God and time and space

[Juma]

No. Outside of time is "atemporal". "Eternal" inside time but forever.
Se your own example from wikipedia:

Good grief. I'm dealing with two people who don't understand this system, but want to lecture me about it.

"Existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration'" are references to time. Your quoted sentence specifically states that forms are NOT eternal in that sense.

There are conceptions of eternity in time, such as the classic Christian variety. This is different. It was a reconciliation of Heraclitus, who argued that change was constant, and Parmenides, who argued that change was illusory. Plato proposed a duality: material things change, but the laws which govern them do not.

You are delusional. This is gibberish. I dont think you have a clue what you talk about.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Good grief. I'm dealing with two people who don't understand this system, but want to lecture me about it.

"Existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration'" are references to time. Your quoted sentence specifically states that forms are NOT eternal in that sense.

There are conceptions of eternity in time, such as the classic Christian variety. This is different. It was a reconciliation of Heraclitus, who argued that change was constant, and Parmenides, who argued that change was illusory. Plato proposed a duality: material things change, but the laws which govern them do not.

You are delusional. This is gibberish. I dont think you have a clue what you talk about.

What's delusional is you attempting to correct me on matters you have no comprehension of.

 

[George S]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

It is mathematically possible to have a universe within a universe (see Sean Carroll). If an ET could create a contained universe, ours could be one so created. Lee Smolin has postulated that black holes are universes themselves. If we could create a black hole then we may have created a universe.

So the Christian cosmology is a multiverse with a containing universe called "heaven" with its own space and time and an ET named YHVH who did the creation. Misquoting Einstein, "Did ET have a choice of natural law?"

 

[Juma]

You are delusional. This is gibberish. I dont think you have a clue what you talk about.

What's delusional is you attempting to correct me on matters you have no comprehension of.

What is those matters you believe mastering? Some remix of 2000 year old philosophy?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please explain to me how I did that.

With the words I bolded:

I may form an idea of this particular traffic light

So to you "concept" and "idea" are synonymous and you think we all think that? No wonder there is no discussion possible!

BTW, I never said "the" traffic light.

What is it you don't understand about my phase, "let alone the concept of a traffic light."

"The" traffic light as opposed to "a" could imply a universal. If you've no idea of a traffic light before encountering one, interacting with it and forming an idea of it, it can hardly be seen as a universal. That's why I was careful to say "a" traffic light.

???

It's not just your English which is poor, it may be you eyesight as well. Apparently you don't perceive the difference between the two phrases "the concept of traffic light" and "the traffic light".

No even that is true! "Immutability" means "unchangeability", not "unchanging". "Unchanging" here is adjectival, while "Immutability" is a noun.

Now, even if we grant that what you meant was that "Immutability" means "unchangeability", it does not follow that "Eternity" means unchanging. We may think of eternity, if it exists at all, as an unlimited period of time throughout which things are always changing. Why not? Some philosophers seemed to have hold that belief. You may believe differently, and that would be sort of legitimate, but one still cannot say as you do that eternity means immutability or unchangeability (or whatever related to that).

Also, read again your quote of the text about Aristotle. It does not actually suggest, let alone say or claim, that eternity means unchanging, unchangeability, or immutability.

The classic Greek conception of eternity is a class of things which exist outside of time.

The word "eternity" does not even come from the Greek, but from the Latin "aeternus", which just means "eternal" in the ordinary senses, the first of which is time without beginning or end, not "unchanging".

Apparently when you speak to English-speaking people in the 21st century, you use English words but you means the Ancient Greeks' meanings and you just assume other people have to do it too? No wonder there is no discussion possible!

Aristotle:

It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives… From [the fulfilment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."[16]

Wikipedia on the Platonic forms:

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.[16] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[17] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).[18]

A Form is an objective "blueprint" of perfection.[19] The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.

Instead of quibbling, you could do some studying.

Thanks, but I didn't learn anything here. So, let me repeat my point, which apparently you didn't get, which was that your initial quote of Aristotle didn't support the point you were making. My point was about the irrelevance of the quote of Aristotle you posted.

Good. You're starting to get it. We live much of our mental lives outside the realm of science, which provides no meaning. This is a system that provides meaning without requiring religious type beliefs. It's a method for envisioning reality.
Remember the OP. There is no empirical way to accommodate the notion of God existing outside time and space. This is a way, an ancient way with centuries of tradition and literature to do just that. And without an appeal to revelation.

Thanks but I couldn't care less.

Whatever my mind does is real. This however does not imply that any fantasies I may be thinking about are real at all.

Contradiction.

Bye-bye!
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

With the words I bolded:

I may form an idea of this particular traffic light

So to you "concept" and "idea" are synonymous and you think we all think that? No wonder there is no discussion possible!

I'm not claiming to know what you think, but idea and concept are synonymous to me, yes.

It's not just your English which is poor, it may be you eyesight as well. Apparently you don't perceive the difference between the two phrases "the concept of traffic light" and "the traffic light".

I don't think you would know good English if it bit you, but the point is this, which AFAICT, we agree on, viz a person, ignorant of traffic lights, who then has an interaction or experience with one will then have an idea of a traffic light. Without discussion or education, it's unlikely that that idea would be identical to ideas held by those who know traffic lights.

Now, even if we grant that what you meant was that "Immutability" means "unchangeability", it does not follow that "Eternity" means unchanging. We may think of eternity, if it exists at all, as an unlimited period of time throughout which things are always changing. Why not? Some philosophers seemed to have hold that belief. You may believe differently, and that would be sort of legitimate, but one still cannot say as you do that eternity means immutability or unchangeability (or whatever related to that).

Of course I can. That is Platonic metaphysics. "Eternal" in that context means unchanging. That's not a personal belief.

And, as for Immutable:

adjective
1.
not mutable; unchangeable; changeless.

I don't know what definition you're using, but you should check again.

The word "eternity" does not even come from the Greek, but from the Latin "aeternus", which just means "eternal" in the ordinary senses, the first of which is time without beginning or end, not "unchanging".

So? Obviously, I'm not using "eternal" in the "ordinary" sense. I've explained that. And that's not a personal use, that's what it classically means in the context of Plato.

 

[Perspicuo]

Relax, Horatio Parker has already stated his stance is outside of reality:

You are stuck in 2000 year old science. It has happened a lot since then.

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell

Remember the OP? Not a scientific point.

He specifically stated it is not a scientific point. Ergo, it has nothing to do with evidence of the actual world of existing things. Not interested in scientific information, that is to say not interested in the actual world. His objective is constructing a sort of Narnia but without the literary merit.

Go ahead, Horatio. You were saying?

 

[Draconis]

Look, an entity or object is either subject to time or not. Thinking about "in the beginning" God did this, that and something else in sequence, rather than "bang" altogether suggests he is constrained by needing to do things in some sort of logical sequence. That suggests he exists in a time continuum of some sort, otherwise from his point of view, the beginning and end of the universe are simultanous (if so, why bother?) And also where does it say in that sequence that God specifically created time? If he didn't do that, then he is subject to time.

Look at it this way: if a person is in cryogenic suspension, effectively they are eternal or immortal or whatever you wish to call them: ie immune to the passage of time.

But what can they actually do? Nothing. In order to start or stop doing things, you need to be experiencing time.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Relax, Horatio Parker has already stated his stance is outside of reality:

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell

Remember the OP? Not a scientific point.

He specifically stated it is not a scientific point. Ergo, it has nothing to do with evidence of the actual world of existing things. Not interested in scientific information, that is to say not interested in the actual world. His objective is constructing a sort of Narnia but without the literary merit.

Go ahead, Horatio. You were saying?

Is that what Zen is, a Narnia without literary merit?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Genesis is a myth, which is an abstract idea portrayed as a drama. Consequently, its sequential and its characters anthropomorphized.

NoRobots posted a Permenides quote that sums it up well:

Reality itself is a thinking thing, and the object of its own thinking. – Parmenides

 

[Underseer]

[...]

Reality itself is a thinking thing, and the object of its own thinking. – Parmenides

Do you find that statement profound? True? Does it illuminate some important idea?

Because all I see in that statement is a wild unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Horatio Parker]

[...]

Reality itself is a thinking thing, and the object of its own thinking. – Parmenides

Do you find that statement profound? True? Does it illuminate some important idea?

Because all I see in that statement is a wild unsubstantiated claim.

We have different expectations. You're seeking to define an objective structure that's external to you. I'm interesting in a structure denoting and cultivating the relationship of mind to reality, especially wrt certain important concepts such as justice. It's always about a relationship, an observer and the observed. There's no way to do this empirically.

What that quote is about is our ability to examine our own consciousness. That's a process ongoing throughout our lives.

 

[WAB]

I admire what you're doing in this thread, Horatio, and I think I'm in agreement with you, insofar as my understanding allows.

 

[WAB]

[...]

Reality itself is a thinking thing, and the object of its own thinking. – Parmenides

Do you find that statement profound? True? Does it illuminate some important idea?

Because all I see in that statement is a wild unsubstantiated claim.

Wild? Certainly not. The idea of an intelligent, conscious universe is ancient, and persistent.

 

[bilby]

Do you find that statement profound? True? Does it illuminate some important idea?

Because all I see in that statement is a wild unsubstantiated claim.

Wild? Certainly not. The idea of an intelligent, conscious universe is ancient, and persistent.

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I admire what you're doing in this thread, Horatio, and I think I'm in agreement with you, insofar as my understanding allows.

Thanks. I need all the help I can get...

 

[Horatio Parker]

Wild? Certainly not. The idea of an intelligent, conscious universe is ancient, and persistent.

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

 

[Juma]

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

Lol. Strange then that the quote diesnt say so... But this is poetry again, isnt it?

 

[bilby]

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

I don't.

There is too much of it.

I barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.

 

[fromderinside]

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

I don't.

There is too much of it.

I barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.

Its even less than that bilby. You only experience only that bit of reality that matches your situation relative to whatever it is makes you shiver.