False analogy, as we have observed both white and black people. We haven’t observed things both inside of time and outside of time.
A better analogy would be if the killer was either human or amblobadorian, would you not assume he was human because he could potentially be amblobadorian?
By saying “I don’t know” it suggests you believe that something can exist outside of time. Please explain why one should believe that something can exist outside of time? How could such a thing be measured or verified to exist?
There is no “outside time”. Were such a thing to be possible, then X would not be able to make any choice, as choice is an event, and events happen in time. Choices cannot be made and followed up as that is by nature a temporal claim. Knowledge of an event, or a choice can only be made by a temporal entity. There is no outside time. It makes no sense.
If absolute knowledge of a choice could be known before the person choosing knows - this would negate the possibility of free will. When the god-type thing, who is claimed to have created person X in the certain knowledge of their choices and their actions, before they were born through their lives to their death: omniscience: this completely destroys the idea of free will, because in creating you, god has to know that you will or will not believe in him.
So any claim that god has infallible knowledge has to be accompanied with the determinist position. And having randomness or QM phenomena just does not help. Theists have to choose. Some enlightenment skeptics such as Spinoza chose an impersonal, absolute, non capricious, non desiring god. whilst some theists such as Calvin chose 'predestination". Both acceptable solutions to the problem, but negate utterly free will, and salvation of the “unchosen”. Thus for people such as myself, god has made me such that I cannot believe.
Even a temporal god could have infallible knowledge, but one act of free will, would negate that knowledge. Presumably that is why the Christians have invented this atemporal (outside time) entity to try to bamboozle the critics. Well - oh um. Even if you accept that free will wont work, and neither will any knowledge for that matter. It’s just another bit of extemporaneous nonsense not in the bible.
Based on my experiences and understanding - that all things come from other things and that there is a beginning and an end to all things - I would assume that the universe does not exist.
If there were something outside of time, how could it be observed, measured or shown to be outside of time?
Those attributes of a god suggest that it lies within time and not outside of time. So why do Christians posit that their god is outside of time? I’d say it’s merely to reconcile the problem of free will.
Why would such a god go to such great lengths to ensure that a majority of humans don’t even believe he exists? Seems like a masochistic god to me.
This makes sense. As I said earlier, this outside of time concept is the only way they can reconcile the problem of free will. But what do Christians say when you ask how they would measure or quantify something that exists outside of time?
And it makes no sense that a the Earth is a sphere. What would hold it up??
Or perhaps you simply don’t understand what it is that you are preaching about.
… And also, obviously, have no understanding of “free-will” either.
It means I believe it is epistemically possible–meaning that I don’t know enough about the nature of reality to say definitively that atemporality is impossible.
It has nothing to do with measurement or verification. You should believe it is epistemically possible if you cannot definitively prove it is impossible.
You have nothing to offer except empty insults and denial, as usual. If you want to make a point, you will have to say something.
You are no better than Ecclesiastes.
:-"
In answer to your question. If a thing were outside time the fact that it could not be observed is parallel with the impossibility of such a thing knowing timely matters such as knowledge, event, and choice. Thus if such a thing exists, then it is of no importance to the thread.
As for the masochistic god, maybe. But in the view of John Calvin and most of the Presbyterian Protestants that followed him, it was their opinion that only that brand of Protestantism had been “chosen” as the real Christians worthy of salvation, and this had been decided by God since the beginning of time - as only an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god could. In fact such a god could do no other. Obviously such a god being so powerful does not give a rat’s arse whether the 'unchosen" believe or not.
As for Christians having a coherent idea of what they are babbling on about - they do not. religious people can believe 12 incompatible things before breakfast and still manage to finish their cornflakes.
Well, the key word here is “assume”. If they’ve given it any thought and read text about it, they might. But I think that “to be outside of time” can only be a perception which each individual has experienced for him/her -self.
Within our time, yes, the human mind does this, but still if there is Something, that doesn’t mean that Something operates within our time. We can’t know this. I’m agnostic but I would wager a guess that IT still operates out of time - that’s my intuition speaking - but humans have been intelligent enought to bring consistent order to the universe (at times).
I’d have to be narcissistic to say no it doesn’t. But my brain plays wonderful tricks and gives me the illusion that time is standing still.
But the hands on the clock go on moving. Daylight becomes night, the stars are seen.
If there is a god and this god is eternal (boggles the mind) then god has to be outside of time, no? Eternity for me kind of flows on the outside of edges of time, close but never touching.
Not really. They were thought to be long ago. And they still teach that, but they now also teach a distinction between “rest mass”, which light doesn’t have since it never rests, and “mass/momentum” formed of the “frequency” of light. The truth is that light, or photons (not an actual particle), are made of the exact same thing as mass particles and gravity fields.
Relativity is merely an engineering tool to get good calculations. It is not a physical reality model (nor is quantum mechanics and certainly not quantum physics). “Things” are not relative. Measurements are relative/subjective. But even measurements do not adhere to Relativity once any motion approaches the speed of light. A photon is not a single object, but a cluster of EMR changing that is propagating.
If you seriously want to get into the finer details of exactly what is and isn’t going on in the subatomic world, we can go there (in the right forum) and so far, I haven’t found anything ever observed by any science experiment that I can’t explain without the magic and mysticism of relativity or quantum physics and also at least logically prove exactly what has no choice but to be happening.
… unless you choose to just be a “true believer” in the new religion of scientism magic and mysticism.
Which is why modern Science finds itself wrong so often and has to try to hide its errors behind obfuscation. Science wasn’t intended to be that way. It wasn’t supposed to be a religion of “believe what we say or get out”. But the half-witted populous corrupts all things if given the slightest chance.
… as you evidence.
In contrast, I can prove what I claim as “truth” beyond logical/rational doubt (assuming a person can follow logic or rationality in the first place). RM:AO is more than modern science, inclusive of its proper method but exclusive of its obfuscated dogma.
You are so very predictable. But you are not actually interested in learning anything about any of that subject (else you would have entered any of the many threads already discussing it). Your interests are merely about espousing what you think you know more everyone else and how stupid they are, although have no idea why.
You have no fucking clue concerning what I understand, son.
