Speaking in 'tongues'

[Leonard James]

Let me help you out here Ippy.
What is it we're not supposed to believe in? And why?

The idea of you helping Ippy out on this particular subject is the height of irony! 

[Nearly Sane]

Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.

 

Oh dearie me, man, how do you think up these side-splitting analogies?

Unfortunately for me, in the case of Vlad, they often pop fully formed into my mind with pictures

[Leonard James]

Unfortunately for me, in the case of Vlad, they often pop fully formed into my mind with pictures

Poor you! A picture of Vlad wagging his pink-painted arse must be among the yukkiest things on this planet.

[Andy]

No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions.  In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.

So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.

I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.

Never mind time and existence, but time and logic are linked. You make a nonsense of logic when you start talking about existence without a concept of time. It's right there in the classical laws of thought with the law of non-contradiction - something cannot be A and not A at the same time. Remove time and you remove the application of this logic. Even Alien has made the case that it's innacurate/doesn't make sense to say that god does things simultaneously without time, and I agree, but then what the fuck are we talking about? It all goes out the window when we throw away a cornerstone of logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions.  In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.

So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.

I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.

Except there is am obvious link between time and existence since it is at statement about something being. This has a built in statement about time as indeed all our language on this does.

It is exactly the same as the four sided triangle because a non temporal existence is definitionallly contradictory. Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.

Nearly you have merely reasserted your original assertion.
What is the link between time and existence?
Secondly, Isn't there a question mark within physics and certainly within maths about time itself?

Read anything about the philosophy of existence and time does not seem to feature. I don't think it is that fundamental to being.

Then we are back to the issue of an eternal universe, what meaning does time have for an eternal infinite without end or beginning universe?

If it has none then any eternal being can as it were claim the same privileges.

Not only did you make the category error of a four sided triangle once you made it again.

So I ask you again show your working out. How is time fundamental to being

[Nearly Sane]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

Pah, Hand waving.

Here's one for you and the Andster

Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?

 

[Nearly Sane]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

[Nearly Sane]

Is Andy's thread on time still about? If so, I would suggest we revive it to discuss this as this is way off topic

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

An entire universe in which there is no overall motion (where would it move?)or no net heat gain or loss (where would it gain it from or lose it to?).

Explain why time is necessary for existence after all I asked you first.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

So the universe was created with logic?

tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?

[Nearly Sane]

Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.

Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.

Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.

eh?

[Nearly Sane]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

So the universe was created with logic?

tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?

First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.

Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.

Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.

eh?

change that your for then your.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

So the universe was created with logic?

tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?

First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.

Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.

Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.

[Andy]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

Pah, Hand waving.

Here's one for you and the Andster

Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?

No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.

The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

Pah, Hand waving.

Here's one for you and the Andster

Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?

No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.

The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.

Time is contingent on being not the other way round.

Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.

You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.

[Nearly Sane]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

So the universe was created with logic?

tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?

First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.

Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.

Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.

I don't know who 'you guys' are but the points I am making are about language and how we might describe something. Physics throws up problems in how we use this and as I have previously suggested, I think talking of anything beyond Planck time with our assumptions of how we experience things is possibly meaningless.

Oh and by the way if I were you I wouldn't go down the route of implying that if someone writes something others find obscure and difficult to understand means they have been bested in argument, for your own sake.

[Andy]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

Pah, Hand waving.

Here's one for you and the Andster

Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?

No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.

The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.

Time is contingent on being not the other way round.

Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.

You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.

I've not argued that time isn't contingent on being, only that to talk about a being doing stuff without time is meaningless wibble.

And you are inadvertently using logic and removing it's usage in one foul swoop as I have already explained above (for which you have ignored).

I haven't ignored anything that you have directed at me. To be clear, I am not making the conflation between space-time and the concept of time. In fact, I've only mentioned the concept - the idea in a metaphysical sense where events appear to happen in series bound in some form of continuum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.

So the universe was created with logic?

tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?

First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.

Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.

Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.

I don't know who 'you guys' are but the points I am making are about language and how we might describe something. Physics throws up problems in how we use this and as I have previously suggested, I think talking of anything beyond Planck time with our assumptions of how we experience things is possibly meaningless.

Oh and by the way if I were you I wouldn't go down the route of implying that if someone writes something others find obscure and difficult to understand means they have been bested in argument, for your own sake.

No...you asked me to provide an example of how something existing without time and I did.

I also put it in terms I thought you would understand

You have yet to prove it incorrect. 

I never said you had been bested but that you were ''so far bested.'' I even suggested that you take a break to mount your counter argument.

I would like to see that.

However the tone has become rather menacing and I can think of more enjoyable ways of passing the time so I shall leave you to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.

Pah, Hand waving.

Here's one for you and the Andster

Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?

No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.

The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.

Time is contingent on being not the other way round.

Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.

You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.

I've not argued that time isn't contingent on being, only that to talk about a being doing stuff without time is meaningless wibble.

And you are inadvertently using logic and removing it's usage in one foul swoop as I have already explained above (for which you have ignored).

I haven't ignored anything that you have directed at me. To be clear, I am not making the conflation between space-time and the concept of time. In fact, I've only mentioned the concept - the idea in a metaphysical sense where events appear to happen in series bound in some form of continuum.

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''

[Andy]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

You should be having this chat with Alien, as he thinks god is without time without the universe and with time with the universe. When you come to some form of consensus, so the rest of us don't have to flip flop between contradictory theologies, then perhaps we can continue down the one path.