.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:10:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:49:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.

You could not have written that post fruity without the existence of TIME.
Because there is a BEFORE you wrote it and an AFTER you wrote it.
If YOU were timeless, as you claim your god is, then YOU could not write that post.

The time gives meaning to changes, it doesn't cause them.

Time is infinite, God is infinite. why do you guys use the world timeless as if there was a moment when there was no time ?!

Because "timeless" MEANS "without time". It doesn't mean "infinite time".

Time doesn't cause changes, but it is the only way for change to exist. Without time there cannot be change; change is an expression of time. First X, then Y only works BECAUSE OF TIME. Without the "First" and the "Then", you just have "XY". No change has occurred.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:14:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:10:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:40:44 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I do not agree.

Time is infinite, it doesn't start with our universe, not does it end with it.

Then an infinite regress is possible, and arguments like the KCA fail.

Please develop your idea to see how possible.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:12:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:10:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:49:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:38:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:57 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
What do you mean by timelessness ?

I understand infinite , not sure that's what you understand ?
If I am infinite, if I am timeless, if I know all there is to know, how then can I make a decision that changes anything?
Change is a product of time, if I am timeless I cannot initiate change either.

Change is not a product of time, but product of Will.Time is a scale on which you'd organise events. and a dimension to take in consideration with finite events.

You could not have written that post fruity without the existence of TIME.
Because there is a BEFORE you wrote it and an AFTER you wrote it.
If YOU were timeless, as you claim your god is, then YOU could not write that post.

The time gives meaning to changes, it doesn't cause them.

Time is infinite, God is infinite. why do you guys use the world timeless as if there was a moment when there was no time ?!

Because "timeless" MEANS "without time". It doesn't mean "infinite time".

Time doesn't cause changes, but it is the only way for change to exist. Without time there cannot be change; change is an expression of time. First X, then Y only works BECAUSE OF TIME. Without the "First" and the "Then", you just have "XY". No change has occurred.

If time is infinite, then "timeless does not exist". Why do you believe time started with the universe ?!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:28:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:26:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Time allows change. if there was no time there would be no change.

But Time doesn't cause change.

Agreed. Though there is an arguable semantic quibble, but I think we agree on concepts.

But that still means there cannot be an entity capable of any kind of "change" who is outside of time. You seem to think that God = Time, which is fine, but which means you aren't asserting God = outside of time, which was the point I was arguing against.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:31:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:06:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!

Sahih means authentic: ie all the chain including Al bukhari(the author) is made of Identified and trusted men and women.
So as I said your statement doesn't come from Allah. Do we agree?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:31:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:06:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!

Sahih means authentic: ie all the chain including Al bukhari(the author) is made of Identified and trusted men and women.
So as I said your statement doesn't come from Allah. Do we agree?

We don't, when you have something authentically reported it just means it was said by whomever is the speaker with no doubt.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:40:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:28:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:26:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Time allows change. if there was no time there would be no change.

But Time doesn't cause change.

Agreed. Though there is an arguable semantic quibble, but I think we agree on concepts.

But that still means there cannot be an entity capable of any kind of "change" who is outside of time. You seem to think that God = Time, which is fine, but which means you aren't asserting God = outside of time, which was the point I was arguing against.

I believe when people say about God that He is timeless, they mean time does not affect him. Not that he is "outside " of time so here too it's semantics.

Well Also God is not just time, time is one of his many attributes.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:41:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:36:19 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:31:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:06:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!

Sahih means authentic: ie all the chain including Al bukhari(the author) is made of Identified and trusted men and women.
So as I said your statement doesn't come from Allah. Do we agree?

We don't, when you have something authentically reported it just means it was said by whomever is the speaker with no doubt.

So was it Allah who said it or someone else?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:53:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes".
Hmmm.

With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.
I agree that with respect to physics, no physical change is possible in a timeless state; however, there is no consideration taken to non-physical change from a physics perspective.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`
Not sure I understand what you're saying here; it seems to be in contradiction. If at t=X, then any change (ie t=Y) would mean that there is a difference between the state of the Universe at t=X and t=Y; otherwise, no change occurred and X=Y. Is that what you are saying?

Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time".
I agree. This is essentially part of the Big Bang Theory.

So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is.
It's not that He is a "place" with no time, it's that He is at all times. That's what makes Him "timeless." He is present during the state of "no change" and He is also present during the states of change: He is omnipresent.

Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
The physical theories of the Big Bang and time (ie physics) do not encompass the non-physical. Ergo, there can be non-physical change without there "being" any time.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:53:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes".
Hmmm.

With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.
I agree that with respect to physics, no physical change is possible in a timeless state; however, there is no consideration taken to non-physical change from a physics perspective.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`

Not sure I understand what you're saying here; it seems to be in contradiction. If at t=X, then any change (ie t=Y) would mean that there is a difference between the state of the Universe at t=X and t=Y; otherwise, no change occurred and X=Y. Is that what you are saying?

Correct sah!

So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is.
It's not that He is a "place" with no time, it's that He is at all times. That's what makes Him "timeless." He is present during the state of "no change" and He is also present during the states of change: He is omnipresent.

Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
The physical theories of the Big Bang and time (ie physics) do not encompass the non-physical. Ergo, there can be non-physical change without there "being" any time.

How?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 1:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:59:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:53:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes".
Hmmm.

With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.
I agree that with respect to physics, no physical change is possible in a timeless state; however, there is no consideration taken to non-physical change from a physics perspective.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`

Not sure I understand what you're saying here; it seems to be in contradiction. If at t=X, then any change (ie t=Y) would mean that there is a difference between the state of the Universe at t=X and t=Y; otherwise, no change occurred and X=Y. Is that what you are saying?

Correct sah!
Great! I can agree to that. What we have here is the standard physical model of the Universe according to the Big Bang. Remember, this is strictly PHYSICAL.

So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is.
It's not that He is at a "place" with "no time", it's that He is present at all times. That's what makes Him "timeless." He is present during the state of "no change" and He is also present during the states of change: He is omnipresent.
There were some syntactical errors above and I corrected them. I just wanted to verify if you understand the concept expressed here? Not if you agree that it is true, but to see if you comprehend it.

Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
The physical theories of the Big Bang and time (ie physics) do not encompass the non-physical. Ergo, there can be non-physical change without there "being" any time.
How?
First, I'd like to say that time IS change and change IS time; they are inseparable. Keep in mind that this is a PHYSICAL definition of time: time = physical change and physical change = time. None of this speaks to the non-physical, and so "non-physical change" is independent of "physical time." If you are not a Dualist, then this is all quite meaningless. However, if you can accept that framework, then it's rather trivial.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 1:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 1:15:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:59:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:53:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes".
Hmmm.

With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.
I agree that with respect to physics, no physical change is possible in a timeless state; however, there is no consideration taken to non-physical change from a physics perspective.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`

Not sure I understand what you're saying here; it seems to be in contradiction. If at t=X, then any change (ie t=Y) would mean that there is a difference between the state of the Universe at t=X and t=Y; otherwise, no change occurred and X=Y. Is that what you are saying?

Correct sah!
Great! I can agree to that. What we have here is the standard physical model of the Universe according to the Big Bang. Remember, this is strictly PHYSICAL.

I'm glad we agree on the strictly physical. We'll be moving on to the non shortly.


So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is.
It's not that He is at a "place" with "no time", it's that He is present at all times. That's what makes Him "timeless." He is present during the state of "no change" and He is also present during the states of change: He is omnipresent.
There were some syntactical errors above and I corrected them. I just wanted to verify if you understand the concept expressed here? Not if you agree that it is true, but to see if you comprehend it.

I can comprehend it. But the problem I see is, let's say there is no time. No change. How can he move from that to change? How can he make a choice, if that choice is a change dependent on time?

Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
The physical theories of the Big Bang and time (ie physics) do not encompass the non-physical. Ergo, there can be non-physical change without there "being" any time.
How?
First, I'd like to say that time IS change and change IS time; they are inseparable. Keep in mind that this is a PHYSICAL definition of time: time = physical change and physical change = time. None of this speaks to the non-physical, and so "non-physical change" is independent of "physical time." If you are not a Dualist, then this is all quite meaningless. However, if you can accept that framework, then it's rather trivial.

Even if I were a dualist (which I'm not, for lack of warrant), I could still see that a non-physical mind might be possible. However, in order for there to be any kind of change to that mind, requires time. Time is change, as you said. This "immaterial" or "non-physical" (whatever that means, since we have no experience with it) mind cannot change without time, so if it exists where there is no time, it cannot be the cause of time, because it would violate the law of identity (first, mind=no time MIND CHANGES TO CREATE TIME, mind= time...that capitalized change cannot occur without time).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 2:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 1:27:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 1:15:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

I'm glad we agree on the strictly physical. We'll be moving on to the non shortly.
Sounds good.

So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is.
It's not that He is at a "place" with "no time", it's that He is present at all times. That's what makes Him "timeless." He is present during the state of "no change" and He is also present during the states of change: He is omnipresent.
There were some syntactical errors above and I corrected them. I just wanted to verify if you understand the concept expressed here? Not if you agree that it is true, but to see if you comprehend it.
I can comprehend it. But the problem I see is, let's say there is no time. No change. How can he move from that to change? How can he make a choice, if that choice is a change dependent on time?
Let me break it down by editing your response:
>>> Let's say there is no physical time.
>>> This means there no physical change but it doesn't mean there isn't any non-physical change.
>>> Ergo, there is no physical time and hence no physical change, yet there can be non-physical change.

Consequently, He can make a choice (non-physical change) because that choice is NOT a physical change that is dependent on physical time.

Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.
The physical theories of the Big Bang and time (ie physics) do not encompass the non-physical. Ergo, there can be non-physical change without there "being" any time.
How?
First, I'd like to say that time IS change and change IS time; they are inseparable. Keep in mind that this is a PHYSICAL definition of time: time = physical change and physical change = time. None of this speaks to the non-physical, and so "non-physical change" is independent of "physical time." If you are not a Dualist, then this is all quite meaningless. However, if you can accept that framework, then it's rather trivial.
Even if I were a dualist (which I'm not, for lack of warrant), I could still see that a non-physical mind might be possible. However, in order for there to be any kind of change to that mind, requires time.
Not sure I agree based on my definition of physical time. If you have another definition of time please present it.

Time is change, as you said.
No. I said time is PHYSICAL change. I said time is a PHYSICAL thing NOT a non-physical thing.

This "immaterial" or "non-physical" (whatever that means, since we have no experience with it) mind cannot change without time...
Well, not for nothing, but if you don't know what it means, then you can really be ascribing things to it, now can you? No you cannot. If it is a non-physical thing then yes it can have a non-physical change without NECESSARILY causing a physical change (ie time.)

...so if it exists where there is no time, it cannot be the cause of time, because it would violate the law of identity (first, mind=no time MIND CHANGES TO CREATE TIME, mind= time...that capitalized change cannot occur without time).
Yes it can because it is non-physical change which has nothing to do with physical time. I guess one can think of it as 2 types of change/time: physical and non-physical. God resides in the "space of all possible states" for the physical and the non-physical. Voila!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 2:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 12:41:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:36:19 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:31:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:06:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 12:03:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:59:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:36:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Time is part of the universe (and is, to a certain extent, relative). So when we speak of the "beginning of the universe" we're also speaking of the "beginning of time". So when we talk about God existing "outside time", then there is no time where he is. Therefore, change (such as a decision to create a universe) would not be possible.

I wanted to add: In my faith, time is one of the attributes of God, because of this following authentic tradition:Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hands are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'Sahih al-Bukhari

So that is what sahih al bukhari said NOT what allah said.
Got it!

Sahih means authentic: ie all the chain including Al bukhari(the author) is made of Identified and trusted men and women.
So as I said your statement doesn't come from Allah. Do we agree?

We don't, when you have something authentically reported it just means it was said by whomever is the speaker with no doubt.

So was it Allah who said it or someone else?

Allah said it, but not directly to us (of course), to his prophet, who said it to his companions, who reported it till it reached Bukhari. for this particular Hadeeth there are 7 men between God and Bukhari, that includes the Prophet.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 2:22:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 2:02:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I can comprehend it. But the problem I see is, let's say there is no time. No change. How can he move from that to change? How can he make a choice, if that choice is a change dependent on time?
Let me break it down by editing your response:
>>> Let's say there is no physical time.
>>> This means there no physical change but it doesn't mean there isn't any non-physical change.
Why not?
>>> Ergo, there is no physical time and hence no physical change, yet there can be non-physical change.
Still fail to understand

Consequently, He can make a choice (non-physical change) because that choice is NOT a physical change that is dependent on physical time.

Explain, please.

Even if I were a dualist (which I'm not, for lack of warrant), I could still see that a non-physical mind might be possible. However, in order for there to be any kind of change to that mind, requires time.
Not sure I agree based on my definition of physical time. If you have another definition of time please present it.

Standard dictionary:

"The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole."

Wikipedia definition:
Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.

Time is change, as you said.
No. I said time is PHYSICAL change. I said time is a PHYSICAL thing NOT a non-physical thing.

I disagree, and see no reason to indicate that time would be limited to physical things. But then, I see no warrant for this concept of "non-physical" things (obviously, that assumes energy is considered physical).

This "immaterial" or "non-physical" (whatever that means, since we have no experience with it) mind cannot change without time...
Well, not for nothing, but if you don't know what it means, then you can really be ascribing things to it, now can you?
Ahh, but we're discussion change, not physicality. Definitionally, change requires time. So physical, non-physical, doesn't see a reason to see a difference.

No you cannot. If it is a non-physical thing then yes it can have a non-physical change without NECESSARILY causing a physical change (ie time.)

Can you give me an example of a change not requiring time? It seems to me that to describe a change REQUIRES to states of time: Prior to change, after change. Without those two states, as I noted in the OP, the two are simultaneous and violate identity.

...so if it exists where there is no time, it cannot be the cause of time, because it would violate the law of identity (first, mind=no time MIND CHANGES TO CREATE TIME, mind= time...that capitalized change cannot occur without time).
Yes it can because it is non-physical change which has nothing to do with physical time. I guess one can think of it as 2 types of change/time: physical and non-physical. God resides in the "space of all possible states" for the physical and the non-physical. Voila!

That means God is not "outside" time, but simply "outside of OUR time", and solves no problems regarding the concept of God existing "outside time"; the "time" out there is no different, it's just being used as a way for God to exist outside of ours. Which is fine. The whole point was that time is required for change, so trying to simply say "Oh, he's timeless" yet also creating is nonsensical.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 2:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:57:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It would seem, to me, that arguments like the Kalam fail, not just for the standard reasons, but because they fail to examine the concept of "timelessnes". With a handwave, they attempt to show that a mind is necessary to make a change in a timeless state, ignoring that, in a timeless state, no change is possible.

if T=0, any change would mean that the thing before the change is = the thing after the change; that means that A is not just A, but also B, which seems to violate the law of identity.

Thoughts?`

You misunderstand the Kalam. Dr.Craig concedes that there can be no change in a timeless state. Craig posits that the change happens simultaneously with t=0 along with time beginning, and God enters time at this point. This means, that there is no change as God is timeless, the change occurs simultaneously with the beginning of time. At this time, God is not timeless. Thus, there is no metaphysical impossibility of creation under Craig's view.