Heaven cannot be timeless

[Bahman]

It’s been pointed out many times that your own logic is not exactly impeccable. You draw conclusions that don’t follow from your premises, you make assumptions that are unwarranted.

I am not perfect so I could be wrong. What is your opinion on this thread? Could heaven be timeless? Could we enter Heaven (spiritual realm with no space) with our body?

 

[Bahman]

If 3 people hold 3 different views about what the logical truth is, how do we determine their validity?

Logic is based on premises and premises can be checked with different arguments. It is possible to find an argument with a the conclusion which show that premises is wrong. That is only way to check a logical statement.

In typical sense we default to the majority opinion in general but history shows that can often be quite wrong.

That is true.

BUT in this sense you are largely in the mega minority among laymen and scientists alike as you deny the sciences of your peers and laymen. But then you hold that you have the correct logic and everyone else is wrong.

I am not saying that I am right and everybody in this forum is wrong. People in here in many occasion couldn’t convince me.

There are 2 possibilities in this regard:

1. You are a super duper genius who has found the total truth of logic and are living before your time.
2. You are in some cases just wrong and hardheaded…

I think I do mistake sometimes.

 

[LethalMouse]

Logic is based on premises and premises can be checked with different arguments. It is possible to find an argument with a the conclusion which show that premises is wrong. That is only way to check a logical statement.

That is true.

I am not saying that I am right and everybody in this forum is wrong. People in here in many occasion couldn’t convince me.

I think I do mistake sometimes.

You basically just simultaneously agreed and disagreed with me… idk what to say to that lol.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I’d like to make a few statements and ask if Bahman agrees or disagrees with me.

1. ‘Timeless’ does not mean a state of frozen, unchanging, suspended animation.
2. A state of events occurring in sequence does not, in itself, prove that Time, as we know it, exists.
3. It is entirely possible that ‘Timeless’ in the sense we are discussing, refers only to the most obvious attributes of Time that we experience - a beginning, an end, decay, loss, death.

3.a. To say that Heaven is Timeless does NOT imply that our experience of it does not have a beginning - when a soul enters it, it BEGINS to experience Heaven - but this ‘beginning’ occurs on behalf of the soul, and does not effect the ‘Timeless’ status of Heaven.

1. ‘Timeless’ does not mean that there is no sense of sequence. We are, after all, created for a dimension ruled by Time, and even if heaven is Timeless in the absolute sense, we may continue to experience it in a manner a bit LIKE time. That is, we may continue to experience events in sequence, within a Timeless reality.

 

[Bahman]

1. ‘Timeless’ does not mean a state of frozen, unchanging, suspended animation.

Timeless is opposite of time-bound so it is state of frozen, unchaining and suspended animation.

1. A state of events occurring in sequence does not, in itself, prove that Time, as we know it, exists.

I agree.

1. It is entirely possible that ‘Timeless’ in the sense we are discussing, refers only to the most obvious attributes of Time that we experience - a beginning, an end, decay, loss, death.

Please read the first comment.

3.a. To say that Heaven is Timeless does NOT imply that our experience of it does not have a beginning - when a soul enters it, it BEGINS to experience Heaven - but this ‘beginning’ occurs on behalf of the soul, and does not effect the ‘Timeless’ status of Heaven.

The key question is that heaven is spiritual which means no time and no space: So how we can enter there with our body? Of course there is a beginning for a person when s/he enters heaven. This is clearly against timelessness of heaven.

1. ‘Timeless’ does not mean that there is no sense of sequence. We are, after all, created for a dimension ruled by Time, and even if heaven is Timeless in the absolute sense, we may continue to experience it in a manner a bit LIKE time. That is, we may continue to experience events in sequence, within a Timeless reality.

Timeless means changeless too.

 

[Bahman]

You basically just simultaneously agreed and disagreed with me… idk what to say to that lol.

I don’t see that. Can you give an example?

 

[Vico]

This is simple: The state of Heaven is subjected to change because individuals are going there. The timeless Heaven cannot change. Hence Heaven cannot be timeless.

Certainly heaven can be timeless if this world can be timeless, such as we have with the concept of fourth dimension. The flow of time is an illusion.

 

[Bahman]

Certainly heaven can be timeless if this world can be timeless, such as we have with the concept of fourth dimension. The flow of time is an illusion.

This world is time-bound in another word changeable. Timeless means changeless which is absurd.

 

[Vico]

This world is time-bound in another word changeable. Timeless means changeless which is absurd.

Not where the flow of time is an illusion. There are events that are ordered. Our subjective perception of time is there but an illusion.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Bahman, you agreed that sequence is not the same as time.

Sequence is a form of change.

Therefore

Change is not the same as time.

If change and time are not the same,

Then, you can lack time without forcing a state of zero change.

 

[Bahman]

Not where the flow of time is an illusion. There are events that are ordered. Our subjective perception of time is there but an illusion.

So you agree that time is an illusion. If it is so then what is definition of timeless? No change,?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, you agreed that sequence is not the same as time.

Sequence is a form of change.

Therefore

Change is not the same as time.

If change and time are not the same,

Then, you can lack time without forcing a state of zero change.

That is very very interesting question. Physicist knew the problem for a little while. Everything can emerge in respect to time but we know that there was time in the beginning. The only solution which come to my mind is that the point beginning is unstable.

 

[Vico]

So you agree that time is an illusion. If it is so then what is definition of timeless? No change,?

The change is ultimately unreal.

 

[LethalMouse]

I don’t see that. Can you give an example?

Okay, so in here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13905419&postcount=101

The the 2nd,3rd,4th points to which you agreed. But then you do not allow for any alternate examples. So you state:

“I am not saying that I am right and everybody in this forum is wrong. People in here in many occasion couldn’t convince me.”

and

“I think I do mistake sometimes.”

So the issue here isn’t that you “are” wrong, but how you go about attempting to understand things. You propose a question that conforms to a set of rules that no one (or the mainstream) do not acknowledge said rules. Then you refuse to step outside of the box even for a moment.

Your 1st comment in the post I linked is adhering to the Bahman way, but ignores the 3 latter comments in the same sense. See if the 3 latter comments are true then the first is inaccurate. Here we have where you admit in the latter 3 the myriad of ways that “logic” can be wrong but Bahman is simultaneously totally knowledgeable in how to make sure his logic is correct…

If you create an environment based on your own logic and create rules that negate the possible alternate truths (whether true or not) then you negate any chance for a discussion to present anything other than the original initiators desired outcome.

 

[Bahman]

Okay, so in here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13905419&postcount=101

The the 2nd,3rd,4th points to which you agreed. But then you do not allow for any alternate examples. So you state:

“I am not saying that I am right and everybody in this forum is wrong. People in here in many occasion couldn’t convince me.”

and

“I think I do mistake sometimes.”

So the issue here isn’t that you “are” wrong, but how you go about attempting to understand things. You propose a question that conforms to a set of rules that no one (or the mainstream) do not acknowledge said rules. Then you refuse to step outside of the box even for a moment.

Your 1st comment in the post I linked is adhering to the Bahman way, but ignores the 3 latter comments in the same sense. See if the 3 latter comments are true then the first is inaccurate. Here we have where you admit in the latter 3 the myriad of ways that “logic” can be wrong but Bahman is simultaneously totally knowledgeable in how to make sure his logic is correct…

If you create an environment based on your own logic and create rules that negate the possible alternate truths (whether true or not) then you negate any chance for a discussion to present anything other than the original initiators desired outcome.

I think there are three ways here that you can deal with me. (1) Either I am always wrong so you can leave my post, (2) provide an argument to and show my error, (3) engage in a discussion to find out whether my argument is right or wrong. Is that fair enough?

 

[Bahman]

The change is ultimately unreal.

Well this don’t make any sense at all to me. In my opinion You that is false so I open a thread for it.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think there are three ways here that you can deal with me. (1) Either I am always wrong so you can leave my post, (2) provide an argument to and show my error, (3) engage in a discussion to find out whether my argument is right or wrong. Is that fair enough?

I am providing argument, and I enjoy a large chunk of our discourse. However, I never said you were “Always wrong” I included many caveats in my post to allow for me and others to be wrong. The issue is that when making headway with you, you immediately cut things off and negate arguments which create the effect of :banghead:

It is the supplement that you adhere to an original parameter and refuse to entertain another that hurts the head. You define time in a way that almost no one else does, and unless you can at least apply a theoretical or hypothetical look at things from other’s perspective, you can never much value what is said.

The issue is not right or wrong on the topic but when you agree with someone and disagree with them at the same time. Several threads involving other posters equate to the same, so often when people posting from a similar view point see someone make a good post that is agreed with and denied at the same time we :banghead:

Other than that I enjoy your seemingly huge desire for understanding And if you can entertain at least the basic theoretical acceptance of alternate parameters from time to time I think you might appreciate many other posters and (dare I be so bold as to suggest myself as well?) and their posts general points.

I love you though, you are me interwebs buddy :hug1:

 

[Bahman]

Not where the flow of time is an illusion. There are events that are ordered. Our subjective perception of time is there but an illusion.

There is no subjective perception of time but motion.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

you agreed that sequence is not the same as time.

Sequence is a form of change.

Therefore

Change is not the same as time.

If change and time are not the same,

Then, you can lack time without forcing a state of zero change.

I don’t understand your conclusion. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Vico]

There is no subjective perception of time but motion.

For the B-theorist, there can be no such thing as the movement or flow of time so this experience of time must be an illusion.

For example of one contradiction: the flow of time must be an illusion because if time moves then there must be some speed at which it moves but speed is measured with respect to time.