The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

lightgigantic said:
I wasn't aware that a circle (much less one with a radius of 1cm) can be empirically evidenced (all rendered circles are imperfect) - rather a circle is merely a mathematical abstraction.

And even if you could indicate a circle as such, it's not clear what it would be composed of to resist the influence of time (I don't think science has encountered any circles not subject to change - or even perfect circles for that matter)

anything else to offer?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry - you are now asking for a physical object? This wasn't part of your question:

"so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?"

Please indicate to me how a circle of 1-cm radius has changed since time began, or how it will change from now to the end of time?
I'm not talking about rendered circles, or naturally occurring circles, or circles encountered in science. I am merely talking about a circle of 1-cm radius.

Please? With a cherry on top?
I'm guessing from your current answer that you can't - so instead you move the goal posts, but unfortunately the goal was scored beforehand.


And when you finally come to realise that time requires change to exist (one can not happen without the other) - things clearly do not suffer/react from the "influence of time".
Either things change or they don't.
If they don't - there is no time.
If there is time it is because there is change.
Thus, by default, any changing environment has a measure of "time", and where time "exists" it is because it is a changing environment.

Your logic is thus flawed - and thus your point irrelevant.
 
Sarkus said:
I'm sorry - you are now asking for a physical object? This wasn't part of your question:

"so you can indicate the size/shape/pattern/etc of something that does not change?"

Please indicate to me how a circle of 1-cm radius has changed since time began, or how it will change from now to the end of time?
I'm not talking about rendered circles, or naturally occurring circles, or circles encountered in science. I am merely talking about a circle of 1-cm radius.
Click to expand...
please show me a circle with a 1cm radius, then we can begin discussion
meh
you might as well be talking about the FSM or the invisible pink unicorn
:D
 
First you show me your God.
Then we'll move onto the 1cm-radius circle.
 
LG said:
Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real

In what ways do metaphysical circles bear a tangible effect on us like time (or god)?
Click to expand...
The same way metaphysical time does, I suppose. Depends on your metaphysics - we still talking "absolute" and suchlike, 19th century metaphysics ?

We talking metaphysics here, or tangible stuff ?

Tangibly, for example, time is not absolute. And it has never been any more "real" than dimension or pattern or other such abstractions.

There are a lot more things whose existence does not depend on change, than things whose existence does not depend on having a dimension or two.

LG said:
then spill the beans
what is the something that doesn't change?
Click to expand...
That's needn't change, and I gave you a list already. This argument is going to be on it fairly soon, I have a feeling.
 
Time does not "affect" things. It IS change - it is our observation of that change, at a certain rate that our brains interpret.

No change - no time.
No time - no change.

Time is not a blanket that is overlaid on top of everything and affects everything.
Time is a perception of change.
 
And so we complete the circle - by referring you to one of the earlier posts in this thread to explain your out-dated misconception / misunderstanding of time as used.
:shrug:
 
Sarkus said:
And so we complete the circle - by referring you to one of the earlier posts in this thread to explain your out-dated misconception / misunderstanding of time as used.
:shrug:
Click to expand...
the longer you make us wait to show how change and time can be indicated independently, the weaker your argument gets
:p
 
C1ay said:
You're right. You claimed it doesn't, that the universe as we know it is all that there is. Can you prove it or not?
Click to expand...

I said;

Phlogistician said:
The word 'Universe' means all that there is.
Click to expand...

That's the definition of the word;

universe
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: \ˈyü-nə-ˌvərs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
Date: 14th century
1: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated :

So, it's simple. The Universe is everything that is observable. That doesn't imply direct observation, but detecting the effect, and factoring it into our formulae.

If something did exist, that didn't affect us, we would never know, and you couldn't in all honestly claim it to exist. You could perhaps predict things to exist that we cannot detect, but if they have a different set of dimensions, and do not interact with ours, they are rather virtual.

You seem to me setting some arbitrary boundary (that you haven't actually defined) and then claimed that there is stuff beyond this imaginary boundary, and that it somehow counts as outside the Universe.

I merely corrected your use of the word Universe, and reminded you that if something exists, it is covered by the definition of the word Universe. Your imaginary boundary encompasses, all, not just part.

Now, for debate, it's important to agree on terms. Perhaps you want to explain your terms? Use more correct words?
 
lightgigantic said:
the longer you make us wait to show how change and time can be indicated independently, the weaker your argument gets
:p
Click to expand...
That's what I've said - back in post 147:

"Time does not "affect" things. It IS change - it is our observation of that change, at a certain rate that our brains interpret."

So now you're asking me to provide a split of something that I have said is not splittable.

YOU are the one implying that time is separate and distinct from the things it affects (one can not affect something else if it IS that something else!): "it's not clear what it would be composed of to resist the influence of time", and "for me, god is time, since time affects everything"

So you consider "change" to be God - the fact that everything changes is now your God?
Woohoo?
:shrug:
 
Sarkus said:
That's what I've said - back in post 147:

"Time does not "affect" things. It IS change - it is our observation of that change, at a certain rate that our brains interpret."

So now you're asking me to provide a split of something that I have said is not splittable.
Click to expand...
actually the argument is that change is the symptom of (absolute) time

YOU are the one implying that time is separate and distinct from the things it affects (one can not affect something else if it IS that something else!): "it's not clear what it would be composed of to resist the influence of time", and "for me, god is time, since time affects everything"

So you consider "change" to be God - the fact that everything changes is now your God?
Woohoo?
:shrug:
Click to expand...

actually the argument was that time is the closest thing an atheist can come to understanding god
:D
 
lightgigantic said:
actually the argument is that change is the symptom of (absolute) time
Click to expand...
So again I refer you to the early posts.

actually the argument was that time is the closest thing an atheist can come to understanding god
Click to expand...
So an understanding of god isn't the closest thing an atheist can come to understanding god?

Guess there's no hope for us, then.
;)
 
God ~ Omnipotent ~ Beyond Everything With No Needs and Affecting Everything -> Everything that Is and Everything that Isnt ~ The Incomprehensible ~ Abstraction ~ Time ~ Eternal ~ God ~ Omni....
Could it be. hmmm....or God ~ Ever reforming Energy ~ some sort of Time.?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LG said:
you mean I should slip in a few ad homs or something?
Click to expand...
Different ones than what you've been slipping in, yes. The stuff about not understanding is losing effect.
LG said:
hence, metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real
can you indicate time without change?
can you indicate change without time?
- - - -
actually the argument is that change is the symptom of (absolute) time
Click to expand...
As you can see, unless the symptom is the thing itself, you are bouncing between metaphysically contradictory positions.

From contradiction, any absurdity can be deduced.

Now, for clarity: are you talking about a particular metaphysics of time, handling it as absolute and so forth; or are you talking about physically manifested time that affects material beings, such as modern physics deals with, not absolute and so forth ?

That metaphysical time (absolute, infinite, etc) seems to match up pretty closely with the 19th century Christian God, as well as the 19th century conception of time, a parallel I find interesting. It does not match up so well with other gods, or modern physical descriptions of time, but as far as I can follow this argument that is beside the point - am I right about that being beside the point ?
 
phlogistician said:
The Universe is not infinitely large, because it has not had time to become so.
Click to expand...

phlogistician said:
So, it's simple. The Universe is everything that is observable. That doesn't imply direct observation, but detecting the effect, and factoring it into our formulae.

If something did exist, that didn't affect us, we would never know, and you couldn't in all honestly claim it to exist.
Click to expand...

Here's what's simple. Our observation is limited to around 14 billion light years. We have no way to determine anything beyond that boundary and yet, you think that you can factually claim that the universe cannot be infinite. Please prove definitively that it is not possible for anything to exist beyond the range of our observation. I'm not saying it does, only that you cannot factually claim that it doesn't.
 
C1ay said:
Here's what's simple. Our observation is limited to around 14 billion light years. We have no way to determine anything beyond that boundary and yet, you think that you can factually claim that the universe cannot be infinite. Please prove definitively that it is not possible for anything to exist beyond the range of our observation. I'm not saying it does, only that you cannot factually claim that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

If the Universe was infinite, and was infinitely old, why is there a background 'temperature'? It exists, that's a fact. Explain it away!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top