Time - for an IQ Test

[PhilFrank]

Old Jan 11, '10, 7:35 pm
James S Saint James S Saint is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: August 30, 2009
Posts: 1,874
Religion: NotA == None of the Above
Default Time - for an IQ Test
The beginning of time and the universe is a myth and superstition.

Your OP alone shows how you implicate that the Creator did not do what He said He did because of mathematical equations and other “truths” based on your logic.
I’ll take the Creator of all things word over a creatures logic any day!:

 

[JDaniel]

Yeah, there need not necessarily be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed. Time is defined as a measure of change. There can’t, by definition, be a time before time or a time when there’s no time. In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition, and hence it would be impossible for time to come into existence.

NowAg:

It appears more than likely you skipped over the post just before this one. In it I re-wrote, in part, exactly what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to time and God. I can’t imagine how you could come to the conclusion you have, had you read it. Just for edification, here it is again:

"The more complete a being is, the less it changes. A perfectly complete being would not change or need to change at all. It would possess its whole being permanently, and not in a variable series of successive stages. It would be capable of embracing its whole reality in one permanent experience. It would be always wholly itself, and forever identical with itself in every respect. It would realize all of its possibilities and meaning at once. There would be no past or present or future in our relative sense, but all would be an abiding “now,” or transcendent “present.” It would not merely (as we can partially) include the “past” by representative memory, and the “future " by anticipation based on past and present knowledge. In perfect being “past and future” would be actually present and fully possessed without differentiation of periods. Perfect duration would involve an unrestricted consciousness of the fulness of being. Time would not apply to it: it would be eternal life.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, p. 99, The Macmillan Company, 1962.

Time is not defined as simply as you state. It is defined as “the measure or rather the number of motion according to the prior and the posterior.” The prior and the posterior are known by us first from magnitude. From magnitude we are then able to speak of the “parts” of motion. For example, when we see a train enter a tunnel, we see the front of the train enter the tunnel first. Then, when we see the middle of the train enter the tunnel, and we say that it entered next, or more properly, second. And the last part of the train we say entered last, or third. It is according to these parts that motion is measured and that time exists. Time, therefore, has its perfect existence only in the mind. Outside of the mind, time is real but imperfect and vague. So, not only is time limited to having imperfect existence in the mind, that imperfect existence is only known by the parts of an actual mobile being in motion. Potency is first and act is second.

You said, “There need not be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed.” How? If there was no motion in the past there would be no time. If God existed, then created the Universe (relative to time to us), there would be a period wherein no time existed. God does not undergo change or motion in the sense that we do. You stated, “In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition.” You have incorrectly characterized time and change/motion. Instead it should be, “In a universe without motion, there would be no time by definition.” The two sentences are not the same and the subjects do not carry the same weight.

Oh, and what is the difference between “infinite” and “always?”

Motion has a touch-able, taste-able, see-able, hear-able and smell-able presence in the world of the real; time does not. Time is, in a sense, sensible, but not by the five senses as mobile being is. If we and everything else existed but were motionless, we would have no concept of time whatsoever.

Time can only be known by the mind together with motion/change. It is not known when separated from it. Motion is, or rather the parts of motion are, the foundation for our vague grasp of time.

Thus, in theism, there was never a state of affairs in which God, and nothing else, existed.

This can only be a pretentious assertion as you cannot know with any certainty whatsoever that that is the case. Only if you skew definitions can you place time in such a premise. Your “state of affairs” is an attempt to skew out the word “time” to help your case. It does not. The sham is easily perceived and pierced.

jd

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, IT does. IT “says”. Is Wiki who you worship? Since the entirety of your arguments have been “they say”, I have to accept that you worship Man because everything you proposed is founded on, “this or that elite person says…”

The OP asked nothing about what other people say. It asks for what of those 7 statements you do not understand. Your arguments have been entirely that you merely disagree with the conclusion because of what other people have said. Thus obviously rather than think, you choose to follow what you think others say. You clearly do not really understand what many of them have said, but you believe that you do, so you stand to argue anyway.

Thus you will believe Truth only when Man chooses to show it to you. You are merely a puppet. Did I state that anything of those 7 statements were true because someone else said they were true? Obviously I have a different means of accepting what is or isn’t true. So why are you arguing with me?

You go ahead and believe what you think they tell you. But trying to tell me to believe what you thought they told you because they told you, is pointless. End of discussion.

You bring up an article yourself, and it shows you are wrong. You have deteated your own arguments.

 

[sidbrown]

It is quite impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you. You never seem to make sense.

Yes I have found it to be the case with James also.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If God existed, then created the Universe (relative to time to us), there would be a period wherein no time existed.

I’m curious how you define a “period” during which there is no time.

God does not undergo change or motion in the sense that we do.

Read what you posted yourself. God does not undergo change AT ALL, in any sense of the word.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Al,

A good example of the Scientism Literalist is our Sidbrown. Throughout his arguments as he quotes others and even me, he displays reading things letter by letter without the slightest thought as to what might be the intent above those letters and words.

And btw, if you choose that number (2) that I stated above, be aware that YOU will suddenly find that you have absolutely nothing that you can say and know that you are right. Yet equally with knowing, I can say many things because many years ago, I decided to not say anything until I knew without any possible doubt that what I said was absolutely true. I suddenly, to my surprise, found that I couldn’t say anything at all. But I held onto the notion and commitment until finally one day a thought occurred to me that I could not dispute. After thinking about it considerably, I decided to write it down in a blank note book. It was awhile more before another thought occurred, but then they slowly began to filter in faster. But more importantly, they began to build upon each other into an immutable and crystalline mountain that no one could dispute. No wind, water, or faith could move that mountain, and to this day hasn’t changed it one ounce. But of course, that doesn’t mean that it can’t get buried at the bottom of the ocean of issues that plague common society today.

When I speak of what I KNOW to be true, there can be no rational question of it, by anybody. But I cannot speak freely because words mean different things to people, especially when many read the same words at the same time from their own private perspective, often with no thought applied at all and no bother to question what I might have meant other than what they presumed without thought.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m curious how you define a “period” during which there is no time.

You first. I asked you to define several items, several days ago. One was, “relative change.” You like to demand but you don’t like to reciprocate in kind.

Read what you posted yourself. God does not undergo change AT ALL, in any sense of the word.

How do you know? How do you know that He doesn’t create upon creation, or some other form of improvement on things that WE tend to call “change” because we don’t fully understand it? How do you know such isn’t part of His original, singular Plan that has been executed, but to humans appears sequentially? Like the coming to be of human beings and other living creatures? You have no idea. You think you’re a thinker but you’re not.

The Infinite includes all space and all time. But, how can we know fully what that means? How can we “see” how that happens? Your arrogance is beyond description. We are here talking about God and you are suggesting that you know it all. I know I don’t. I prefer to go with what the Catholic Church teaches - yes, even though they are just “men” and from less sophisticated times!

Do you have a (mental) disability I should know about? If you do, please forgive me if my writing has been too plainly delivered. Also, if you do I pray you will understand that I harbor no ill intentions toward you. It means that I must strive harder to be more Christian.

God bless,
jd

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. Time is relative change
2. Whatever is proposed to have caused time could have no change concerning it because change IS time, thus it must be changeless and timeless and thus “eternal”.
3. If the cause of time exists and cannot change, then it cannot *become *the cause, but rather has always been the cause.
4. The cause of time cannot exist without causing time, else it would not be the cause of time.
5. If the cause of time is present, time is immediately present.
6. The cause of time had to be eternal and thus what it causes had to be eternal as well.
7. Time is eternal - it never began.

While this is a nice construct I find that there is a disconnection between #'s 1 and 2.

You have failed to show that Time 1) has a cause and 2) needs a cause.

#7 also seems off, if time never began then it was not caused so it needs no cause.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You first. I asked you to define several items, several days ago. One was, “relative change.” You like to demand but you don’t like to reciprocate in kind.

I don’t recall you asking me to define anything, but if I overlooked it, I apologize.

Relative change == change relative to another change or with respect to another change; change measured by comparing its degree to the degree of change in something else. ex; “The flower opening took only 3 revolutions of the minute hand on my watch.”

A Period during which there is no time == zero

How do you know? How do you know that He doesn’t create upon creation, or some other form of improvement on things that WE tend to call “change” because we don’t fully understand it?

I know be cause WE invented the word “change” and applied it to the concept of any state of anything becoming different. If any of what you propose was true, then change was taking place. It is that easy. It doesn’t take the wisdom of God or hardly the education of a typical child.

The more complete a being is, the less it changes. A perfectly complete being would not change or need to change at all.

That is what YOU posted. Are you now suggesting that God is not perfect?

But we could extend that same thought even further; “The more omnipotent (and especially omnipresent) a being is, the less motion it has to take in order to accomplish anything. A perfectly omnipotent being would not need to move at all to create an entire universe.”

Such is the case with God. God did not “roll over after a long nap and decide to create the universe”. God takes ZERO time (zero change) to make a decision to cause something. What would God have to ponder? The decisions and thus actions are necessarily instantaneous.

What makes you think God stood around for most of eternity twiddling his thumbs before changing/doing anything?

 

[James_S_Saint]

While this is a nice construct I find that there is a disconnection between #'s 1 and 2.

You have failed to show that Time 1) has a cause and 2) needs a cause.

#7 also seems off, if time never began then it was not caused so it needs no cause.

Note that in (2) it states “whatever is proposed to have caused time…”

If it is not proposed that time was caused, then it can be accepted that it was not caused and thus must have always existed since it exists now. That would be a trivial case outside the concerns of the argument. The opening statement is about the myth that Time began.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Note that in (2) it states “whatever is proposed to have caused time…”

If it is not proposed that time was caused, then it can be accepted that it was not caused and thus must have always existed since it exists now. That would be a trivial case outside the concerns of the argument. The opening statement is about the myth that Time began.

I got it now.

You believe that Time has always been so there is no need for a cause that sits outside of time, so therefore there is no God.

I am reading you correctly now?

If so, then your construct, while flawed, works for that.

 

[NowAgnostic]

NowAg:

It appears more than likely you skipped over the post just before this one. In it I re-wrote, in part, exactly what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to time and God.

I, of course, do not accept what the Catholic Church teaches as authoritative or infallible. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo may well be incoherent as far as I can see. Nevertheless there is no conflict between what you quoted and what I maintained.

I can’t imagine how you could come to the conclusion you have, had you read it. Just for edification, here it is again:

"The more complete a being is, the less it changes. A perfectly complete being would not change or need to change at all. …In perfect being “past and future” would be actually present and fully possessed without differentiation of periods. Perfect duration would involve an unrestricted consciousness of the fulness of being. Time would not apply to it: it would be eternal life." - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, p. 99, The Macmillan Company, 1962.

My argument contradicts this just how? We’re all agreed God is timeless and unchanging. Saying time always existed doesn’t negate a timeless, unchanging God.

Time is not defined as simply as you state. It is defined as “the measure or rather the number of motion according to the prior and the posterior.”

Motion involves change, a “before” and an “after”. There is no real difference between my definition and this.

The prior and the posterior are known by us first from magnitude. From magnitude we are then able to speak of the “parts” of motion. For example, when we see a train enter a tunnel, we see the front of the train enter the tunnel first. Then, when we see the middle of the train enter the tunnel, and we say that it entered next, or more properly, second. And the last part of the train we say entered last, or third. It is according to these parts that motion is measured and that time exists.

So? Or, you can use the modern version and measure time by the decay rates of cesium atoms. It’s basically the same thing.

Time, therefore, has its perfect existence only in the mind.

A total and complete non sequitur. What does “perfect existence” mean anyway?

Outside of the mind, time is real but imperfect and vague.

Well then it’s real and exists outside of the mind.

So, not only is time limited to having imperfect existence in the mind,

??? You just said it had perfect existence in the mind.

that imperfect existence is only known by the parts of an actual mobile being in motion. Potency is first and act is second.

Yeah, so? Are you actually going to address my argument or not?

You said, “There need not be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed.” How?

Because it’s logically necessary. There can’t be a time before time anymore than there can be a place underneath the center of the earth or North of the North pole.

If there was no motion in the past there would be no time.

Exactly. There cannot be a time when there’s no motion.

If God existed, then created the Universe (relative to time to us), there would be a period wherein no time existed. God does not undergo change or motion in the sense that we do.

Which contradicts your assertion that God exists, “then” creates the Universe - that implies a change in God. Moreover, you’re implicitly saying that God’s existence is “before” He creates the universe, which implies the existence of time! How long is a period without time BTW?

You stated, “In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition.” You have incorrectly characterized time and change/motion. Instead it should be, “In a universe without motion, there would be no time by definition.” The two sentences are not the same and the subjects do not carry the same weight.

Both sentences are true, if time is a measure of change/motion. Change/motion entails time and time entails change/motion.

Oh, and what is the difference between “infinite” and “always?”

“Always” simply means “for as long as anything is in existence”.

Motion has a touch-able, taste-able, see-able, hear-able and smell-able presence in the world of the real; time does not. Time is, in a sense, sensible, but not by the five senses as mobile being is. If we and everything else existed but were motionless, we would have no concept of time whatsoever.

Because there would **be **no time!

Time can only be known by the mind together with motion/change. It is not known when separated from it. Motion is, or rather the parts of motion are, the foundation for our vague grasp of time.

Yeah, again, so what?

This can only be a pretentious assertion as you cannot know with any certainty whatsoever that that is the case.

Yes I can, with the certainty I know 2 + 2 = 4. It’s logically necessary.

Only if you skew definitions can you place time in such a premise. Your “state of affairs” is an attempt to skew out the word “time” to help your case. It does not. The sham is easily perceived and pierced.

When all else fails, resort to bluster in an attempt to win over the crowd. Call your opponent’s arguments “pretentious” and “sham” without showing how.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I got it now.

You believe that Time has always been so there is no need for a cause that sits outside of time, so therefore there is no God.

I am reading you correctly now?

If so, then your construct, while flawed, works for that.

Haha… not exactly, but closer.

God is (by definition actually) the REASON (cause that) time exists. Time exists only beCAUSE of God. Not only that, but God is not the second or third level of causation, but the First. Nothing caused God who then caused time, but rather God caused something that caused time, if not directly.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Motion is, or rather the parts of motion are, the foundation for our vague grasp of time.

Time might be vague for you. It seems to be. But there is nothing vague about it to me. And any “part” of motion is itself motion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Haha… not exactly, but closer.

God is (by definition actually) the REASON (cause that) time exists. Time exists only beCAUSE of God. Not only that, but God is not the second or third level of causation, but the First. Nothing caused God who then caused time, but rather God caused something that caused time, if not directly.

Correct, God is the uncaused cause.

Logically we know that everything has a cause, nothing exists without a cause but that means that we run into ad infinitum which then violates the idea that everything has a cause.

Logically there must be a starting point. Something that exists without a cause that caused everything to come into being.

That uncaused cause is God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Correct, God is the uncaused cause.

Logically we know that everything has a cause, nothing exists without a cause but that means that we run into ad infinitum which then violates the idea that everything has a cause.

Logically there must be a starting point. Something that exists without a cause that caused everything to come into being.

That uncaused cause is God.

But be careful. VERY many people think that by “cause” we mean “caused through time”. This is why they speak of the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. There was no beginning in time, because there has always been a cause for it to be. God, by definition is that cause. ref: God is the Reason, not the Instigation.

If you believe that God began the universe with the Big Bang, then ref; Before God??

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But be careful. VERY many people think that by “cause” we mean “caused through time”. This is why they speak of the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. There was no beginning in time, because there has always been a cause for it to be. God, by definition is that cause. ref: God is the Reason, not the Instigation.

Philosophically, cause does not mean “caused though time”.

By your definition then, God is Time which is incorrect.

God is out side of time.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Philosophically, cause does not mean “caused though time”.

By your definition then, God is Time which is incorrect.

God is out side of time.

No. It does not mean that God is time…sheeesh.

God is the CAUSE of time, the REASON that time exists.

Time is relative motion or the measure of it. God is the reason that things move.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. It does not mean that God is time…sheeesh.

God is the CAUSE of time, the REASON that time exists.

Time is relative motion or the measure of it. God is the reason that things move.

That is what I said. You seemed to not like that and said that time has always been.

At least that is how I read what you said.

 

[James_S_Saint]

That is what I said. You seemed to not like that and said that time has always been.

At least that is how I read what you said.

The REASON that time exists (God) has always existed, thus time, having always had a reason to exist, has always existed.