The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[lightgigantic]

Just pointing out that the parallels between your "time" and your "god", although obvious here once explained, are particular to your metaphysics of time and your particular god. 19th century European, both of them.

Other conceptions of time, such as modern physics "time", are not that close to other conceptions of gods. The atheist needs to know which metaphysics of time and which god(s) are involved, before extracting meaning from comparison.

Just a small qualification of the thread title.

as already indicated ....

in short - reagrdless of your postulating about the nature of time, you have appeared within it and face a similar demise from the same agency.

You may say that the nature of time does not pose a relevant problem to your science, but the voice that you are saying this with will eventually be silenced (and forgotten) by time.

Actually time draws the disciplines of all sciences, since solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge

.... solving the problems of time doesn't appear to be an issue unique to the 19th century

 

[flynch]

remember the OP is that time for an atheist is the closest they can come to understanding god" -- have read (scanned some) all the postings, and finding "time" a curious/inexplicable/multifaceted bit of human overlay

I go back to the OP and ask myself: Why would an atheist - comfortable in the belief that there is no god make any attempt at all to understand one?

The other thing I was looking for amidst this consideration of "time" is the variety of simultaneous events within a "piece" of time. How much or does everything occur at once? And if it does, which of them is "time" have any significance for?

 

[lightgigantic]

I go back to the OP and ask myself: Why would an atheist - comfortable in the belief that there is no god make any attempt at all to understand one?

of course an atheist is not very interested to understand god

but since time plays a part in all their activities as a controlling element, they (at least the scientifically inclined variety) are very eager to understand time

 

[flynch]

perhaps "god" would not be the best metaphor than to facilitate a "scientific" comprehension of time. Time intrigues me because it provides a context or perspective or framework through which I can communicate with other people conceptually. So as ellusive as the gravitron may be, wouldn't it be cool if they would find one day the "chronotron"?

 

[lightgigantic]

perhaps "god" would not be the best metaphor than to facilitate a "scientific" comprehension of time. Time intrigues me because it provides a context or perspective or framework through which I can communicate with other people conceptually. So as ellusive as the gravitron may be, wouldn't it be cool if they would find one day the "chronotron"?

hence understanding time remains elusive - rather we are controlled by time and express ourselves through facility offered by time

 

[flynch]

then "god" is used for theists to comprehend time.

 

[Frud11]

...solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge

The idea of understanding time by understanding everything, or at least everything we know, or maybe the idea that understanding time is the understanding of everything...

Our ideas exist because we exist. Our ideas of basics like spatiality and time exist because we have both, like everything else. And it all behaves somehow or other.

I would say we've been trying to explain this, and why some of the "behaves somehow" does it repeatedly, or iteratively--regularly--, you know, like a sunrise, or planetary motion, and like that.

There's music--possibly an early foray into finding order and meaning with numbers--math. And building, and harvesting--the ideas of increase and decrease, want and sufficiency, and counting--exclusion and inclusion, good(to eat), and not good (to eat). Memes and sememes. Meaning and symbology.

Spatiality is the idea of direction. And of an interval. Thus, a vector. Vectors can "go" all directions, but, being one-dimensional, only forwards and backwards. So, also the idea of proceeding, in any direction (forwards or backwards), from a point.

Time is something that appears because of the idea of action, and dynamism. There's this dyne thing--anodyne is used to mean palliative, or soothing, and there's the heterodyne and the homodyne.

 

[QuestionEverything]

perhaps "god" would not be the best metaphor than to facilitate a "scientific" comprehension of time. Time intrigues me because it provides a context or perspective or framework through which I can communicate with other people conceptually. So as ellusive as the gravitron may be, wouldn't it be cool if they would find one day the "chronotron"?

Hey thanks you just inadvertently helped me make a small breakthrough.
The word "chronology" comes from the Greek god Chronos who was the god of time or father time. Chronos or Saturn was called "El" by the Hebrews and in those days was associated with the Sun. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament refers to El as the singular form meaning "the Lord" and Elohim as the plural form meaning "the gods". Chronos was the first and most powerful of all the gods and was worshiped universally as the supreme deity.

So it makes perfect sense that Chronos(Saturn/El) and the Sun are one in the same when you consider that the Sun was believed to be the father of time by the ancients. Of course the connection between the Sun and time from an ancient point of view should be obvious.

Cool, more evidence to corroborate my findings that, to the ancients, Saturn and the Sun were synonymous with one another (theistically speaking).

 

[lightgigantic]

then "god" is used for theists to comprehend time.

more in the sense that a theist is controlled by god and express themselves through facility offered by god

 

[Frud11]

When did we first explore music? You know, that rhythm and harmony stuff?
Who started the first jazz or acapella group?

I'd say religious, and spiritual philosophy extends from the practical science of music-making; if you consider how closely tied they are today, and were back when the Church was in charge (of the hit parade). Music and singing feature in most activities of any spiritual--i.e. emotional nature. Also military activities. Inspirational, and so on, are common descriptions. An entrainment of the auditory centres and so the emotions, and we feel music too...

 

[iceaura]

solving the problems of time doesn't appear to be an issue unique to the 19th century

The solutions are, though. At least, they aren't the same as the solutions of later centuries.

Neither are the Gods.

We agree that the one resembles the other, in certain respects. That is interesting. Possible sources of sophisticated conceptions of deity among a particular culture is always worth pondering. I wonder if this 19th century concept of time is the closest a 19th century Christian theist could come to understanding their god ?

Actually time draws the disciplines of all sciences, since solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge

When you forget that you originally restricted this time of yours to metaphysics, you stop making sense.

If we are going to talk about modern scientific time in its applications, we have to drop the absolute and so forth. Whatever is drawing the disciplines of all the sciences nowdays, it isn't an absolute and boundary-free infinite time guaranteed to be continuous and moving in only one direction.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
solving the problems of time doesn't appear to be an issue unique to the 19th century
”
The solutions are, though. At least, they aren't the same as the solutions of later centuries.

I wasn't aware that they had solutions, either in the 19th century or anytime afterwards

Neither are the Gods.

you have alluded to there being a reason why you think god in the 19th century is somehow different from god any other time. You have also alluded to there being some reason why my statements draw a parallel to this idea. Still yet to see any grounds for these reasons

We agree that the one resembles the other, in certain respects. That is interesting. Possible sources of sophisticated conceptions of deity among a particular culture is always worth pondering. I wonder if this 19th century concept of time is the closest a 19th century Christian theist could come to understanding their god ?

Perhaps it would be wise to inquire from a christian who is suitably knowledgeable

“
Originally Posted by LG
Actually time draws the disciplines of all sciences, since solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge
”
When you forget that you originally restricted this time of yours to metaphysics, you stop making sense.

metaphysically time can be shown to be greater than any empirical models engineered to contain it

If we are going to talk about modern scientific time in its applications, we have to drop the absolute and so forth. Whatever is drawing the disciplines of all the sciences nowdays, it isn't an absolute and boundary-free infinite time guaranteed to be continuous and moving in only one direction.

whatever it may be, time remains uncontained with or without the "absolute" label - and furthermore, since nothing can be indicated as existing outside of the influence of time, giving it an absolute label seems fitting

 

[phlogistician]

I thought there was still debate out there about whether something did come before.

And where did that which came before, come from? There may have been big bangs, and big crunches before, but how did the process start, from the very beginning?

 

[phlogistician]

Phlog,

No, you are assuming there had to be a beginning and there is no basis for that.

Of course there has to be a beginning. You can't just say matter and energy have been around for ever, because you aren't answering how they came to be matter and energy in the first place. If you are just saying that time has been around for ever, you are dodging my question about time merely being the separation between events, no events, no time, see? No matter, energy, no events, no time. Time starts, when there was something to interact, that moment, was the BB/

Even the state change from nothing to something would require passage of time. A beginning becomes impossible since any action would require time to be present first.

The event starts at T=0 and is timed from there. You are implying that time has to exist before an event can start, well no, time starts at the exact moment the event does.

That’s because you are still thinking of infinity as a numerical quantity and have tied yourself in knots. But I’m not suggesting that time can exist independently, that has been my point here, time is a property of existence, and since for anything to happen time must be present then there can never have been a point where time did not exist and hence never a point where the universe did not exist.

You are almost there. Time is a property of the Universe. There is never a point in time where the Universe didn't exist, that is correct, because time started when the Universe sparked to life in the BB.

Huh! Nonsence. Time no more moves in a direction any more than “length” moves in a direction.

You can move towards and away from an object yes? So length has direction. You cannot control your movement towards events, however.

Think of time (and hence existence) as a line that has infinite length and “now” is simply an arbitrary point on that line. No beginning or end is needed or possible.

You are nearly there. Take that analogy, and put the BB somewhere on that infinite line. And look backwards from it, to infinity. If time started an infinity ago, how can you ever get from an infinite past, to the event on your time line? You just arbitrarily hop onto the time line before the BB? That sets that point as your reference where T=0, and you cannot argue against that. You say time is inifinite, and then ignore the ramafications of that statement!

 

[Cris]

Phlog,

Of course there has to be a beginning.

No there doesn’t. And I will maintain that a beginning is impossible, since for a beginning to occur something must have initiated it, and hence that something came before a beginning, and hence the beginning wasn’t the beginning.

You can't just say matter and energy have been around for ever, because you aren't answering how they came to be matter and energy in the first place.

Why not? We have no reason to believe that matter and energy can be created; in fact what we observe is that matter and energy can be converted from one form to the other but nothing is ever created or destroyed. This is strong evidence that everything there is has always existed, albeit in a different form or denser or densely cyclic.

What evidence can you present that at some point nothing existed?

If you are just saying that time has been around for ever, you are dodging my question about time merely being the separation between events, no events, no time, see?

No I don’t see your point. My position is that something has always existed and time is a property of existence.

No matter, energy, no events, no time. Time starts, when there was something to interact, that moment, was the BB/

That still doesn’t work since the starting of time would be an event that would need time to be present for it to occur. Any type of action you care to name will require time and unless time exists FIRST nothing can occur. And that implies an infinite series, or in other words time must necessarily have always existed.

The event starts at T=0 and is timed from there. You are implying that time has to exist before an event can start, well no, time starts at the exact moment the event does.

Labeling a conceptual start point doesn’t make it real. Your term “exact moment” requires time for the state change to go from nothing to something, i.e. time existed to enable the event to begin. I repeat; you cannot have an event without time existing first.

….. put the BB somewhere on that infinite line. And look backwards from it, to infinity. If time started an infinity ago, how can you ever get from an infinite past, to the event on your time line?

You cannot look to infinity; there is no boundary condition to see. And my point is that time cannot have had a start point. The arbitrary point “now” is simply the current state of change. Since time cannot have a start point then the BB was not the beginning. The best we can say about the alleged BB is that it was a point where what we know was denser than it is now.

You just arbitrarily hop onto the time line before the BB? That sets that point as your reference where T=0, and you cannot argue against that. You say time is inifinite, and then ignore the ramafications of that statement!

There was no T=0, it isn’t possible.

 

[phlogistician]

No I don’t see your point. My position is that something has always existed and time is a property of existence.

And this is where your argument falls over. Where did that 'something' come from? How did it get be something?

It cannot just be there.

Please explain the origins of the 'something'

 

[iceaura]

metaphysically time can be shown to be greater than any empirical models engineered to contain it

? I suppose the metaphysician has suitably defined the "empirical model", "time", etc concepts so as to make that true ?

The 19th Century was a fascinating time.

I would suspect that metaphysics of being a bit silly, if I read the implications correctly. Nothing has a worse track record than philosophy telling science what it can and can't do, and how it has to behave.

It cannot just be there.

Why not ?

And I will maintain that a beginning is impossible, since for a beginning to occur something must have initiated it, and hence that something came before a beginning, and hence the beginning wasn’t the beginning.

If what you are talking about is the initial existence of time and space, there is no "before", and no initiator in time or space.

 

[BlueMoose]

I cant label my self but I will try; I´m baptized evangelical lutheran native pagan eastern philosopher atheist, but, everything is energy, vibrations, everything is connected, everything is one, no beginning and no end, the purest form, the circle, flower of life. Thats God.

 

[C1ay]

And this is where your argument falls over. Where did that 'something' come from? How did it get be something?

It cannot just be there.

Please explain the origins of the 'something'

Why exactly did something have to come from anywhere or have an origin? I'm not saying it didn't have a beginning, it might have. I'm asking how you can state that it HAD to come from somewhere without any proof?

Why couldn't time be infinite? Not that it was but can you prove categorically that it's not?

 

[Cris]

phlog,

And this is where your argument falls over. Where did that 'something' come from? How did it get be something?

Why does it have to come from somewhere?

It cannot just be there.

Why not? All the evidence says it is.

Please explain the origins of the 'something'

Why must there be an origin?