Time doesn't exist.

[Derf]

Good thing I asked the short in the last sentence! (thank you for weighing in). In a nutshell, the Summit Clock Experiment

It was one of those points where I was trying to see if Open Theists among themselves disagree, or whether I was missing a subtle difference because of importance for discussion.
Basic point: One Open Theist argues for time not existing, the other that time 'marches on and is consistent sequential' in a one-directional manner (the past is past). Perhaps because I've argued God's past is still going by a necessity of comprehension (an eternal nonbeginning) :idunno:

I may be missing it, but it seems you are with Enyart on point, that time is consistent and progresses in a forward manner?

If time doesn't exist, we could consider God 'timeless' if it isn't even there in the first place. What it'd mean is God can know all things because only time would be a factor of Him not knowing any given thing.

This might be important: Some Open Theists believe God is capable of knowing all, but believe any freewill would be negated (kind of like the discussion we are having in the other thread). I'm not exactly sure where your belief lies on 'ability' of omniscience as a proposition (not arguing whether God has it, just how you'd have to respond).


Yes, that is the question being asked. If the thread premise is/were correct, it'd cancel this view out, no?

I agree: I cannot go back to 'yesterday' some say, but we can if we eliminate the reckoning of 'past/passed and yesterday as insurmountable.'

Example: I exasperated you by my examples, yesterday, While I cannot exactly undo what transpired previously, I can affect 'exasperation' even yet (time not a factor and along your line of 'timeless).'

This is one support of an eternal 'now' not just for us, but for God. We tend to think of 'past' as water under the bridge, with a marker that 'cannot be changed or traversed.' We buy a lot of paradigm truths to get that idea that can be questioned ("Is it true we cannot relive what has already happened? How do estranged people manage it in the future then?" etc). What if there was no sun or moon? Our reckoning would always just be 'now/today.' It is hard to explain. Again skip if there is no clarity. I'm synthesizing a lot of old ideas, theology and philosophy but don't always remember which is which. Sometimes, with these, it seems OV is reinventing some of our same traditional views, it is just that we may have grown lax understanding in what ways 'we' are also timeless as humans. We have a beginning, but we have no end, thus also have a sense of timelessness. In the fore-mentioned Time Clock Experiment, I argued something similar with a segment, ray, and a line. One is infinite, the other goes into the infinite, and the segment is stagnant.

This thread can be a good link between differing theology perspectives because it merely troubles concepts of time. I reckon "time" is like "inches." It is a construct, an invention, of measurement to be able to do thing Repeatedly, like bake a cake or build a squared house.

Some Open Theists have argued with me that time is an absolute and God cannot but move unidirectional with us. If, as you believe, we are timeless, (and I do to a degree other than as we are in physical constraints and interactions), then we'd have to revisit 'when' God didn't know where Adam was or when he didn't know what was going down in Sodom Gomorrah.

I've looked at this thread once or twice, but haven't gone through every post. I think the intent is to separate time from things that were created. Thus, the following doesn't apply to time:
Colossians 1:16-17 KJV — For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

...And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The last part explains that time exists for Him, because there is such a thing as "before" all things. Therefore, time is not a "thing" as in "all things were created by Him", but time still applies before all things were created.

So time is not a created thing (it does not exist), and time was before all things were created (it is absolute, and God experiences it).

 

[Clete]

Good thing I asked the short in the last sentence! (thank you for weighing in). In a nutshell, the Summit Clock Experiment

It was one of those points where I was trying to see if Open Theists among themselves disagree, or whether I was missing a subtle difference because of importance for discussion.
Basic point: One Open Theist argues for time not existing, the other that time 'marches on and is consistent sequential' in a one-directional manner (the past is past). Perhaps because I've argued God's past is still going by a necessity of comprehension (an eternal nonbeginning) :idunno:

There is no contradiction, just a misunderstanding or an ignoring of the context.

Time does not exist ontologically.
Time does exist as a concept. Open Theist do not object to the use of the concept of time - at all. What we object to is pretending that time is more than just an idea and that it actually exists in the sense that other created things exist.

I may be missing it, but it seems you are with Enyart on point, that time is consistent and progresses in a forward manner?

CONCEPTUALLY, yes. Time proceeds from the past through the present and toward the future.

All that actually exists, exists now. The past existed but does no longer and the future does not yet exist.

If time doesn't exist, we could consider God 'timeless' if it isn't even there in the first place.

Yes, and by that measure, we are all timeless.

What it'd mean is God can know all things because only time would be a factor of Him not knowing any given thing

How does that follow? You are surely losing tract of the context here. Time does not exist ONTOLOGICALLY. Meaning that it does not exist as a real thing separate from a thinking mind. It is an idea, a concept, a convention of language but it is not a substantive thing

In THIS sense, we are all timeless!

But that doesn't mean the time doesn't exist AS AN IDEA! It does exist as an idea and it is a very very very useful concept!

This might be important: Some Open Theists believe God is capable of knowing all, but believe any freewill would be negated (kind of like the discussion we are having in the other thread). I'm not exactly sure where your belief lies on 'ability' of omniscience as a proposition (not arguing whether God has it, just how you'd have to respond).

God knows everything that can be known that He desires to know.

That's as far as the biblical material will support.

Yes, that is the question being asked. If the thread premise is/were correct, it'd cancel this view out, no?

No! Again, it's a matter of context. Time exists AS A CONCEPT. I DOES NOT exist as an actual thing that exists outside a thinking mind.

This thread can be a good link between differing theology perspectives because it merely troubles concepts of time. I reckon "time" is like "inches." It is a construct, an invention, of measurement to be able to do thing Repeatedly, like bake a cake or build a squared house.

EXACTLY!

Distance (Space) is not a thing! It's an idea! Just as distance is a convention of language that we use to convey information related to the position of objects relative to other objects, so time is a convention of language used to convey information related to events relative to other events. Inches are to distance as seconds are to time. Both are arbitrarily defined uniform measures that have no substance of their own. They exist inside a thinking mind and nowhere else.

But! By saying that, we are not saying that inches do not exist AT ALL, right? They do exist but as an idea and not an ontological thing like light or a rock or the cake you made that measures 9X9 inches. If you understand that about distance, you understand completely what we are saying about time. It's precisely the same issue.

Some Open Theists have argued with me that time is an absolute and God cannot but move unidirectional with us.

CONCEPTUALLY, this is true.

If, as you believe, we are timeless, (and I do to a degree other than as we are in physical constraints and interactions), then we'd have to revisit 'when' God didn't know where Adam was or when he didn't know what was going down in Sodom Gomorrah.

You're confusing contexts again here, Lon.

There are two senses in which we can talk about time..

Conceptually: Time exists - as a concept.
Ontologically: Time does not exist in the same sense that a rock or a planet or a photon of light or a person exists.

Both are true!

 

[Right Divider]

Both are true!

At the same time... (ducks for incoming projectiles).

 

[Lon]

I've looked at this thread once or twice, but haven't gone through every post. I think the intent is to separate time from things that were created. Thus, the following doesn't apply to time:
Colossians 1:16-17 KJV — For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

...And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The last part explains that time exists for Him, because there is such a thing as "before" all things. Therefore, time is not a "thing" as in "all things were created by Him", but time still applies before all things were created.

So time is not a created thing (it does not exist), and time was before all things were created (it is absolute, and God experiences it).

Seems more like cake and eating it too, to me. If it doesn't exist, then it wasn't 'before' God created either, right?

 

[Right Divider]

Seems more like cake and eating it too, to me. If it doesn't exist, then it wasn't 'before' God created either, right?

Are you still unable to understand your category error?
Time does not exist as a physical thing... it exists as an idea or concept.

 

[Lon]

How does that follow?

Time is the factor difference for all of us to know anything. If I adopt the OV paradigm that God must discover, in timeless sense, all of time is 'now' with but constructs.
Analogy, 3 blind men talking about an elephant: One a large snake, another trees in a forest, and the third a bit of rope.

Eyes that can take in the whole know the elephant at a glance, the others are left to discover the whole.

By analogy, any sense of timelessness intimates the whole in the 'now.' Open Theism is against omniscience (some more than others), but I'm just looking at the consistency and what any given acceptance means to the whole. For the most part, all my interaction in this and the Summit thread, is about consistency within OV, perhaps helping them hammer the ideas out, and by incidence, comparing it to what the rest of Christendom believes regarding God's omniscience.

You are surely losing tract of the context here. Time does not exist ONTOLOGICALLY. Meaning that it does not exist as a real thing separate from a thinking mind. It is an idea, a concept, a convention of language but it is not a substantive thing

Understood, but it has to be said (probably several times) in thread, simply because the rest of us don't entertain the logic of the OV paradigm often. I tend to take an ecumenical approach simply because I believe truth outs. We do contend for the faith and need to do so, but only insomuch as we are protecting the rest of the body. I think I can carry on a conversation with a Mormon, without having to posture too much. On an Open website, I'm not so much going to argue points (unless the thread invites it), but walk through what is being posited.

So, the short: The thread simply says 'Time doesn't exist.' Meh, I'm a literalist.

In THIS sense, we are all timeless!

But that doesn't mean the time doesn't exist AS AN IDEA! It does exist as an idea and it is a very very very useful concept!

Sure, I agree, like using a tape measure with inches or meters.

God knows everything that can be known that He desires to know.

Understood, as well as how Open Theists differ.

That's as far as the biblical material will support.


No! Again, it's a matter of context. Time exists AS A CONCEPT. I DOES NOT exist as an actual thing that exists outside a thinking mind.

Concepts can be challenged, but on point, I grasp it. The thread might better be served "Time doesn't exist, but as a construct" or "Time exists only as a concept, not a created tangible" or something along that manner.

The point is duly noted. I believe I grasp the scope of the thread and see these answers as making it fairly clear what it is about.

EXACTLY!

Distance (Space) is not a thing! It's an idea! Just as distance is a convention of language that we use to convey information related to the position of objects relative to other objects, so time is a convention of language used to convey information related to events relative to other events. Inches are to distance as seconds are to time. Both are arbitrarily defined uniform measures that have no substance of their own. They exist inside a thinking mind and nowhere else.

Following

But! By saying that, we are not saying that inches do not exist AT ALL, right? They do exist but as an idea and not an ontological thing like light or a rock or the cake you made that measures 9X9 inches. If you understand that about distance, you understand completely what we are saying about time. It's precisely the same issue.

I think so. There are some Open Theists in the Clock Summit, that I think argued the point.

CONCEPTUALLY, this is true.


You're confusing contexts again here, Lon.

There are two senses in which we can talk about time..

Conceptually: Time exists - as a concept.
Ontologically: Time does not exist in the same sense that a rock or a planet or a photon of light or a person exists.

Both are true!

Understood. I'd hope that the questions and discussion will help the thread premise along. This portion might be a good set of posts to get future participation on the same page :idunno:


Thank you for the clarity. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Are you still unable to understand your category error?
Time does not exist as a physical thing... it exists as an idea or concept.

Yes. As far as my traditional view, with scriptures in mind, I don't have a horse in this race, but the two ideas have a cake/eat dichotomy.

For the Open Theist, it is 1) God moves uni-durational but 2) the concept of 'time' isn't a thing that exists, rather it is a concept that applies (seems unnecessary as a thread other than that?) It at least appears like a pretty much 'done with thread' point and one that could have been but a single post? What else is the thread trying to elicit? -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

Yes. As far as my traditional view,

You know how we feel about traditions.

with scriptures in mind,

Like what?

I don't have a horse in this race, but the two ideas have a cake/eat dichotomy.

Make an argument.

For the Open Theist, it is 1) God moves uni-durational but

I think that you mean uni-directional.

2) the concept of 'time' isn't a thing that exists,

It exists, it's just not a created thing.

rather it is a concept that applies (seems unnecessary as a thread other than that?)

Yes, it is a relationship between events.

It at least appears like a pretty much 'done with thread' point and one that could have been but a single post? What else is the thread trying to elicit? -Lon

The point of the thread is that time is not a created thing. It does not "exist" in that sense.
It exists as a concept about the relationship of events, physical or otherwise.

 

[Derf]

Seems more like cake and eating it too, to me. If it doesn't exist, then it wasn't 'before' God created either, right?

Better to say, if there's a before, then creation of it (time) had to be earlier, but that puts its creation before creation of the heavens (space) and earth (us). Yet that means something was created on day zero (or earlier), and therefore not everything was created in 6 days, despite Moses' and God's insistence that it was, Ex 20:11.

Thus, time isn't a created thing.

 

[nikolai_42]

Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers, but that's okay

Does time exist? The answer to this question may seem obvious: of course it does! Just look at a calendar or a clock.

phys.org

If time doesn't exist, what did I expend (besides a few precious brain cells) in reading that article?

If a materialist scientist can't manipulate something, he wants to deny its existence. I propose that they are trying to deny time because it can be expressed very simply (Methuselah lived for over 900 years), AND it can't be manipulated. So, because mankind can't get his destructive little hands on it or manipulate it, it must not exist. Someone proposed that God can't exist if time doesn't exist - I think this is probably why. If you can't manipulate God, then deny His very existence (even though the order of the created universe screams otherwise).

 

[Stripe]

It's an intangible noun — it exists, but only as a concept.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If time doesn't exist, what did I expend (besides a few precious brain cells) in reading that article?

You might want to just read through the thread. Not even a hundred posts yet.

 

[Derf]

You might want to just read through the thread. Not even a hundred posts yet.

You shouldn't tell him that. He's trying to be careful of his brain cells.

 

[nikolai_42]

It's an intangible noun — it exists, but only as a concept.

You shouldn't tell him that. He's trying to be careful of his brain cells.

The nerve...(!)

 

[Derf]

If time doesn't exist, what did I expend (besides a few precious brain cells) in reading that article?

If a materialist scientist can't manipulate something, he wants to deny its existence. I propose that they are trying to deny time because it can be expressed very simply (Methuselah lived for over 900 years), AND it can't be manipulated. So, because mankind can't get his destructive little hands on it or manipulate it, it must not exist. Someone proposed that God can't exist if time doesn't exist - I think this is probably why. If you can't manipulate God, then deny His very existence (even though the order of the created universe screams otherwise).

"Years" requires a planet going around a sun, one of which didn't exist when you are supposing that "time" first began.

 

[nikolai_42]

"Years" requires a planet going around a sun, one of which didn't exist when you are supposing that "time" first began.

Why use a Cesium atom to have hyperfine measurements of atomic vibrations if it doesn't mean anything, then? How does one know the vibrations are spaced out at all (let alone equally - since time is supposedly meaningless)?

 

[nikolai_42]

And apparently, MIT is wasting their....umm....er....intangibility?

New type of atomic clock keeps time even more precisely

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Years" requires a planet going around a sun, one of which didn't exist when you are supposing that "time" first began.

Why use a Cesium atom to have hyperfine measurements of atomic vibrations if it doesn't mean anything, then? How does one know the vibrations are spaced out at all (let alone equally - since time is supposedly meaningless)?

And apparently, MIT is wasting their....umm....er....intangibility?

New type of atomic clock keeps time even more precisely

You have it backwards, hence the confusion.

It's not that those things do not have meaning if time does not exist...

It's that those things GIVE meaning.

Clocks MEASURE time. They are not "time itself." The planets rotating, orbiting around a star, cesium atoms vibrating, clocks ticking, they all give the construct, the convention of language we use to measure the distance between events, which we call "time," a common meaning. Time doesn't not exist ontologically. It is not a thing itself. It's an idea.

Consider also:

Creation (an act), means something going from nonexistence, to existence, a "before" and an "after," a sequence. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created, because it is a precondition for creating. If it is a precondition for creation, then it cannot be the thing being created, by definition (cf. definition of "precondition").

 

[nikolai_42]

You have it backwards, hence the confusion.

It's not that those things do not have meaning if time does not exist...

It's that those things GIVE meaning.

Clocks MEASURE time. They are not "time itself." The planets rotating, orbiting around a star, cesium atoms vibrating, clocks ticking, they all give the construct, the convention of language we use to measure the distance between events, which we call "time," a common meaning. Time doesn't not exist ontologically. It is not a thing itself. It's an idea.

Consider also:

Creation (an act), means something going from nonexistence, to existence, a "before" and an "after," a sequence. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created, because it is a precondition for creating. If it is a precondition for creation, then it cannot be the thing being created, by definition (cf. definition of "precondition").

I'm not talking about clocks....I'm talking about frequency (the inverse of time). What sense does it have if time doesn't exist?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not talking about clocks....

Cesium atoms, that "new type of atomic clock" (what you linked to above), and planets orbiting around stars (Derf's example) are clocks.

I'm talking about frequency (the inverse of time).

This is what I'm talking about when I say you have it backwards.

Frequency is "time." Frequency is the measure of the distance between two events.

What sense does it have if time doesn't exist?

Time DOES exist... AS A CONCEPT.

It does not exist ontologically, meaning, it does not exist outside of a thinking mind.