Is God Time?

Is God really just time?

You do not need to think about what God is here to much, just think of what time is and tell me if that is not what might be a decent description of God.

(I had no idea where to put this)

Is God Time?

Is God really just time?

You do not need to think about what God is here to much, just think of what time is and tell me if that is not what might be a decent description of God.

(I had no idea where to put this)

God is time, and space, and spacetime.

time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.

time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.

Actually, my premise goes deeper than that: If God created all, then God is all,

And what does this tell us about creation, or God, or anything in general??? Nothing,...

...since we cannot suggest that the rules of logic apply to the creater of logic and a logical reality;

...and for us, God is an abstraction, and so is space, and so is time, and so is space time, and our desire to define abstractions with abstractions may be normal, but only the underlying reality, the reality that is abstracted can define the abstraction, and vice versa....

What is the definition of time???

We should like to say the movement of matter in space is time, but that is our sense of time,

because as they said in the late middle ages: the universe is a great clock...

Yet, time is not time if not constant and we presume it is anything but, no matter what the seasons say, or our watches and clocks...

We know by way of a small example that time always stops 15 minutes before quitting time,

and always moves faster when late for work or with a pretty girl...

But such changes in a constant are not true to the concept,

so the concept is wrong or our perceptions upon which the constant abstraction of it are wrong...

This kinda builds upon what Fido had to say as he touched on the concept of time. My favorite quote regarding time is the most simple. Time is relative.

How could a god be relative? Wouldn't he/it have to be absolute?

I guess that also depends on your interpretation of god. Kinda coming back to the old gods vs new gods discussion. The old gods were relative. The "one true" god is absolute. In that regard though, the one true god could not be time. At least not if you believe time is relative.

God is time, and space, and spacetime... In other words: you cannot define an infinite with an infinite...

This kinda builds upon what Fido had to say as he touched on the concept of time. My favorite quote regarding time is the most simple. Time is relative. How could a god be relative? Wouldn't he/it have to be absolute?

I guess that also depends on your interpretation of god. Kinda coming back to the old gods vs new gods discussion. The old gods were relative. The "one true" god is absolute. In that regard though, the one true god could not be time. At least not if you believe time is relative.

Extrain; you are a smart fellow, but you miss the point... If there was nothing before God, and God created all, then there was nothing to start with but God of which to create... Now; I would be the first to agree that the application of Logic to God is specious, and still, if you had nothing but ear wax to build a castle out of, would it not be you, and your castle???

Every concept if it is a true concept tells us something about the object conceived, and while I may use a number, for example, to illustrate a word, and what the word reflects I can hardly define a word with a number, or a number with a word... The object limits, and so, defines the concept of the object, and the concept defines the limits of the object... What the concept says the object is it is and what it says it is not, by the definition of what it is, it is not...

Extrain; you are a smart fellow, but you miss the point... If there was nothing before God, and God created all, then there was nothing to start with but God of which to create... Now; I would be the first to agree that the application of Logic to God is specious, and still, if you had nothing but ear wax to build a castle out of, would it not be you, and your castle???

Every concept if it is a true concept tells us something about the object conceived,

and while I may use a number, for example, to illustrate a word and what the word reflects

I can hardly define a word with a number, or a number with a word...

The object limits, and so, defines the concept of the object, and the concept defines the limits of the object... What the concept says the object is it is and what it says it is not, by the definition of what it is, it is not...

I am not missing the point. I am merely repeating your very own words back to you. And to tell you the truth, I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. Again:

So you think (1) God created Logic and Logic is a very part of what God is, but the application of Logic to God is "specious" (whatever that means).:perplexed:

And this is somehow supposed to be analogous to,

(2) I build a castle out of my own earwax. Therefore, I am the earwax (whatever that means) but the application of earwax to me is specious (whatever that means)?:perplexed:

But suppose I burn my the earwax in the fire. Then I burn myself in the fire? No, this is clearly false. Therefore, I am not identical to my earwax.

The correct way of saying all this is that,

God created logic, and God is by nature logical. So God has the property of being-logical since being-logical is just part of God's nature. But God is not identical to Logic anymore than that I am identical to logic even though I possess the property of being logical.



What is "it"? The earwax? Every concept that succeeds in veridically representing the actual color, composition, viscosity, and nature of the earwax tells us something about the earwax. Ok. So?



How do numbers "illustrate" words?
And how do numbers "illustrate" what words "reflect"?


?? Though I may not be able to define words with numbers, I can certainly define the concept of number with words:

"A member of the set of integers; A member of any of the further sets of mathematical objects, such as negative integers and real numbers."

Or I can define numeral:

"one of a series of symbols representing numbers that are fixed in an order that can be derived by counting."



?? How do objects "define" concepts? Rocks and trees define concepts? This is false.

But wait. Concepts now define objects? No they don't.

Words define concepts, and concept either represent or fail to represent the world, since the world limits us from being able to conceive just anything we want about it. So whereas I can apply the concept of possessing-a-million-dollars to my actual financial situation, this concept of my-possessing-a-million-dollars does not accurately represent my actual financial state of affairs at all because I don't possess a million dollars.

But so what? What is so novel about all this anyway?

And finally, what does all this have to do with relative and absolute conceptions of time?

Conceptions on Time sounds groovy. Is the existence of Time allready explained. Calling it a dimension is twisting the Thruth. Who would compare Time to 3-dimensional Space ? More dimensions don't solve the core of the problem. We have no good definition of time. We have no Universal time, not even Standard Earth Time. There is no absolute value to Time.

Retrain time for extrain:

What it means is, applying our logic which is based upon our known physical reality to an infinite like God is meaningless...

Existence is a big place, and there is room for contradictions, which the clerics of the middle ages would never suggest of God,thinking God incapable of contradiction; but if that were true, that God had to follow some rule book, then God would not be God....

It is rocks which define, limit, the concept of rock..It is trees which limit the concept of tree... Give me a break...Do you not see the reality reflected in the concept???

Let me offer you something else...While you might be able to use words to illustrate something of numbers, and numbers began with words, and mathematics follows verbal logic to a point, one cannot resort to a conception of number based solely upon words

...Consider identity...At some point, 1 is 1... All numbers are based upon that single concept of 1... In fact, 1 alone is the concept, and numbers as a whole are only signs based upon 1... If that quality, that identity is not conserved then the whole of numbers falls flat, which is the usual point where every concept falls flat...

Every word is a concept, and just as concepts define objects as a certain meaning,

every word is defined as a certain meaning, and like all concepts, that meaning is conserved... It is that conserved identity which makes all forms/concepts/ideas useful; that they are not all over the place, changing as we consider them..

So words do not define concepts any more than words define words...

Words are used to define words and other concepts, but there is a one to one relationship between the object and the concept, even though the concept is general, and the object is specific...

The conceptual rock it the real rock, and the real rock is the conceived rock, and you can't slide Occam's razor between them...

Who do you see in your mirror??? Concepts mirror reality, so we say in the mirror, that is me...In fact it is a reflection of me...

With concepts we say that concept is that object, or more commonly, that object is, insert the name, that concept...

Conceptions on Time sounds groovy. Is the existence of Time allready explained. Calling it a dimension is twisting the Thruth. Who would compare Time to 3-dimensional Space ? More dimensions don't solve the core of the problem. We have no good definition of time. We have no Universal time, not even Standard Earth Time. There is no absolute value to Time.

yeah right. Here are some more criticisms..

But Logic doesn't exist outside God, remember? God created it.

According to lore God created Logos Outside Himself

The number "1" is not a axiom at all. It is a value.

What about the number O , or the infinite amount of numbres between O and I; just concepts, axioma's or real number

How is calling time a dimension a way of "twisting the truth"?

Who is comparing time to three-dimensional space?

I feel strongly about Time being something very different from Space, 3 Dimensional or More. For me Now is real, Past & Future are Un-certainties. I did not say comparing; I just re-marked not agree-ing calling -Time a fourt Dimension.

To what problem are you referring that needs to be solved by "adding more dimensions"?

It's part of what I vaguely remember from a boox on String-theory. It actually raised more questions than it answered. You right, I should check the book first !

Why are our current definitions of time no good? And what are those definitions?

We try to measure Time as a constant, which it's not. We keep using Newtonian Laws, Einstein etcetera. It Generally known these "laws" have no universal meaning. Even on Earth we notice difference in Time-dominated processes.

What is "universal time"? What is "Earth time"?

Universal Time would make it possible to have the same seconds on March and Earth. Now we all-ways have to wait on the signal. Like typing on a locked key-board.

Earth-Time I call the standard we have now. GMT and others before.

What is absolute value? And why does time not have it?

An absolute value is hard to find. Science says speed of light,
O0 Kelvin and charge of electron.

*************************

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer these questions yourself. If you can't answer them at all, then you are just talking nonsense.

Just stringing words together without explaining what you mean by these claims is a completely senseless enterprise.

yeah right. Here are some more criticisms..



But again, you said God=Logic. Therefore, Logic as applied to God is not meaningless. If it were, you would not say "God=Logic." What IS your view, actually? Repeating the same nonsense doesn't suddenly make your view more comprehensible or clear.



But Logic doesn't exist outside God, remember? God created it. And God just is Logic, according to your view. So you have a problem.

Contradictions are necessarily false; that is, there are no possible worlds in which they are true--not even in any worlds God is capable of creating--Logic demands this. Here's the dilemma:

Either God is so powerful He can create contradictions and hence God is not Logical at all, or God is Logical and hence God cannot make contradictions true. But as your premise suggests,

(a) God=all creation. (premise)
(b) Logic is a part of creation. (from a)
(c) So God=Logic. (from a and b)
(d) Therefore, God is Logical. (from a, b, and c)

But if God can make contradictions true, as you suggest, then God is not logical. Therefore, your own view is contradiction:

God both is, and is not, Logical.



Of course I do. You just apparently have problem using proper English, or reading it for that matter. I will repeat: Rocks and trees don't "define" concepts because the task of defining words with other words is a human linguistic activity, not the activity of a rock because a rock does not have the sentient, linguistic, or semantic capacity of defining words at all.

On the other hand, the world does limit us from being able to ascribe just any such properites to objects because the world either permits or prevents the application of our concepts to it. Conceptual applications which fit the actual world are considered veridical, conceptual applications which do not fit the world are considered erroneous.



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What do you mean by "numbers began with words"? That numbers are created, or sprung into existence by words? Or that numbers are linguistic entites and not abstract mathematical values?

And what do you mean by "mathematics following verbal logic to a point"?

Logic can be verbalized in natural language just like mathematics, sure. But neither logic nor mathematics are natural languages like English, French, or Japanese are natural languages. Logic and mathematics are purely formal languages. The subject matter of propositional calculus and quantification concerns the correct rules of thinking, specifiying conditions of validity, invalidity, and truth-conditions. The subject matter of mathematics concerns the various properties of numbers, functions, and the relations between numerical values, etc.



They are? What about the number 0? What about fractions, imaginary numbers, and negative numbers?

Also, the number 4 cannot be entirely "based on" the number 1, because 4 has numerical properties that 1 does not have, for instance, the property of being even or of being the square-root of 16.

Further, certainly "1=1" or "a=a" are expressions of logical identity. But "1+1=2," on the other hand, is not an expression of logical identity; instead, it is rightly considered by mathematicians to be the mathematical equality that results from performing the operation of addition "+" on two instances of the same number. That is, the equality is saying the resulting value "2" is the outcome of the addition of the number "1" to itself.

Further, how is the concept of a linear function which maps each and every X value to one and only one y value based on the number 1?

What is this "based-on" relation anyway? Do you mean derivable, deductively inferred, or ontologically dependent, or what?

Do you mean that the number "1" is an axiom from which further numbers, mathematical principles, or theorems can be derived such as the pythagorean theorem or the probabilistic law of large numbers? This is false. The number "1" is not a axiom at all. It is a value.



Physical objects may have intrinisc or relational value, but they don't have linguistic meaning. Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning and those meanings are defined by other word-meanings.

So again, concepts and words don't "define" objects because objects don't have linguistic meaning. Concepts and words only apply, or do not apply, to objects. So concepts and words only define other concepts and words. Take this example:

It is clear that the meaning of the word "bachelor" is defined by the meanings of the set of words "umarried adult male." And suppose John is, in actual fact, a bachelor. So when I say, "the word 'bachelor' means unmarried adult male" I am not saying "the word 'bachelor' means John himself" or "the word 'John' means bachelor itself".

Nor am I saying (1) "John himself defines the word 'bachelor'" nor that (2) "the word 'bachelor' defines John." This is just stupid.

If (1) were true, then as soon as John got married, this married man John would still be the definition of the word "bachelor"--which is false. For how can a married man be the definition of the word "bachelor"? So the meaning of the word "bachelor" never changes, even though John does change. This is precisely why John cannot be the meaning of the word bachelor, since the meanings of words never change due to the mere changes undergone by people.

But suppose (2) were true, like you say it is. Then as soon as John got marrried, the meaning of the word "bachelor" would still define John--which is false, since John is no longer married. Words don't define people and things because definitions deal solely with linguistic meanings, not with the properties expressed by our linguistic utterances:

Notice, the same words "unmarried adult male" always define the concept bachelor, since the meaning of the concept bachelor just is unmarried adult male. This is not the case if "unmarried adult male" always defines the person John, since then it would have to be the case that the meaning of John just is umarried adult male. But this is false. It is a complete category mistake to say that the meaning of John is umarried adult male.

Linguistic meanings are not properties. But properties are expressed by our linguistic meanings when we utter words like "bachelor." So when I say "John is a bachelor" I am really ascribing the property of being-a-bachelor to John by my use of the linguistic meaning expressed by my utterance of the word "bachelor" in this statement about John. John doesn't have the meaning of the word "bachelor." John has the property expressed by the meaning of the word "bachelor" when I utter this word in the statement "John is a bachelor."

For this reason we say that it is true that John has the property of being an unmarried adult male. But it is not the case that we say it is true that the meaning of John just is unmarried adult male.

Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning; people and objects, on the other hand, don't. People and objects have properties, enter into relations with other things, and have more or less intrinsic value and objective purpose in the grand scheme of things--but they certainly don't possess linguistic meaning.

So the concept of bachelor is certainly applicable to John because John is, in fact, a bachelor. This is why when I say "John is not a bachelor" when he, in fact, is a bachelor, I would be saying something false because I would be denying the property of being-a-bachelor of John, the property which John, in fact, has. I wouldn't be saying something false because I was denying that John had the linguistic meaning of bachelor when he, in fact, had it. Again, this would be to commit category mistake between meanings, properties, and concepts.



It is precisely in the interest of preserving linguistic meaning that "John" does not mean bachelor or that the word "bachelor" means John since John can change, while linguistic meaning does not. So words do not define things, and things do not define words.



Of course they do.

(A) The word "bachelor" is defined by the set of words "unmarried adult male."
(B) Likewise, the meaning contained in the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried adult male.
(C) Similarly, the concept designated by the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried-adult-male.
(C) Finally, the property being-a-bachelor just is identical to the property being-an-umarried-adult-male. They are one and the same property.



That's right. "The dog Spot is mean" is true if and only if Spot is, in fact, mean--or, there is an entity such that, that entity is a dog and has the property of being-mean expressed by the concept mean in my utterance of the word "mean." In other words, the statement "there is an entity x such that, that entity is a dog, and for all Y, if Y is a dog then Y=X, and x is mean" can be quantified thus:

(Ex)(Dx & Ay (Fy-->y=x) & Mx)

The concepts designated by the symbols "Dx" and "Mx" are the concepts mean and dog. So the statement,

(Ex) (Dx & Mx)

is true if and only if there exists at least one entity satisfying the concepts Dx and Mx.

If there are no mean dogs, then the statement above is either false or truth-valueless and can be expressed such as,

~(Ex) (Dx & Mx)



huh?? The concept of a rock is not the rock itself. And both the concept of the rock and rock itself are equally real. But one is a mental or a linguistic kind of entity, the other is a physical kind of entity.



Of course. Who denies this? Perhaps anti-realists? Skeptics?



This is totally incorrect, unless you're an idealist in thinking that the concept of the rock is numerically identical to the rock itself. You are confusing the "is" of identity with the "is" if predication.

Take Spot the Dog. When we say that "Spot is mean" we are not saying

"Spot is identical to the concept of meanness"

Nor are we saying,

"Spot has the concept of meanness."

Instead, we are saying,

"Spot has the property of meanness."

If you think actual objects have mental concepts as components, then you are mistaking the map for the reality. Concepts either do, or do not, successfuly represent a property an object does or does not have. So concepts either successfully, or not, apply to things; they are not had by those things. Only properties are possessed by things. For this reason many objects can possess one and same property such as doghood, because each one of these entities instantiates one and same type of property of which it is a token instance.

The general concept of dog can successfully (or not) designate a really existent property that an object does, or does not, have. So if George Bush is not a dog, we say that "'George Bush is a dog' is false" because the concept designated by my word "dog" does not successfully pick out any property George Bush has, namely, doghood.

There are words such as "dog" which designate
a concept dog expressing
the property being-a-dog which an actually existent object is or is not--does, or does not, have.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 12:12 AM ----------



How is calling time a dimension a way of "twisting the truth"?

Who is comparing time to three-dimensional space?

To what problem are you referring that needs to be solved by "adding more dimensions"?

Why are our current definitions of time no good? And what are those definitions?

What is "universal time"? What is "Earth time"?

What is absolute value? And why does time not have it?

*************************

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer these questions yourself. If you can't answer them at all, then you are just talking nonsense.

Just stringing words together without explaining what you mean by these claims is a completely senseless enterprise.

I can't believe it...I am an old fart sitting on my retired butt and I found some one with more time on their hands than myself... I am sorry you put so much time into a subject I rarely put even a moment into...

I don't talk about God exactly because as an infinite I can get none of my expected rules to apply...In fact it is a mistake to try to get human logic to fit nature at all because it blinds us, and in this vein I would offer a good book I am reading called Critique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner... But I am not writing a book... I don't know, but I will say you look foolish to me spouting off about my logical contradictions when that is my point, that no logic can apply to God, that if you accept God you must accept that God is all, logic and illogic, time and space and matter, life and death and every opposite and antipod you can imagine, all the forces, and there is no reason to expect that God, if there is a God did not suffer obliteration in the process of creation... There is enough of riddles within my sight, and I do not feel the need to penetrate the gloom of every infinite I encounter... I am responding only to the common conceptions I have experienced in regard to that infinite of which to speak with authority is folly, because just as I poke holes in the thoughts of others you seek to poke holes in my thoughts and when the day is won what is the prize??? Is it greater knowledge??? Dream on night train... Sorry you bit on so little bait, but I don't care; certainly not enough to read or write a book on the subject...So I guess that makes you the winner... Forgive me if I revisit and revise, and try to distill your thoughts down to some point of signifcance and reply... I don't even have the time for backspacing all you wrote...