Originally posted by amannionAtheists don't need to prove time exists. But if they don't apply the same criteria to proving time exists that they use to disprove God exists then how is their argument consistent? On the one hand they ridicule theists for believing in an invisible entity that cannot be proved scientifically but is time any less abstract?
Why do atheists need to prove time?
We don't kill in its name. We don't abuse people because of their sexual orientation and blame time. We don't defer a woman's right over her body because of time. We don't rant and rave about praying to time in schools. We don't claim that time is the literal truth and there is no other.
...
I'm not asking any atheist to prove time really exists because they might turn round and ask me to prove God exists and I can't do that but then they can't prove time either. At least I accept it's a matter of faith.
8 edits
Hmm...Lets assume that you are correct and that there may not actually exist such a thing as time. Lets explore the possibility that there is no such thing as time (in this universe) by accepting it for now as truth.
From this then you can deduce that for all events that take place in this universe there exist no two events for which one happened later than the other, ie: all events take place at once. From this one can deduce that all creatures that have lived and ever will live in this universe are alive XOR there are no creatures in this universe that are alive. (for if we let A be the statement: some hypothetical creature is alive, and statement B be: that same hypothetical creature being not alive, then either of A ^ B or ¬(A v B) is a contradiction).
Are all your ancestors alive KM?...furthermore, are you alive?...are all your descendants alive?, are the descendants of all people that are alive...alive?...are the ancestors of all creatures that are alive in this universe also alive?
Did I edit this post at the same time I submitted it such that there have been no edits? (given that I thought of and instantiated everything at once in this post, what would be the need for edits?)...am I reading yours and every other person's response to this and all other posts in all forums that I am inclined to peruse at this very moment?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterit's a good question... to answer your question, no, time doesnt exist... it is man made.... it's a well known spiritual belief that time doesnt exist... that's because everything that happens happens now... there is no past, no future, thats becuase when we look to the past or future we do it now... when these events happened or when they happen they happen now... nothing can exist outside of now... it's also a buddhist belief that the only moment that exist is now... most people dont live in now though, looking back, looking forward, looking everywhere but at the present moment... which is all that matters...
This may have been asked before but...does time really exist?
I mean it's invisible , it has no mass to speak of , no radioactivity eminating from it etc etc . We are supposed to believe that it's really there , but is it? Is it any more substantial than God scientifically? Is belief in time a matter of faith?
How do we define "existence"? I not in reality.
Anyway that's enough ...I'm running out of....t
to understand this, you have to think of yourself looking up at the stars, when you do you are in fact looking at different periods of time, this is because the light from... say jupiter... takes longer to reach us than mars, so we will be seeing jupiter how it looked about 8 days ago, but mars about 3 days ago, the further into space we look, the further time goes back, so we're looking at completely different aspects of man-made time, just like we do with our history, but we looking at those stars now
Originally posted by AgergFrom this then you can deduce that for all events that take place in this universe there exist no two events for which one happened later than the other, ie: all events take place at once AGERG
Hmm...Lets assume that you are correct and that there may not actually exist such a thing as time. Lets explore the possibility that there is no such thing as time (in this universe) by accepting it for now as truth.
From this then you can deduce that for all events that take place in this universe there exist no two events for which one happened later than ...[text shortened]... nse to this and all other posts in all forums that I am inclined to peruse at this very moment?
I see no reason to automatically assume that if time doesn't exist that this should happen. Do you think time is a "force" of some sort that makes events happen one after another? You said that you would assume that time does not exist as a thing , but you would have to assume that time somehow has energy or power of some kind otherwise events would still happen sequentially. You seem to assume that time is "needed" for events to happen one after another but all that is needed is surely energy and matter interacting and moving. All that is more to do with causality and the laws of physics than time. For example , our sun is series of complicated interactions involving energy and matter and there is a sequence of events based on chemical and physical laws , but is time really required?
Prove your first premise.
Originally posted by AgergFrom this then you can deduce AGERG
Hmm...Lets assume that you are correct and that there may not actually exist such a thing as time. Lets explore the possibility that there is no such thing as time (in this universe) by accepting it for now as truth.
From this then you can deduce that for all events that take place in this universe there exist no two events for which one happened later than ...[text shortened]... nse to this and all other posts in all forums that I am inclined to peruse at this very moment?
This is the problem here , how do you deduce? You know what difference I think it would make if time didn't exist ? ...none at all. Things would still happen in sequence due to a whole range of physical/chemical chain of events . All you would need is the universe to move and matter within it to move. Nuclear/chemical reactions , energy , motion , matter changing into different matter. All these things happen for reasons other than time. So it time is not needed why would time not existing make any different at all?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't know if time exists or not. But it doesn't matter. I assume it exists because it satisfies what I know about the world and how it works. I live my day to day life under this assumption.
Atheists don't need to prove time exists. But if they don't apply the same criteria to proving time exists that they use to disprove God exists then how is their argument consistent? On the one hand they ridicule theists for believing in an invisible entity that cannot be proved scientifically but is time any less abstract?
I'm not asking any athei ...[text shortened]... t do that but then they can't prove time either. At least I accept it's a matter of faith.
I don't need the same assumption with respect to God. God is an explanation for the universe. Time is just a convenient label we give to the apparent notion that events occur after each other.
I know you're attempting to ridicule atheist objections to God but for the life of me I can't see the relevance of attacking the concept of time.
Originally posted by knightmeisterUltimately, what you are asking here is, "does reality exist?"
Saying time doesn't exist is like saying distance doesn't exist. We can observe both passing and measure them and we move through them constantly.UMBRAGE
Have you considered that distance doesn't exist either !! When have you seen a "distance"? What is it that you are measuring?
You need to define what you mean by "exist"? The concepts of distan ...[text shortened]... chance of finding them than you have of finding a metre or a second?
No-one can answer that for you.
Originally posted by amannionTime is just a convenient label we give to the apparent notion that events occur after each other.AMMANION
I don't know if time exists or not. But it doesn't matter. I assume it exists because it satisfies what I know about the world and how it works. I live my day to day life under this assumption.
I don't need the same assumption with respect to God. God is an explanation for the universe. Time is just a convenient label we give to the apparent notion that ...[text shortened]... s to God but for the life of me I can't see the relevance of attacking the concept of time.
EXCELLENT! I agree with you . If only others would be that honest about it. However , you will find some Atheists who use time like a semi-god on which the universe rests . It becomes an invisible , powerful and essential "ether" that they can't prove. Almost an entity in itself! None of this would be a problem if theists were not ridiculed for having the same faith.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAh but there are different catagories of reality. Subjective , objective , scientific , conceptual , substantial etc. When we cross these catagories willy nilly .....that's the problem. Time does that for many.
Ultimately, what you are asking here is, "does reality exist?"
No-one can answer that for you.
Originally posted by knightmeisterTime is a dimension. If you cant seem to understand that concept.
EXCELLENT! I agree with you . If only others would be that honest about it. However , you will find some Atheists who use time like a semi-god on which the universe rests . It becomes an invisible , powerful and essential "ether" that they can't prove. Almost an entity in itself! None of this would be a problem if theists were not ridiculed for having the same faith.
Time is as essential to the concept of existence as any other dimension. Matter or other forms of energy do not somehow have 'more existence' nor are they 'more essential' to the concept of existence than dimensions. It is not a matter of 'faith' as you claim nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you get ridiculed for you faith in God.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSorry KM but this seems tantamount to suggesting that if *up* didn't exist it doesn't necessarily follow that one object cannot be above another.
From this then you can deduce that for all events that take place in this universe there exist no two events for which one happened later than the other, ie: all events take place at once AGERG
I see no reason to automatically assume that if time doesn't exist that this should happen. Do you think time is a "force" of some sort that makes events hap d on chemical and physical laws , but is time really required?
Prove your first premise.
I do not hold that time is a force that compels events to happen in a certain sequence...I do not assign to time any God-like or mystical properties
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime is as essential to the concept of existence as any other dimension. Matter or other forms of energy do not somehow have 'more existence' nor are they 'more essential' to the concept of existence than dimensions.WHITEY
Time is a dimension. If you cant seem to understand that concept.
Time is as essential to the concept of existence as any other dimension. Matter or other forms of energy do not somehow have 'more existence' nor are they 'more essential' to the concept of existence than dimensions. It is not a matter of 'faith' as you claim nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you get ridiculed for you faith in God.
Do you not notice how freely you move backwards and forwards from "concept" to existence. A concept is not a thing , it exists only in your mind. Something being an "essential" concept does not make that concept any more real...it's still just a concept. You seem to have a blurred idea of the subjective and objective.
Matter and energy are in a very different catagory from the so called dimension of time. Matter and energy can be proved scientifically to exist whereas time can only be "observed" conceptually..... but then I shouldn't have to explain this to you ...should I? I thought this was basic philosophy and logical thinking.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou make this mistake all the time. The fact something like a mile is a "human concept" doesn't mean that miles exist only "in the mind". I'll mark you out a mile of land if you don't believe me.
Do you not notice how freely you move backwards and forwards from "concept" to existence. A concept is not a thing , it exists only in your mind. Something being an "essential" concept does not make that concept any more real...it's still just a concept. You seem to have a blurred idea of the subjective and objective.
Similarly, the sky really is blue (i.e. blueness is a property of the sky, not a property of some mental object).
Originally posted by AgergI do not hold that time is a force that compels events to happen in a certain sequence...AGERG
Sorry KM but this seems tantamount to suggesting that if *up* didn't exist it doesn't necessarily follow that one object cannot be above another.
I do not hold that time is a force that compels events to happen in a certain sequence...I do not assign to time any God-like or mystical properties
In that case you believe that extracting all the time out of the universe would make no difference at all to anything whatsoever. It would be like extracting all the beauty out of the universe. It can't be done because it's not there (except in our minds) . So you agree with me time is just a useful concept that we can use conceptually but it doesn't really exist in "reality" as a tangible "thing" or "force". It's not in the same existential catagory as electricity for example (take that away and we would all notice it). So if time didn't exist then the universe would go on as normal because it doesn't exist anyway. No-one would notice the difference. Good , time doesn't really exist. It belongs firmly in the conceptual world. Agreed?
Just so the rest of the sane ones here don't have to bang their heads trying to get this concept across to the imbeciles, here's a little essay which pretty much sums up the situation.
http://www.sciencepub.net/0101/01-ma.pdf
I suggest that you read it knightmeister, when you have try arguing your points against it as some basic assessment of the epistemology involved in this debate. You might find out how ridiculous your argument really is, though somehow I doubt it.