How does Bob view time?

[godrulz]

Issues about creation and clocks or relativity (perception) THEORY (not always facts; Einstein was not infallible) are not applicable to the eternal God before material creation. Even before matter, God experienced endless time, not timelessness, because He is personal, not impersonal. Time is more fundamental than space and is not a created 'thing'.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know what Bob is talking about when he says "Let's see if something happens if we bring the two clocks together." Obviously the two clocks would be at the same elevation so they would be in sinc.

If he is talking about the physical effects on the atomic clocks, they are seen by faster time at a higher elevation. If he is talking about the effects gravity has on our body, at zero gravity we float compared to the effects our body goes through with g forces.

The helicopter example is silly. The space shuttle takes atomic clocks up with it and there is a difference in the time on the shuttle with those clocks on earth. Its not because the shuttle is time machine, its because it is outside our atmosphere and at zero gravity.

Bob is saying that the clocks are effected by the gravity, but that time is not.

In Bob's argument he hates the phrase "relative" being applied to time because he doesn't like "relative" morals so he attacks relativity in regards to time dialation because he feels he needs to defeat that in order to defeat moral relativism and the hillarity insues.

It's a TOL classic.

That has got to be the most idiotic argument you have ever put forth on this site.

You guys are no fun. :chuckle:

errrrr..... you guys are no fun. :noid:

:shocked:Knight's a cross dresser!

:mock:Knight

 

[wwww]

Maybe if we clear up some mistakes I see here, then Bob will not be so troubled by relativity.

It was Netwon who said time was absolute. Newton believed time was dimensional and there was a constant universal time measurement for everything.

Einstein said time is relative to an observer's experience. He took into account the observer's experience as Bob seems to be saying.

Kant believed time and space didn't exist as for something to exist we have to know its antithesis and since we cannot know absolutely nothing or absolute infinity, then time and space cannot exist. He believed that it is because time cannot exist that we create time with our minds and apply it to the world.

Basically the way we measure time is by a phyical experiment. Einstein said that the results of a physical experiment are relative to the observer's frame of reference.

Time is a measurement of measured change itself. The measurement does not come from some universal abstraction as Newton thought but from a succession of events. An example the measurement for a yard of cloth comes from the cloth not an abstraction.

So our minds read things off of clocks or whatever instrument, but our mind also creates conceptual frameworks that we read back onto the world.

Its the measurement involved with the experiment. We measure the speed of light by bouncing light rays off of mirrors. Now if we are moving at the speed of light, than the time it takes for light to reach our eyes after reflecting of an object becomes stretched.

 

[godrulz]

The objective nature of time as duration/sequence/succession should not be confused with various subjective MEASURES of it. Even before clocks or heavenly bodies, duration (time as a concept) existed.

 

[Delmar]

Maybe if we clear up some mistakes I see here, then Bob will not be so troubled by relativity.

It was Netwon who said time was absolute. Newton believed time was dimensional and there was a constant universal time measurement for everything.

Einstein said time is relative to an observer's experience. He took into account the observer's experience as Bob seems to be saying.

Kant believed time and space didn't exist as for something to exist we have to know its antithesis and since we cannot know absolutely nothing or absolute infinity, then time and space cannot exist. He believed that it is because time cannot exist that we create time with our minds and apply it to the world.

Basically the way we measure time is by a phyical experiment. Einstein said that the results of a physical experiment are relative to the observer's frame of reference.

Time is a measurement of measured change itself. The measurement does not come from some universal abstraction as Newton thought but from a succession of events. An example the measurement for a yard of cloth comes from the cloth not an abstraction.

So our minds read things off of clocks or whatever instrument, but our mind also creates conceptual frameworks that we read back onto the world.

Its the measurement involved with the experiment. We measure the speed of light by bouncing light rays off of mirrors. Now if we are moving at the speed of light, than the time it takes for light to reach our eyes after reflecting of an object becomes stretched.

It seems as though you are saying some things that I agree with. Time exists only as a concept. It measures duration just as the ruler measures the cloth. God's existence, like the cloth, is real! ( though He is not physical) When people say that God exists "outside of time" it is akin to saying God exists, outside of His own experience.

 

[wwww]

The objective nature of time as duration/sequence/succession should not be confused with various subjective MEASURES of it. Even before clocks or heavenly bodies, duration (time as a concept) existed.

And to top it off we are talikng about the concept of time, not time itself.

 

[wwww]

It seems as though you are saying some things that I agree with. Time exists only as a concept. It measures duration just as the ruler measures the cloth. God's existence, like the cloth, is real! ( though He is not physical) When people say that God exists "outside of time" it is akin to saying God exists, outside of His own experience.

Time doesn't exist just as a concept. A change or succession in the cloth would be real too. To say time is just an abstract measurement would be similar to Newton.

put is this way, universals like humans as a species is a concept dependant on our minds. Do you think humans exist?

 

[wwww]

Issues about creation and clocks or relativity (perception) THEORY (not always facts; Einstein was not infallible) are not applicable to the eternal God before material creation. Even before matter, God experienced endless time, not timelessness, because He is personal, not impersonal. Time is more fundamental than space and is not a created 'thing'.

What do you mean by time is more fundamental to space?

 

[godrulz]

What do you mean by time is more fundamental to space?

Some equate time and space (4 dimensions). In reality, time predates space since time as a concept co-exists from eternity as an aspect of God's endless experience, whereas the universe/creation had a distinct beginning.

J.R. Lucas in 'A treatise on time and space' elaborates more on this concept (time, change, unidirectional, concomitant of personality, etc.).

 

[Delmar]

Time doesn't exist just as a concept. A change or succession in the cloth would be real too. To say time is just an abstract measurement would be similar to Newton.

put is this way, universals like humans as a species is a concept dependant on our minds. Do you think humans exist?

You lost me! Of coarse humans exsist, whether I believe our existence or not!

 

[Delmar]

:shocked:Knight's a cross dresser!

err, WHAT?

 

[fool]

Here's further reading
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34363

 

[Lighthouse]

err, WHAT?

He posted under his wife's screen name.:chuckle:

 

[wwww]

Some equate time and space (4 dimensions). In reality, time predates space since time as a concept co-exists from eternity as an aspect of God's endless experience, whereas the universe/creation had a distinct beginning.

J.R. Lucas in 'A treatise on time and space' elaborates more on this concept (time, change, unidirectional, concomitant of personality, etc.).

You're thinking God "experiences" something the way humans do.

Humans that are composed of essence and existence participate in existence.

As such we perceive "done existence" through our senses and our senses form a phantasm in our mind and from this phantasm we form premises in our reasoning that causes a conclusion to be known.

God as the first cause is not composed of essence and existence. His essence and existence are the same and he is wholly actual. He is "doing experience" and as such (as we only know through the relationship from how humans know something) He would will an end, but willing an end is not the cause of His willing the means, yet he wills an ordering of the means to the end.

The analogy of a human novelist conceiving and willing, all at once, the entire plot of his novel, in which perfect order demands that one event takes place after another.

(arrows represent causality)

Human intellect understanding the premises---->understanding the conclusion.

Divine intellect understanding----->[premise-->conclusion]

Human will willing the end---->willing the means

Divine will: willing------->[end---> mean]

 

[Lighthouse]

You're thinking God "experiences" something the way humans do.

Humans that are composed of essence and existence participate in existence.

As such we perceive "done existence" through our senses and our senses form a phantasm in our mind and from this phantasm we form premises in our reasoning that causes a conclusion to be known.

God as the first cause is not composed of essence and existence. His essence and existence are the same and he is wholly actual. He is "doing experience" and as such (as we only know through the relationship from how humans know something) He would will an end, but willing an end is not the cause of His willing the means, yet he wills an ordering of the means to the end.

The analogy of a human novelist conceiving and willing, all at once, the entire plot of his novel, in which perfect order demands that one event takes place after another.

(arrows represent causality)

Human intellect understanding the premises---->understanding the conclusion.

Divine intellect understanding----->[premise-->conclusion]

Human will willing the end---->willing the means

Divine will: willing------->[end---> mean]

Other way around. We experience the way God does. He did create man in His image, after all.

 

[godrulz]

He posted under his wife's screen name.:chuckle:

Which is?

 

[Lighthouse]

Which is?

Go read the original quote and you might be able to figure it out. Then again, you haven't figured out a great deal that's been spelled out for you over the years.

 

[godrulz]

Other way around. We experience the way God does. He did create man in His image, after all.

The past, present, future is fundamentally the same for us and God since time is unidirectional. God cannot be in a non-existent future (time is not a place or thing), while we are in the present. It is 2008 for God and us. Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent and unbiblical.

 

[godrulz]

Go read the original quote and you might be able to figure it out. Then again, you haven't figured out a great deal that's been spelled out for you over the years.

I looked, but can't find the original quote. Is there anyone else who wants to help, rather than hinder?

For now, I will assume Delmar is his wife, because Delmar said something about a wife in a nearby post?!

 

[wwww]

Other way around. We experience the way God does. He did create man in His image, after all.

He created man in his own image by man having a rational soul.

Man is created creator. God is uncreated first cause.