THE BURDEN OF PROOF

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Time without beginning or end is the definition of timeless. A state of time sinifies the existence of time. In order for time to exist it must begin. The universe had a beginning of time and matter.

I just noticed something here:

When people bring up the Universe having existed in a continuous self-creation state, you specifically point out that Time MUST have a Beginning and an End and note that if time were infinite, then no action could be performed because one could never reach the present.

However, if that is true then how could a deity whom exists in the realm of:

Eternal is no beginning and no end. Therefore there is no time in eternity.

-be able to perform an action at all?

An eternal, creationless entity that exists in a realm with an infinite amount of time cannot perform an action (such as, say, Create a Universe nor do miracles for his subjects within it) by the very same logic that you snap around, without even thinking of it.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

First of all let me congradulate you on your Webmaster position.

Ta.

Time without beginning or end is the definition of timeless.

Timeless is not, however, the definition of eternity. You are asserting that eternity is timeless, but it isn't. Check the definition of eternity anywhere you like, look up its etymology. T'aint hard, sugar.

A state of time sinifies the existence of time.

...and an eternity is a conceptual unending era of time. If your Heaven is without time (timeless), there can be no actions (no laughing, no frottaging).

You can't have it both ways. Although doublethink is one of the prerequisites of some faiths, I suppose.

I'd be interested to know which denomination you are, of course, don't feel you have to divulge that nugget. It's just nice to know which of the 30,000+ I'm up against.

In order for time to exist it must begin. The universe had a beginning of time and matter.

Your Heaven (and God too) is outside the universe, so there are no boundaries; time-wise or otherwise.
So your Heaven is eternal (unending age) yet somehow without time (timeless)? Is it one, the other, or both?

The burden of proof is on your shoulders... fire away!

eternal: unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time

I don't understand this concept that something residing in a timeless state cannot have any experiences. How do you know this to be true. Have you observed a timeless realm before?

 

[Laurens]

eternal: unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time

I don't understand this concept that something residing in a timeless state cannot have any experiences. How do you know this to be true. Have you observed a timeless realm before?

Think about it.

Experience is by its nature a temporal phenomena. Experiences occur during the passage of time, how can I have the experience of doing anything if there is no passage of time?

I concede that experiences are possible in a hypothetical eternal realm, but you keep insisting on using the word timeless which means 'without time'.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

eternal: unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time

I don't understand this concept that something residing in a timeless state cannot have any experiences. How do you know this to be true. Have you observed a timeless realm before?

Think about it.

Experience is by its nature a temporal phenomena. Experiences occur during the passage of time, how can I have the experience of doing anything if there is no passage of time?

I concede that experiences are possible in a hypothetical eternal realm, but you keep insisting on using the word timeless which means 'without time'.

So your saying that if time is nonexistent, anything existing without time cannot do or experience anything?

I just don't understand how come

 

[Laurens]

So your saying that if time is nonexistent, anything existing without time cannot do or experience anything?

I just don't understand how come

Yes.

Our experiences rely on time, without it there would be no before, during or after anything. How can you have an experience without those things? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Prolescum]

eternal: unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time

:facepalm:

Eternal: sausages: twisted links of pork, rusk and pepper.

Eternal: sour: heart of gyproc, bane of the Bene Gesserits.

Eternal: Rameses: contractually geriatric dogged aplomb.

I don't understand this concept that something residing in a timeless state cannot have any experiences.

That's because of your insistence that there be no time in your deity's realm (assuming there's only one deity and not, say, three. Or three as one or whatever... Oh father, who art pilfered from the Egyptian Book of the Dead and imitated lackadaisically by one of these new fangled death cults religions); because when confronted with philosophical and linguistic flaws in your dogma you retreat into repetition and grasp at any straw in the hopes of avoiding drowning in doubt. This is almost certainly why you won't address the bulk of Hackenslash's posts.

I'll explain it one more time... To act requires time. It is utterly meaningless, not to mention completely redundant, to suggest that events occur, that one has "life everlasting", in a place with no time. Your attempts to squeeze synonyms out of thin air is really quite futile, not least because no one disputes that your particular god is supposed to live in an eternal realm. That is, an unending, everlasting, age (you know, the actual meaning of the term). I just think it's hilarious that you make so many schoolboy errors that even most of the fundies and fruitloops would have a hard time backing your illogical positions posted here.

You can persist if you wish, but don't be surprised when the laughter drowns out whatever sloppy, illogical sub-standard sophistry you come up with next. You could always grow a pair of balls and admit an (initially - now compounded) insignificant error. Also, the pride that informed the hubris.

How do you know this to be true. Have you observed a timeless realm before?

It is completely unnecessary (how exactly would one observe [which is an action] a timeless anything?); a cursory understanding of cause and effect is all that is required. Of course, all this confusion could be wrapped up with an explanation found in your holy texts regarding all the souls that have ever* existed** in stasis.

*except for the robots - they go to silicon heaven. With all the calculators.
**oh yeah, forgot all those bad folk with their rock music and short skirts.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

So your saying that if time is nonexistent, anything existing without time cannot do or experience anything?

I just don't understand how come

Yes.

Our experiences rely on time, without it there would be no before, during or after anything. How can you have an experience without those things? It doesn't make sense.

I thank you for your patience as well as your explanation. It was coherent. However, my problem is that once we enter into eternity with or without God, how can we apply rules that only existed in a temporal state and apply them into an eternal state? Wait! Eternal is still time but just time without end. Is that right? I believe that's what you said. I was arguing against your definition of eternal. I suppose that if God is timeless, then He never changes. But the arguments I hear against this is that God could not have created the universe if He is timeless. But I think that even though God is timeless it does not mean that he cannot perform a task like creating the universe. God does not speak words. I believe He just 'IS' as an existence. It's confusing to think about but I still believe we could be objective about it if we put on our thinking caps.

 

[Laurens]

I thank you for your patience as well as your explanation. It was coherent. However, my problem is that once we enter into eternity with or without God, how can we apply rules that only existed in a temporal state and apply them into an eternal state? Wait! Eternal is still time but just time without end. Is that right? I believe that's what you said. I was arguing against your definition of eternal. I suppose that if God is timeless, then He never changes. But the arguments I hear against this is that God could not have created the universe if He is timeless. But I think that even though God is timeless it does not mean that he cannot perform a task like creating the universe. God does not speak words. I believe He just 'IS' as an existence. It's confusing to think about but I still believe we could be objective about it if we put on our thinking caps.

Just because you assert that even though God is timeless doesn't mean he cannot create the universe doesn't make it true. To me a being performing actions outside of time makes no sense. An action is something that takes place within time.

Also do you not accept the many passages in the Bible in which God does speak to people in words?

 

[Prolescum]

It's confusing to think about

It isn't confusing, it's idiotic. Here's a fun question: Did he (check the lack of capitalisation on the third person pronoun!) make all of his decisions at once?

but I still believe we could be objective about it if we put on our thinking caps.

I don't even require caffeine, let alone a thinking cap, to perforate your claims.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Joseph, the point my colleagues are trying to explain to you is that things change over time.

We change over time in our physical appearance, our emotional states and our thinking - we don't have every single state (whether physical, emotional or mental) all at the same time.

Perhaps the best philosophical solution to this problem is that of Eastern philosophy in describing Buddha's state of being as the "Eternal Now" - in other words, everything is experienced as if it were this present instant. For Buddha, there is no past or future - it's simply "Being".

However, your idea that God can "change" from one state to another does not fit in with the above concept due to your confusion of "timeless" and "eternity".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

I am working on a reply to hackenslash.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Greetings,

Joseph, the point my colleagues are trying to explain to you is that things change over time.

We change over time in our physical appearance, our emotional states and our thinking - we don't have every single state (whether physical, emotional or mental) all at the same time.

Perhaps the best philosophical solution to this problem is that of Eastern philosophy in describing Buddha's state of being as the "Eternal Now" - in other words, everything is experienced as if it were this present instant. For Buddha, there is no past or future - it's simply "Being".

However, your idea that God can "change" from one state to another does not fit in with the above concept due to your confusion of "timeless" and "eternity".

Kindest regards,

James

Buddah is dead James.
The secular belief is that the universe is all there is. The universe is closed. The theist believe that God exists outside of the universe(the universe) is open and God can reach inside and manipulate it has He pleases.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I thank you for your patience as well as your explanation. It was coherent. However, my problem is that once we enter into eternity with or without God, how can we apply rules that only existed in a temporal state and apply them into an eternal state? Wait! Eternal is still time but just time without end. Is that right? I believe that's what you said. I was arguing against your definition of eternal. I suppose that if God is timeless, then He never changes. But the arguments I hear against this is that God could not have created the universe if He is timeless. But I think that even though God is timeless it does not mean that he cannot perform a task like creating the universe. God does not speak words. I believe He just 'IS' as an existence. It's confusing to think about but I still believe we could be objective about it if we put on our thinking caps.

Just because you assert that even though God is timeless doesn't mean he cannot create the universe doesn't make it true. To me a being performing actions outside of time makes no sense. An action is something that takes place within time.

Also do you not accept the many passages in the Bible in which God does speak to people in words?

We are finite because we have a beginning and an end. We lack the ablity to fathom a timeless all powerful, omniscient God. So in order for you say that it is not possible for god to be timeless and create the universe is the same as saying you understand things outside of finite thinking which is utterly impossible. So I remain in my posit that God is timeless and can create and destory as He pleases.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

It's confusing to think about

It isn't confusing, it's idiotic. Here's a fun question: Did he (check the lack of capitalisation on the third person pronoun!) make all of his decisions at once?

but I still believe we could be objective about it if we put on our thinking caps.

I don't even require caffeine, let alone a thinking cap, to perforate your claims.

I cannnot posit how God works as I am finite and limited to finite thinking. Unless you are omniscient I don't think that you have the intelligence to purport that something timeless cannot perform an action. I realize that I am overstepping my boundries and go against what I told you that you were not allowed to do but think about, If we were to reside in a timeless state I believe that language would just be different. For one there would not be any words like create or begin. However I still believe that even though God is timeless He can still create or cause something to begin. Our language is completely based on time. Our language would be different if we resided in timelessness.

 

[Laurens]

We are finite because we have a beginning and an end. We lack the ablity to fathom a timeless all powerful, omniscient God. So in order for you say that it is not possible for god to be timeless and create the universe is the same as saying you understand things outside of finite thinking which is utterly impossible. So I remain in my posit that God is timeless and can create and destory as He pleases.

And I stand by my point that what you're saying is nonsensical bollocks.

I'm done. Bye.

 

[australopithecus]

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey, I suppose.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

We are finite because we have a beginning and an end. We lack the ablity to fathom a timeless all powerful, omniscient God. So in order for you say that it is not possible for god to be timeless and create the universe is the same as saying you understand things outside of finite thinking which is utterly impossible. So I remain in my posit that God is timeless and can create and destory as He pleases.

And I stand by my point that what you're saying is nonsensical bollocks.

I'm done. Bye.

You have been finished off and of course now your done. Your logic fails as well as your assertion that finite understanding can exstrapolate itself into an infinite understanding of timelessness. I must have hit the button right on the nose! Our language is built upon finite understanding and thus we cannot make any judgements on how something risiding in timelessness infinite state can operate. Bye Bye!

 

[Laurens]

You have been finished off and of course now your done. Your logic fails as well as your assertion that finite understanding can exstrapolate itself into an infinite understanding of time. I must have hit the button right on the nose! Our language is built upon finite understanding and thus we cannot make any judgements on how something risiding in timelessness infinite state can operate. Bye Bye!

I'm done with you because you make no efforts to give any real arguments or explanations behind the claims you make. You just pile nonsense upon nonsense and cement it together with unfounded assumptions. There is no point in discussing anything if you aren't prepared to state your case, and answer queries coherently.

For that reason I see no point in continuing to waste my time trying to reason with you.

 

[Prolescum]

Just because you assert that even though God is timeless doesn't mean he cannot create the universe doesn't make it true. To me a being performing actions outside of time makes no sense. An action is something that takes place within time.

Also do you not accept the many passages in the Bible in which God does speak to people in words?

We are finite because we have a beginning and an end. We lack the ablity to fathom a timeless all powerful, omniscient God. So in order for you say that it is not possible for god to be timeless and create the universe is the same as saying you understand things outside of finite thinking which is utterly impossible. So I remain in my posit that God is timeless and can create and destory as He pleases.

I say that "God" is actually named Roger. He was a lonely chap until he created the universe. Of course, the universe he already lived in was really the universe he created because, well, he didn't just spring from nowhere, did he? And he's definitely a he. You can tell because people always describe him that way. That's how you know you're being correct. He later lived in a caravan just outside the M31 (arf), and created morality on a serviette given to him by one Winona Ryder (who had travelled in time through the power of fiction). His black skin was always important to him (after all, how long had it taken his people to receive full and equal deistic rights? To add insult to injury (the injury being Bible literalists), Enoch Powell also stepped back in time to write a book about "angels and their rivers of blood", which we now know is actually the director's cut of G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra...), hence his opposition to the slave trade. He smited anyone and everyone, worshipper or no, who took a slave, and gave the land of Mu (now called Russia) to their descendents. Roger had a girlfriend, who had a particular interest in Northern Europe, called Danu who spent most of her time watching half-naked and half-painted Celts swiping each other's heads off. This angered Roger greatly, so he sunk Atlantis thinking it was Ireland. Shortly thereafter, he disappeared never to be heard again. Some even question the existence of Roger. However, I've just written about him and I believe it, so he's definitely real.

I cannnot posit how God works as I am finite and limited to finite thinking.

But you know he's omnicient, right? You know he's omnipotent, right? You know he gives his followers a blissful, never ending eternity, right? An eternity that apparently has no time in which to experience this immortality.

This is what this arguments boils down to:

You: God is this thing because this book written by several guys decades after the events described within, minus omissions, plus dodgy translations says so.
Other: Okay, how does that work?
You: It just does. God is unfathomable. But despite that, he's also these things that we fathomed.
Other: That's just a cop-out. Give me a rational explanation for how the universe works with someone like that at the helm?
You: God is beyond our understanding.
Other: So how does he interact with us, and why did it stop happening as soon as we invented the means to understand the universe naturalistically?
You: He works in mysterious ways.

It's beyond a joke; it's a pastiche of discussion, and I'm growing tired of it.

Unless you are omniscient I don't think that you have the intelligence to purport that something timeless cannot perform an action.

Time is a prerequisite of action, for the sake of fucks! You might as well just say that oranges are made of heredity and fear folded upon the thigh of constant sorrow for all the sense it makes.

I realize that I am overstepping my boundries and go against what I told you that you were not allowed to do but think about, If we were to reside in a timeless state I believe that language would just be different.

Oh spare me, gods of Kobol!

For one there would not be any words like create or begin.

Or any at all. Nor would they exist in any legible sense.

However I still believe that even though God is timeless He can still create or cause something to begin.

Yes, and he can command an old drunk to squeeze billions of creatures into a boat, and damn an entire race of sentient beings because one or two of them went scrumping. All this conversation shows is that you're a Christian who fills gaps in his understanding with a god of infinite abilities but of no discernible abode, and expects everyone else to buy it wholesale. It's risible.

If you're here to convince the atheists and agnostics to consider your faith, you're doing the worst job imaginable.

Our language is completely based on time.

No, it has roots in Germanic, Latin, Greek and French languages; time is a prerequisite for anything to happen at all. Except for your conveniently do-everything-my-argument-requires god, of course.

Our language would be different if we resided in timelessness.

[/quote]

True, neither us nor it would exist.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I cannnot posit how God works as I am finite and limited to finite thinking. Unless you are omniscient I don't think that you have the intelligence to purport that something timeless cannot perform an action. I realize that I am overstepping my boundries and go against what I told you that you were not allowed to do but think about, If we were to reside in a timeless state I believe that language would just be different. For one there would not be any words like create or begin. However I still believe that even though God is timeless He can still create or cause something to begin. Our language is completely based on time. Our language would be different if we resided in timelessness.

"Timeless cause" makes no more sense than to say "I ate roundness". You are still coming to terms with that and it is not completely out of your system.
But now let's face reality and address the elephant in the room.
The only thing that could possibly clue you on your particular kind of God is a book of questionable authorship and your preacher that doesn't know God anymore than you do. Just think about that for a moment.
All your properties that you attributing to God in order to (rather ineffectively) exempt it from following any logical reasoning, is of your own making. It is not something you observe God to have (because you have never observed any God ever), it just properties that you say that your God has irrespective of either or not it actually has those properties or even if it exists. And many of those have been shown to you to actually mean that your concept of God could not exist, non of this is even new. You would do a greater service for yourself, if instead of going around taking someone else's word (who by the way doesn't know any better) about the properties of God, or instead of making up properties of God, try to find out what properties does your God actually have. I'm sure that you will find this approach rather enlightening.


Now consider this alternative. Instead of doing mental gymnastics in order to exempt your God from following any laws of logic, what if that book of questionable authorship and your preacher was wrong? It is rather a more simple solution, it does not defy reason. We know how people make up Gods, we have many examples of that, even today there are new religious with completely new concepts Gods being created. If someone believes it, in the proper fostering environment they can make someone else believe more than they do. They can create very convincing preachers like yours, they are inspired to create books about their conviction (that become holy) just like the book you have, there are people claiming miracles in the name of their Gods. There is nothing you can say about your God that can not be said about someone else's God. We know how this things happens. Even if we didn't, you recognize that this must have happened to at least every other concept of God besides yours.
But why make a special pleading and say that yours is different (like everyone else would say for their god)?
If for a moment you consider that your God is no different. That it is made up like everyone else's, that doesn't exist like everyone else's. As if by magic, every piece fits together, there are no loose ends, it explains everything around you that didn't make much sense before, it is simple and it is elegant.