19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"God always was?" "God existed before time ??"
[b]…God HAS ALWAYS existed "OUTSIDE" the realms of TIME
… (my emphasis)
That appears to me to be a logical self-contradiction:
“HAS” is PAST tense implying a ’before’ some point in TIME (the present point of time in this case) and “ALWAYS” implies “at all points in TIME”.
Therefore, to say “God HAS ALWAYS existed…” implies he has always e d "OUTSIDE" the realms of TIME”
(although I think simply “God HAS NEVER existed”! 😛)[/b]
Sentences like this only show the limitation of human language.
And though it may break our hearts to have to admit it, they also show the limitation of the human mind.
(Perish the thought, that our minds be limited!)
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by daniel58...time only exists because we are in it...
Whether you "think it or not God has and does exis.
God's existance has nothing to do with time, time only exists because we are in it, when Adam took a bite of the apple.
Then we can say God existed then time existed.
How did you come to this conclusion? There was no time before man?
Anyway, time is a dimension. If god doesn't exist "in" time and never did then he doesn't exist.
19 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…"God always was?"…
"God always was?" "God existed before time ??"
Sentences like this only show the limitation of human language.
And though it may break our hearts to have to admit it, they also show the limitation of the human mind.
(Perish the thought, that our minds be limited!)
That isn’t one of the phrases that I see as a self-contradiction:
As I had just said in my previous post, you can have, without logical self-contradiction:
1, “God HAS ALWAYS existed "INSIDE" the realms of TIME”
-which I presume is what is generally meant by the words: “God always was” ?
…"God existed before time ??"
only show the limitation of human LANGUAGE.
..…(my emphasis)
No, sentences like this that are asserting a logical contradiction and which people accept as valid despite this show the limitation of human RATIONALITY. This isn’t therefore just about mere syntax.
If “God existed BEFORE TIME” then there was a “BEFORE TIME” 😛 (which is a self contradiction if you haven’t noticed)
Can you simultaneously have both “P” and “not P” being true in reality?
(where “P” is any valid proposition that can therefore only be either true or false)
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by tomtom232what are you doing in the spirituality forum?, get back up there to the chess only forum and work on your aesthetic appreciation for positional play! 😀
[b]...time only exists because we are in it...
How did you come to this conclusion? There was no time before man?
Anyway, time is a dimension. If god doesn't exist "in" time and never did then he doesn't exist.[/b]
19 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==============================
[b]…"God always was?"…
That isn’t one of the phrases that I see as a self-contradiction:
As I had just said in my previous post, you can have, without logical self-contradiction:
1, “God HAS ALWAYS existed "INSIDE" the realms of TIME”
-which I presume is what is generally meant by the words: “God always was” ?
…"God existed bef ity?
(where “P” is any valid proposition that can therefore only be either true or false)
No, sentences like this that are asserting a logical contradiction and which people accept as valid despite this show the limitation of human RATIONALITY. This isn’t therefore just about mere syntax.
=============================== [/b]
You know, cosmologist Stephen Hawking came up with an expression "Imaginary Time". He felt the need to do so to explain his thoughts about the Big Bang Theory. [/b]
His need to do so, I think, shows the limitation of human language.
==========================
If “God existed BEFORE TIME” then there was a “BEFORE TIME” (which is a self contradiction if you haven’t noticed)
=================================
Of course it is. And "Imaginary Time" what is that ? You'll have to ask Dr. Hawking.
I mean, either its time or its not.
==========================
Can you simultaneously have both “P” and “not P” being true in reality?
(where “P” is any valid proposition that can therefore only be either true or false
============================
I don't think so.
Reality may call for us to stretch the capabilities of human language though, per case of Dr. Hawking's "Imaginary Time".
19 Jun 09
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWhy on earth do you think I would think that Stephen Hawking is some kind of father of rationality and that he must always know what he is talking about including when he says things like "Imaginary Time"? -I obviously wouldn’t make such peculiar assumptions.
[b]==============================
No, sentences like this that are asserting a logical contradiction and which people accept as valid despite this show the limitation of human RATIONALITY. This isn’t therefore just about mere syntax.
=============================== [/b]
You know, cosmologist Stephen Hawking came up with an expression "Imag the capabilities of human language though, per case of Dr. Hawking's "Imaginary Time".
What somebody else says it totally irrelevant to my arguments.
…Can you simultaneously have both “P” and “not P” being true in reality?
(where “P” is any valid proposition that can therefore only be either true or false
============================
I don't think so.
..…
Then you shouldn’t think you can have ANY logical contradiction in reality and therefore you shouldn’t think you can have a “before time” in reality -it isn’t just a matter of semantics:
-if you don’t mean “points or periods of time before time began” by “before time” then what do you mean by “before time”?
-if you mean something logically meaningful by it then there MUST be a way of saying it without contradicting yourself -why wouldn’t there be?
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b] I am not sure you can even define time that easily.
Why on earth do you think I would think that Stephen Hawking is some kind of father of rationality and that he must always know what he is talking about including when he says things like "Imaginary Time"? -I obviously wouldn’t make such peculiar assumptions.
What somebody else says it totally irrelevant to my arguments.
[b]…Can you simultaneousl then there MUST be a way of saying it without contradicting yourself -why wouldn’t there be?
What is time ?
19 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNow you have shifted your argument to avoid the argument I presented.
I am not sure you can even define time that easily.
What is time ?[/b]
Are you now saying there is meaningless to talk about time?
If yes, then you would surely admit it is meaningless to talk about “before time” not because that it is a self-contradiction as I pointed out but rather because, if you are right, there is no “time” 😛
Tell me straight, do you claim it meaningful to talk about “before time” ? yes or no?
And, how can it be true that “god has ALWAYS existed” if there is no ‘time’ and thus there is no “ALWAYS“?
19 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbecause he is not restricted to time in the same sense that we are, what is it about that you do not understand? before the universe existed what was time? meaningless? non existent? thus if we state that God has existed before the universe, is it not clear that he resides outwith the realms of time? you blether Mr. Hamiltion! 😛
Now you have shifted your argument to avoid the argument I presented.
Are you now saying there is meaningless to talk about time?
If yes, then you would surely admit it is meaningless to talk about “before time” not because that it is a self-contradiction as I pointed out but rather because, if you are right, there is no “time” 😛
Tell me str ...[text shortened]... an it be true that “god has ALWAYS existed” if there is no ‘time’ and thus there is no “ALWAYS“?
19 Jun 09
Now when I say no time I mean it with compared to eternity thus there is a "before time", unless you want to say "Eternal time" now that is a self-contradiction there because time can be measured and eternity can't be and if the English langugue isn't big enough with a million words then so be it.