Time

[Qwikness]

Can you see time? Can you prove it exists? I ask because someone challenged me by saying you couldn’t see God. I said you can’t see time either. You can see the effects of time but not “time”
Thanks

 

[Gorgias]

Time is a dimension. So is space, but you can’t really say that you see “up-ness” or “left-ness”, can you?

You can say “when I look up I see clouds, and planes, and stars” – the things that are in space – but not “when I look up I see the Z dimension”, right?

In the same way, you can see things that are in time, but not the dimension of time itself. This doesn’t seem to be a limitation.

Aristotle contended that time is a measure of change, allowing us to sense ‘before’ and ‘after’.

Kant would argue that it’s never possible to see things as they are, but just the effects (phenomena) that proceed from them. I don’t think this implies that seeing effects means we’re seeing God, in a strict sense…

 

[Theophorus]

I would be careful and not go to far into the time analogy as the previous commentator says time, properly speaking, is a measure of change/movement in relation to the before and after(cf. Aristotle). as such doesn’t exist independently in and of itself but as a consequence of a substance(such as the material umiverse). Now uless we are permently in ‘the now’ and there is no before this moment and no after this moment time exists.

 

[danserr]

Can you see time? Can you prove it exists? I ask because someone challenged me by saying you couldn’t see God. I said you can’t see time either. You can see the effects of time but not “time”
Thanks

A better example would be that your can’t see quarks (not even under a very powerful microscope), but many scientists believe they exist. They believe that they exist because they are the best explanations of the data we do have. It is possible to think the same of God, that he best explains scientific and philosophical evidence for the origins of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, existence of objective moral values and duties, explanation of why something exists rather than nothing etc. More here.

 

[Qwikness]

I would be careful and not go to far into the time analogy as the previous commentator says time, properly speaking, is a measure of change/movement in relation to the before and after(cf. Aristotle). as such doesn’t exist independently in and of itself but as a consequence of a substance(such as the material umiverse). Now uless we are permently in ‘the now’ and there is no before this moment and no after this moment time exists.

Yes that was what I thinking, it is a measure but you can’t really see it. You can see age and you can see space but can’t see time.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I would note that one can see the effects of electricity, magnetism and gravitation, but one cannot see any of them. I can describe their action, but I cannot describe them.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Can you see time? Can you prove it exists? I ask because someone challenged me by saying you couldn’t see God. I said you can’t see time either. You can see the effects of time but not “time”
Thanks

As has been pointed out before, time is somewhat synonymous with change; thus, you can prove time exists because you can observe change.

 

[Qwikness]

ok thanks

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Same might be said of “love”… Can you see “love”? No we can’t - but we do see the effects and manifestations of love all around us… As with God…