God and time and space

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon:* Do you think it is safe to claim that the OP's time and space actually refers to more than just time and space?

It's a Super Moderator's OP so I have to assume he was careful to avoid ambiguity and therefore careful about the wording of it .

So, first, he gives the context so we know where the issue comes from exactly, i.e. apologists: "I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space."

Second he put the question explicitly so we don't go scurrying all over the place like headless chicken looking for it where it will not be: "How can that be (that God exists outside of time and space)?"

Finally, he wants us to take his question seriously so he explains his own reasoning: "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."

Clearly he is not interested in space and time in themselves. He wants us to agree with him that apologists are talking nonsense. To do that, he makes us consider the question about whether God could exist outside space and time, with the substance and acting of God as crucial elements in his reasoning.

So only the existence of space and of time is presented as uncontroversial and unquestionable.

From this circumstantial evidence, I will safely infer that the OP is not about space and time at all so that we are required to start from the ordinary, common notion of space and time. So, no, I don't think the OP's time and space stand for more than just time and space.

If so just how objective must such as dark matter and dark energy be before one can pose more than ancient subjective attributions in discussion?

As I understand the history of the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they are entirely observational and therefore objective in nature. This is because the names "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are merely labels given to whatever must explain a particular set of observations made by astronomers since the mid-1930s. Ok, there is some subjectivity in choosing "matter" and "energy", and even "dark" but the names can be regarded as provisional until more is understood. The is also a metaphysical element in insisting that observations must somehow have an explanation, but that's not specific to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. There is also a subjective element in any particular scientist finding Dark Matter and Dark Energy a good idea as opposed to other kind of explanation such mistakes in assessing the mass of galaxies etc.

Now, since we don't yet have anything like a direct observation of them, the question is not objective v. subjective, but theory v. observational confirmation. For example, it is essentially an objective fact that most scientists in the field came to agree that theories based on the ideas of dark matter and dark energy are best candidate explanations against all other.

However, they probably all agree that the issue will only be settled through observation but only because it's a theory v. observational confirmation issue, not an objective v. subjective issue. For most scientists, subjectivity is not even registering as a parameter. It's all about objectivity and how to get it and no mistakes.

Where does one call foul? Why not include a dimension that makes all time-space apparent to the observer for instance?

The criteria of being "apparent to the observer" cannot possibly be solved by making up an including dimension. However, look at what Einstein did. He made up an entirely new four-dimensional space (space-time) and subsequent observations certainly confirmed it was the best theory without being observation of the space-time itself. That's what is resquired. There's no direct observation of it but the new theory suggests a new type of observations and these are shown to be consistent with the new space-time theory. I guess the problem with dark matter and dark energy seems to be that they are specified largely by adjustable parameters so that any apparent confirmation wouldn't be conclusive at all. But that's the idea and scientists are working hard on it.

Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, what kind of new dimension have you in mind?
EB

 

[rrr6]

GOd IS Placebo Effect for Many

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.

refreshing to find some critical rational, logical common sense thinking on the internet. Thx! BH.

I can see only avenue for any alledged "God" to exist beyond-- i.e. outside of --time and space, and that is if God is purely a metaphysical-1, abstract concept of mind/inteligence.

I would argue for many, that is exactly what their use of the word God is, a placebo effect in their metaphysical-1 tool box, to access when ever the need arises.

I reference the metaphysical-1 in another thread in this metaphysical topic catgory. It is titled Four Kinds of Existence.

I hope to post my cosmic heirarchy soon which also references the above with some elaboration.

r6