Timeless existence

[lifegazer]

The best part of Lifegazer's "new revelation" is: if time DID exist in the first place, then God is not The Primal Cause, because everything God can do is made possible only if time is there first.

As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time.

 

[Zero]

As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time.

Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking.

 

[Upchurch]

Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking.

Well, yeah. Same ol' same ol'.

 

[lifegazer]

Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking.

I was responding to a statement made about God.

My argument states that existence precedes time/change/transformation. Existence is what change/time/transformation occurs to/within.

There must be a few rational people in here who can acknowledge this?
One, even?
Hope never dies.

 

[lifegazer]

(edited to add) OOPS! I posted too late

Kinda jumped the gun there pal. Try a different bark.

 

[lifegazer]

"The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.
Existence was, before time affected "her"."

Second chance ladies. The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me. Get serious.

 

[Flatworm]

"The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.

I'm sorry, but this is still as incoherent as the first time you said it. What does it mean to say "before time"? The fact that you started the thread with the express purpose of discussing an absurdity doesn't make it any less absurd.

How are defining "before"? It makes sense to define that time increases as we go from causes to effects, then say that an event at time t1 happened before time t2 if and only if t1 < t2. If time began at, say, t=0, this implies that there is no t such that
t < 0, hence nothing can be said to come before the beginning of time.

Let's substitute another contradiction into your argument to see if the form is valid: The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there are square circles. Hence, those that argue that "it is silly to discuss square circles", are incorrect.

 

[Humphreys]

The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.

You do realize you are claiming there was a time when there was no time, right?

Second chance ladies. The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me. Get serious.

Your truth is nonsensical. You are a very silly man, lifegazer.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Upchurch]

Second chance ladies.

How many chances do the ladies get?

The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me.

Thank Gawd we can easily do both at the same time!

Get serious.

You first.

 

[Acrimonious]

As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time

Take Two: How can the contents of God's mind change if the contents of God's mind exist outside of the mechanism you have claimed is a requirement for change (Time)?

And you avoided addressing the problem I pointed out with your previous Primal Cause dogma.

 

[lifegazer]

You do realize you are claiming there was a time when there was no time, right?

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.
So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence. To argue against this is to ponder what exists in time. Something must. Therefore, something must precede the onset of change/time/transformation.
The ball's in your court squire. Watch out for those double faults.

 

[Atlas]

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

What world is that?

The big bang has it all happening at the same instant.

But that's right. First propose God. Then use God to prove God.

 

[Upchurch]

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

Have you ever considered that just maybe the first change was from non-existance to existance? That would also be fairly logical. (assuming we all knew about what we were talking the existice of)

Heck, as Atlas points out, it'd even be consistant with observation.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry, but this is still as incoherent as the first time you said it. What does it mean to say "before time"?

It means before change/transformation. Obviously.

It makes sense to define that time increases as we go from causes to effects, then say that an event at time t1 happened before time t2 if and only if t1 < t2. If time began at, say, t=0, this implies that there is no t such that
t < 0, hence nothing can be said to come before the beginning of time.

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Math/physics relates to the effects of time. Now that I have opened the door to timeless existence, your ass is mine pal.

 

[Flatworm]

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

Seems all right to me too, your problem arises when you try to equate change with time. Imagine there is only one point in time. What can change in such a situation? Clearly change requires a comparison between two distinct points in time.

Going back to my earlier (admittedly non-relativistic) model for time, if time begins at t=0, there can be no change until t > 0.

So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence.

Great. We've gone from time before time to existence where there is no existence.

 

[Humphreys]

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

It's more likely there was never an existence without time, and never a time without existence. That is obvious logic, in my opinion.

So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence.

Okay, let's take your idea seriously. Imagine we are in this timeless existence you suppose once existed. There is no time here, no change at all.

Now, without change, how on earth do you propose this existence changed into the existence we experience now?

The ball's in your court squire. Watch out for those double faults.

You are very silly.

 

[Flatworm]

It means before change/transformation. Obviously.

Change over what, non-time?

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Nothing can be said to come before the onset of time, because the word "before" only has meaning in the context of time.

Math/physics relates to the effects of time. Now that I have opened the door to timeless existence, your ass is mine pal.

Logic can deal with timelessness. Mathematics, as a formalization of logic, can deal with it as well- much better, in fact, than your vague BS buzzwords. What I have offered you is a logical proof that "before time" is incoherent. Refute it if you can, or go away.

I suggest you find a different "ass pal".

 

[lifegazer]

The big bang has it all happening at the same instant.

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour. Time is behaviour... of substance (whatever that substance may be).
Events/change happen to/within existence. Hence, existence precedes events.

The ONLY defense left for you, is to argue that everything proceeded from absolutely-nothing with absolutely no cause. Try that, and I'll reduce your philosophical worth here to that of a chimp.

 

[Wudang]

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Translating: "existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to happen at an earlier time than the onset of time. "
Well, obviously it can be said, but surely not with a straight face?

 

[Atlas]

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour. Time is behaviour... of substance (whatever that substance may be).
Events/change happen to/within existence. Hence, existence precedes events.

The ONLY defense left for you, is to argue that everything proceeded from absolutely-nothing with absolutely no cause. Try that, and I'll reduce your philosophical worth here to that of a chimp.

I was out of line.

I now feel I should have asked Iacchus for the best post number to synchronistically address a timeless singularity approaching absurdity in time (existencewise).

I will linger in the wings til the stars align in numeric perfection.