The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[lightgigantic]

It's got to be time

reference

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real. Absolute time is continuous and is unaffected by the speed or slowness of material things. Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object. Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things; rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time. Time is the basic measurement of the activity of our senses, by which we calculate past, present and future; but in factual calculation, time has no beginning and no end. Canakya Pandita says that even a slight fraction of time cannot be purchased with millions of dollars, and therefore even a moment of time lost without profit must be calculated as the greatest loss in life. Time is not subject to any form of psychology, nor are the moments objective realities in themselves, but they are dependent on particular experiences.

what do you think?

 

[iceaura]

I think somebody is about a hundred years behind in their fundamental physics.

But if that's the closest they can come to understanding the universe, they needn't feel bad - we're all in the same boat, relative to that ocean.

 

[lightgigantic]

care to explain?

Or should we just draw up some arbitrary chalk lines and throw stuff?

last time I checked time still held its status as a fundamental unit in physics

 

[Frud11]

Time isn't real, we imagine it exists.
It appears because everything is changing, including us.

Distance is real, and a change in distance (position) appears to take time (we have to expend energy to move, movement is a sort of controlled release of energy). If we could expend the required energy instantaneously, we'd still only be where we were going.
We "like" to take our time. In small doses, apparently.

P.S.
A universe without life is not a universe without change.
Life without change is death.

Death is without Time.

 

[iceaura]

care to explain?

No. Some philosopher telling us what time is, "factually" ?

Lessee: Continuous ? Maybe, maybe not. Absolute "factually" ? No. Independent of things ? No. Real ? Definition, please. No beginning or end ? Maybe, maybe not. Basic measurement of the senses ? False to the extent meaningful (not a great extent) (The senses measure differences. Time is derived, using memory).

But none of that is relevant. It's the nineteenth century concept of time as described that is supposed to be a poor but better than nothing analogy of God, and that's the only role of Time in this thread. The actual nature of time doesn't matter here.

Carry on.

 

[lightgigantic]

No. Some philosopher telling us what time is, "factually" ?

Lessee: Continuous ? Maybe, maybe not.

time is not continuous?
that's scientifically established? (remember we don't want to hear some philosophy about what time could be "possibly")

Absolute "factually" ? No.


Independent of things ? No.

I think you can't see the phrase for the keywords - see end of post

Real ? Definition, please.

see - fundamental unit

No beginning or end ? Maybe, maybe not.

the only thing more questionable than the infinite regress of what would lie on either end of time ..... is how such a thing could be empirically verified

Basic measurement of the senses ? False to the extent meaningful (not a great extent) (The senses measure differences. Time is derived, using memory).

yes - its not a great extent, since discussions of say sight or hearing would also tend to include a functional mind

But none of that is relevant. It's the nineteenth century concept of time as described that is supposed to be a poor but better than nothing analogy of God, and that's the only role of Time in this thread. The actual nature of time doesn't matter here.

Carry on.

it seems like you simply focused on a few key words and missed out on the construct of phrases

eg -

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

can you define time with velocity?

Absolute time is continuous and is unaffected by the speed or slowness of material things. Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object.

ie newtonian physics has its place ....

Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things;

...... however :scratchin:

rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time.

if you disagree, please indicate something that is shaped and calculated outside of the terms of the facility offered by time.

Time is the basic measurement of the activity of our senses, by which we calculate past, present and future; but in factual calculation, time has no beginning and no end.

if you disagree, factually calculate what was before time or after time

 

[iceaura]

time is not continuous?

Maybe, maybe not.

(remember we don't want to hear some philosophy about what time could be "possibly")

Then let's not.

it seems like you simply focused on a few key words and missed out on the construct of phrases, ne.g.
- -
Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

How about: erroneously, time is distinguished as absolute and real ? Will that do?

But I think I agreed that my objections here are irrelevant. The point is not whether the conception of "time" presented here has any sure claim to physical reliability, but whether it works as an atheist's nearest approach to understanding God - through metaphor or analogy, say (which is not quite specified).

The particular God involved is not specified either - let's assume the legendary Abrahim's.

So let's assume time is absolute (Einstein can go away for a while), continuous (as in the real number line? whatever), infinite (no need to get technical here, we have a vague notion of unboundedness or not having a size, it will do), endless (circularity ignored, we're going for poetry here), and so forth.

Is that closer to Abrahim's God than, say, inertial mass ? How about "probability", as a metaphorical concept - is that perhaps closer to God than mass? than time?

For that matter, is the assumption that a given atheist is far from understanding God a safe one? What metaphors or analogies would one propose to bring a theist nearer to understanding God ?

Maybe time works better for theists than for atheists, as shedding light on God. That would be my guess.

 

[glaucon]

Firstly, iceaura's critique's are all correct and valid.

Secondly, the closest an atheist can come to understanding god would be the Easter Bunny.

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

How about: erroneously, time is distinguished as absolute and real ? Will that do?

what are you advocating?
If you waste 5 minutes, can you retrieve it?

But I think I agreed that my objections here are irrelevant. The point is not whether the conception of "time" presented here has any sure claim to physical reliability, but whether it works as an atheist's nearest approach to understanding God - through metaphor or analogy, say (which is not quite specified).

The particular God involved is not specified either - let's assume the legendary Abrahim's.

bad start
to talk of god being ultimately abrahamic is like talking of gold being ultimately chinese or american

So let's assume time is absolute (Einstein can go away for a while), continuous (as in the real number line? whatever), infinite (no need to get technical here, we have a vague notion of unboundedness or not having a size, it will do), endless (circularity ignored, we're going for poetry here), and so forth.

Is that closer to Abrahim's God than, say, inertial mass ?

what is inertial mass without time?

How about "probability",

what is probability without time?

as a metaphorical concept - is that perhaps closer to God than mass? than time?

to reiterate

Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object. Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things; rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time.

 

[iceaura]

Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object. Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things; rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time.

I've already granted you this (or any other) concept of time, as a metaphor or analogy or something for some God you refuse to specify.

Now, how is that closer to this God than probability, mass, etc - let's throw interval, distance, etc - as an analogy or metaphor ?

And which is it, analogy or metaphor, btw ?

 

[lightgigantic]

I've already granted you this (or any other) concept of time, as a metaphor or analogy or something for some God you refuse to specify.

Now, how is that closer to this God than probability, mass, etc - let's throw interval, distance, etc - as an analogy or metaphor ?

And which is it, analogy or metaphor, btw ?

Go back to the original post and try using probability, mass, interval or distance in place of "time" - actually it is time that makes these other terms even comprehensible, yet time can be determined as something separate from them.

Time is the phenomena that empowers all acts of perception and also the observable, yet is metaphysical since it remains outside of these things.

Nothing is equal to or greater than time in the way that it affects all things.

For the atheist, time is god, because ultimately they are surrendered and constitutionally bound to it.
So I guess that means it stands as metaphor.

 

[superluminal]

Good ol Einstein showed us that there is no absolute time. There are only clocks. Interval measuring devices. I can point you to a bunch of links that will bring you up to the 21st century if you like?

For the atheist, time is god, because ultimately they are surrendered and constitutionally bound to it.
So I guess that means it stands as metaphor.

Err... ok...

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Good ol Einstein showed us that there is no absolute time. There are only clocks. Interval measuring devices. I can point you to a bunch of links that will bring you up to the 21st century if you like?

(Sob)
Can't we just agree for a change!!
:bawl:

(PS - feel free to give the links)

“
For the atheist, time is god, because ultimately they are surrendered and constitutionally bound to it.
So I guess that means it stands as metaphor.
”
Err... ok...

Well even Einstein died ..... by the hands of time

 

[greenberg]

The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

It's got to be time

reference

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real. Absolute time is continuous and is unaffected by the speed or slowness of material things. Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object. Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things; rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time. Time is the basic measurement of the activity of our senses, by which we calculate past, present and future; but in factual calculation, time has no beginning and no end. Canakya Pandita says that even a slight fraction of time cannot be purchased with millions of dollars, and therefore even a moment of time lost without profit must be calculated as the greatest loss in life. Time is not subject to any form of psychology, nor are the moments objective realities in themselves, but they are dependent on particular experiences.

what do you think?

I tend to agree.

I imagine "understanding God" would include factors like:
- realizing there is something other than one's current self;
- realizing one is completely helpless against some things or beings and has no control over them;
- realizing resources are not limitless.

In personal experience, time is the number one thing that fits the above.

 

[phlogistician]

I'm not going to get bogged down with the physics side of this 'cos Iceaura is doing a good job. I'd only chip in to LG that just because time gets to be an SI unit, that does not make time 'real'. That's an arbitrary man made unit.

To use a more metaphysical argument, I would say time was a bad approach to illustrate god to an atheist, because Time itself was created along with space at the point of the big bang. Supposedly god can exist outside of space and time, so it's apples and oranges, and a rather crap analogy LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not going to get bogged down with the physics side of this 'cos Iceaura is doing a good job. I'd only chip in to LG that just because time gets to be an SI unit, that does not make time 'real'. That's an arbitrary man made unit.

I take it you missed a few bits in the OP


Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

are you trying to argue that SI is a branch of metaphysics?

To use a more metaphysical argument, I would say time was a bad approach to illustrate god to an atheist, because Time itself was created along with space at the point of the big bang. Supposedly god can exist outside of space and time, so it's apples and oranges, and a rather crap analogy LG.

The highly theoretical nature of our current understanding of the Big Bang aside (I tend to opt more a cyclic view of time, making it eternal), the thread title was "the closest thing an atheist ...." - true, god does lay claim to a nature beyond time, but the closest an atheist is going to get to comprehending god is comprehending time.

 

[lightgigantic]

I tend to agree.

I imagine "understanding God" would include factors like:
- realizing there is something other than one's current self;
- realizing one is completely helpless against some things or beings and has no control over them;
- realizing resources are not limitless.

In personal experience, time is the number one thing that fits the above.

can you expand a bit on the bold

I don't understand why you would hold it as being a factor for understanding god and how it exactly relates to time

 

[greenberg]

- realizing resources are not limitless.

I don't understand why you would hold it as being a factor for understanding god and how it exactly relates to time

First of all, like I said, I imagine those factors above would play a part in "understanding God"; this qualifies my statements as personal.

Realizing resources are not limitless is another aspect of the constrained nature of existence. Directly related to realizing one is completely helpless against some things or beings and has no control over them, there is also the realization that resources are not limitless. I might even put these two factors into one.

Not only is one helpless and has no control over some things and beings, it is also so that no matter what one would do, no matter how long one would do it - some things get lost forever, pass forever, can never be renewed or brought back. - The notion that nothing is worse than losing a day.

Realizing these constrainsts can give a person a sense of grave urgency and humility - which, in my estimation, are necessary both for understanding God and time.

 

[Myles]

First of all, like I said, I imagine those factors above would play a part in "understanding God"; this qualifies my statements as personal.

Realizing resources are not limitless is another aspect of the constrained nature of existence. Directly related to realizing one is completely helpless against some things or beings and has no control over them, there is also the realization that resources are not limitless. I might even put these two factors into one.

Not only is one helpless and has no control over some things and beings, it is also so that no matter what one would do, no matter how long one would do it - some things get lost forever, pass forever, can never be renewed or brought back. - The notion that nothing is worse than losing a day.

Realizing these constrainsts can give a person a sense of grave urgency and humility - which, in my estimation, are necessary both for understanding God and time.

I suggest that what you describe is a way of frightening someone into believing in god.

 

[greenberg]

I suggest that what you describe is a way of frightening someone into believing in god.

Not at all. Those things are true regardless whether one believes in God or not.