The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[Cris]

Lg,

I guess I don't see how an understanding of the time concept would lead me closer to accepting the possibility that a god might exist. ”

It wasn't meant to

Not sure then the intent of the thread or its title.

rather it was meant to indicate that time occupies a certain ontological status with atheists as god does for a theist
(not in the sense of worship but in the sense that it is the primary controlling force on our actions)

Hmm, I think for that idea to work we’d have to share the same concept of time as you propose and that I think that is where we part company.

“ From the reference - "Absolute time is continuous and is unaffected by the speed or slowness of material things. "

We know this to be false. We know that time is not a constant or absolute but is always relative to the observer and is dependent on the velocity of material objects. ”

seems you are not referencing absolute time - time may travel slower or quicker, but it is always forward and never backwards or stationary

The concept here is that time is “something” and has properties of direction and speed, none of which is true. “Time” is simply a convenient label we give to “continuous change of state”. Time as a separate object does not exist. Time does not travel and has no direction. Suggesting time goes forward is as meaningless as claiming “length” goes forward. And the concept of absolute time is a stumbling block many experience when they first attempt to comprehend relativity. There is no such thing as absolute time.

“ Also from the ref "Eternal time is the primeval source of the interactions of the three modes of material nature. It is unchangeable and limitless, and it works as the instrument of the Supreme Personality of Godhead for His pastimes in the material creation." ”
i didn't include that, since explaining the modes of material nature is a combination of something beyond most reader's patience to listen to and my patience to explain

Fair enough, but it intimates a concept of time born out of more ignorant times.

“ Since we now know that time is changeable and operates in synergy with material things then we can safely say it isn't a source of any kind. And to me that leaves the potential connection with a possible deity somewhat - errrrr what? ”

does the synergy of time with material things enable time to go backwards?

The question doesn’t make sense. Time does not have direction. The “past” for example, is a different set of states than the present.

In the end I guess I can see how non-existent time relates to a non existent god.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'll be convinced if you act as if you truly believe it,

its not clear what data you would be calling upon to make such a conclusion in the first place (please - no ad homs)

 

[superluminal]

It wasn't meant to

rather it was meant to indicate that time occupies a certain ontological status with atheists as god does for a theist
(not in the sense of worship but in the sense that it is the primary controlling force on our actions)

How does this make even philosophical sense? Time isn't a force. It controls nothing. In modern science, time, as most people commonly (and mistakenly) think of it (as some kind of flowing "stuff") does not exist. Intervals exist. Clocks exist. My measurement of an interval can be drastically different from yours. You may say an event happened at T1 while I say it happened at T2 and a third person says it happened at T3, all depending on how we're moving with respect to each other.

seems you are not referencing absolute time

Because that's a meaningless concept.

- time may travel slower or quicker

No. Time dosen't "move". Measurements of intervals differ. That's all.

does the synergy of time with material things enable time to go backwards?

What does this mean?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
“ From the reference - "Absolute time is continuous and is unaffected by the speed or slowness of material things. "

We know this to be false. We know that time is not a constant or absolute but is always relative to the observer and is dependent on the velocity of material objects. ”

seems you are not referencing absolute time - time may travel slower or quicker, but it is always forward and never backwards or stationary
”
The concept here is that time is “something” and has properties of direction and speed, none of which is true. “Time” is simply a convenient label we give to “continuous change of state”. Time as a separate object does not exist. Time does not travel and has no direction. Suggesting time goes forward is as meaningless as claiming “length” goes forward. And the concept of absolute time is a stumbling block many experience when they first attempt to comprehend relativity. There is no such thing as absolute time.

seems that the understanding you are working with for "change if state" is what the reference is working with for "absolute time"
can one indicate change without reference to time?
can one indicate time without reference to change?
can one indicate anything that doesn't change?
(hence time ..or change of state .. becomes absolute since it affects all things in this world)

“
“ Since we now know that time is changeable and operates in synergy with material things then we can safely say it isn't a source of any kind. And to me that leaves the potential connection with a possible deity somewhat - errrrr what? ”

does the synergy of time with material things enable time to go backwards?
”
The question doesn’t make sense. Time does not have direction. The “past” for example, is a different set of states than the present.

change is the practical result of time
if time didn't have a direction, there would be no validity in determining the relationship between cause and effect

In the end I guess I can see how non-existent time relates to a non existent god.

if time is non-existent, how would you reach the end?

 

[Cris]

lg,

seems that the understanding you are working with for "change if state" is what the reference is working with for "absolute time"

No I don’t think so. I take the term ‘absolute’ to mean a fixed standard. “Change of state implies no such connotation.

can one indicate change without reference to time?
can one indicate time without reference to change?
can one indicate anything that doesn't change?

Change of state is a property of the material universe, and “time” is the label we choose to describe a method to measure that property. “Time” is not a source or a cause, no more than a tape measure affects the length of an object.

(hence time ..or change of state .. becomes absolute since it affects all things in this world)

Not true if you define ‘absolute’ to mean “fixed”.

change is the practical result of time

No, time is how we measure the change.

if time didn't have a direction, there would be no validity in determining the relationship between cause and effect

No that is not the correct perception. Cause and effect is implicit in change of state and time is simply how we measure it.

if time is non-existent, how would you reach the end?

What end? How can there be an end? What does that mean? How would you stop the universe changing state?

 

[lightgigantic]

cris

“
seems that the understanding you are working with for "change if state" is what the reference is working with for "absolute time"
”
No I don’t think so. I take the term ‘absolute’ to mean a fixed standard. “Change of state implies no such connotation.

what would be an "absolute standard"? (especially in an empirical disciplne? )
I was taking absolute to mean, while possible to qualify, it's impossible to quantify (or standardize) since there is nothing else it can be reduced to

“
can one indicate change without reference to time?
can one indicate time without reference to change?
can one indicate anything that doesn't change?
”
Change of state is a property of the material universe, and “time” is the label we choose to describe a method to measure that property.

so the correct answers to the above are
no
no
and nothing
?

“Time” is not a source or a cause, no more than a tape measure affects the length of an object.

I'm not sure if you are trying to indicate anything apart from semantics for differences between "absolute time" and "change"
what do you call the force that brings upon change in all things and can you discuss it in the absence of time?

“
(hence time ..or change of state .. becomes absolute since it affects all things in this world)
”
Not true if you define ‘absolute’ to mean “fixed”.

if we can't indicate any act or object outside of time how is it not fixed?

“
change is the practical result of time
”
No, time is how we measure the change.

so what is change a practical result of (and how can this cause of change be indicated without reference to time)

“
if time didn't have a direction, there would be no validity in determining the relationship between cause and effect
”
No that is not the correct perception. Cause and effect is implicit in change of state and time is simply how we measure it.

once again, it seems to simply be an issue of semantics
would you say "change" has a direction?

“
if time is non-existent, how would you reach the end?
”
What end? How can there be an end? What does that mean? How would you stop the universe changing state?

just a play on words - you mentioned "in the end ....."
if past/present/future/ is simply a construct of relative convenience, why do you rely on it in forming your stance of the existent/nonexistent

 

[superluminal]

so what is change a practical result of (and how can this cause of change be indicated without reference to time)

Entropy. Universally decreasing disorder. Locally increasing order with energy input.

 

[lightgigantic]

Entropy. Universally decreasing disorder. Locally increasing order with energy input.

and how can that be indicated without reference to time?

 

[superluminal]

and how can that be indicated without reference to time?

A system progresses from one state to another in a given number of oscillations of a cesium atom in a given inertial frame of reference. IOW, an atomic clock.

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

The closest atheists can come to god is when they begin to question WHY they believe in themselves.

 

[(Q)]

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 think I have a good understanding of time. The authors of the site you provided do not. At best, their description of time is puerile, whimsical and most certainly ill-informed.

 

[superluminal]

The closest atheists can come to god is when they begin to question WHY they believe in themselves.

Hmmm... Oh, right... no.... wait...

Nope. Still makes no sense whatsoever.
:scratchin:

 

[superluminal]

What's a good analogy for how close a theist can come to understanding the celestial teapot.

Help me out here...

 

[lightgigantic]

A system progresses from one state to another in a given number of oscillations of a cesium atom in a given inertial frame of reference. IOW, an atomic clock.

all these words (italics) can be referenced without approaching issues of time?

 

[superluminal]

all these words (italics) can be referenced without approaching issues of time?

Yes, but you are incapable of grasping the nuances of how this is done, so there is no point in continuing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, but you are incapable of grasping the nuances of how this is done, so there is no point in continuing.

Ah because you have the benefit of great sages who imparted their wisdom to you, which requires study to comprehend such nuances?

Isn't that what LG says about his religion?

 

[superluminal]

Ah because you have the benefit of great sages who imparted their wisdom to you, which requires study to comprehend such nuances?

Isn't that what LG says about his religion?

*sigh*

This is getting beyond you sam. Just let it go.

 

[S.A.M.]

*sigh*

This is getting beyond you sam. Just let it go.

Thats what he keeps saying too.

 

[superluminal]

Thats what he keeps saying too.

How about that?

 

[Frud11]

In reference to direction, and how time doesn't "have" a direction:

so what is change a practical result of (and how can this cause of change be indicated without reference to time)

Universally decreasing disorder. Locally increasing order with energy input...A system progresses from one state to another

Increasing, as we know entropy does, and that it doesn't decrease, but moves toward a maximum, or towards an equilibrium, or balance, implies that it evolves.

Evolution, entropic systems, and so on, are one-way, and one-way means "not the reverse way". The expansive and dispersive process that is heat, is also why time exists. Time is the direction of entropy. An entropy vector.