You're talking about mysticism. We're supposed to be talking about science and philosophy. "Eternal now" isn't a logical term; its not meant to be taken literally. It's meaningless in the context of science and philosophy.

I completely agree. I remember when I first learned about relativity, it absolutely blew my mind. But that itself is a perfect example of how careful we need to be about things we think we know or understand. Before learning about relativity, nobody would think that things worked in such a way based only on their perception and experience of the world. And yet it has been well-documented and firmly established. The nature of reality is such a mystery, and I find it so wonderful and exciting.

It doesn’t really make sense to me how time could exist if there’s no space since they are in a sense the same thing. — SonJnana

It seems to me that this may be true when trying to measure time. To me, it still makes sense to say some sort of unmeasured absolute time passes at the same rate for all things all of the time. To illustrate, consider two human beings born at the same time in the same location. One travels to a far away place in space, and returns 20 years later (local time). Even if their watches measured a different amount of time, they have still existed for the same amount of absolute time.

"...the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy..."

"If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.”

Hmm. This seems quite odd to me. The British during the early years of the second world war using quite obsolete radar technology were able to get a very accurate position on their bombers flying over Germany on night raids without using the clocks on the bombers. The only clocks that were needed were the clocks at the ground stations back in England. That was over 75 years ago. Today. much of the world is not covered by GPS, due to a lack of ground stations. This GPS clock claim is repeated over and over by thousands of people, but original sources are very few. There are as far as I can tell about an equal number of people in the field who challenge this claim, but rarely ever referenced. I wonder if popularity gets in the way of actual information transmission. Technologically speaking, there is no reason that necessitates a clock on any GPS satellite.

Whose absolute time? If the brother is gone 100 years, rather than 20 and returns to earth, the brother on earth grew old and died. While the brother on the trip may only be older by a few years if that. He will then go on live many more years. The question I have is if he traveled at near light speed as measured back on earth, then for him, in his spacetime reference, he would have been traveling much faster than the speed of light. That is an impossibility according to the proponents of this theory.

It seems to me that this may be true when trying to measure time. To me, it still makes sense to say some sort of unmeasured absolute time passes at the same rate for all things all of the time. To illustrate, consider two human beings born at the same time in the same location. One travels to a far away place in space, and returns 20 years later (local time). Even if their watches measured a different amount of time, they have still existed for the same amount of absolute time. — CasKev

I'm not an expert at this, but this is from what I've read from interest. Time is relative. An absolute time doesn't make sense to me. We could use Earth time as a reference to measure other time just to have a standard, but we have to remember that our Earth time is affected by the curvature of space and the speed that we are traveling in space. I don't see how time could pass without space, since spacetime is one thing. This stuff is very complicated though, and we can only speculate what it would be like. We still don't have an equation to explain the universe, and probably have a long way to go if we ever get there.

Hmm. This seems quite odd to me. The British during the early years of the second world war using quite obsolete radar technology were able to get a very accurate position on their bombers flying over Germany on night raids without using the clocks on the bombers. The only clocks that were needed were the clocks at the ground stations back in England. That was over 75 years ago. Today. much of the world is not covered by GPS, due to a lack of ground stations. This GPS clock claim is repeated over and over by thousands of people, but original sources are very few. There are as far as I can tell about an equal number of people in the field who challenge this claim, but rarely ever referenced. I wonder if popularity gets in the way of actual information transmission. Technologically speaking, there is no reason that necessitates a clock on any GPS satellite. — curiosity in action

I can't really speak to much about this because I don't know it very well. The reason relativity has to be applied to GPS is because the satellites are very very high up where it matters. Did the radar technology involve something that high up? If it was only as high as a plane, it might be negligible.

"There cannot be any sequence in a timeless state since the state becomes ill-defined. In this case God is decided and undecided in a timeless point."

Agree. But I thought my meaning was quite clear. I'm questioning the entire notion of a timeless state. Furthermore, even a spaceless thought has time occurring concurrently. While a time can be can be created, altered and destroyed, time itself is beyond all of the aforementioned possibilities.

If one is above time, it does not mean that one cannot use time. So God can do consecutive tasks and act, but these things do not limit him.

You're talking about mysticism. We're supposed to be talking about science and philosophy. "Eternal now" isn't a logical term; its not meant to be taken literally. It's meaningless in the context of science and philosophy. — JustSomeGuy

We are talking about philosophy of religion with God as one of its item using logic. Do you think that God can defy logic?

Agree. But I thought my meaning was quite clear. I'm questioning the entire notion of a timeless state. — curiosity in action

I see.

Furthermore, even a spaceless thought has time occurring concurrently. While a time can be can be created, altered and destroyed, time itself is beyond all of the aforementioned possibilities. — curiosity in action

I have an argument which shows time cannot be created. You can find it here.

If one is above time, it does not mean that one cannot use time. — Lone Wolf

What do you mean with above time?

So God can do consecutive tasks and act, but these things do not limit him. — Lone Wolf

Doing consecutive tasks and acts require time.

Of course. Logic is something we created to help us explain and understand the world, and it is a very good tool, but why would God be bound by something we created? Logic doesn't even apply to the entire physical world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that something can essentially be both true and false at the same time.

Of course. Logic is something we created to help us explain and understand the world, and it is a very good tool, but why would God be bound by something we created? Logic doesn't even apply to the entire physical world. Quantum mechanics has shown us that something can essentially be both true and false at the same time. — JustSomeGuy

So what is the domain of philosophy of religion? Could God make 1+1=3?

So what is the domain of philosophy of religion? — bahman

We're doing philosophy of religion right now. Philosophy of religion is just a philosophical examination of religious concepts.

Could God make 1+1=3? — bahman

If the God we are referring to is omnipotent, then yes. If God is all-powerful, he can restructure reality in any way he wants to. That's what omnipotent means.

What do you mean with above time? — bahman

God is not restrained by time; as he existed before time, exists in time, and will exist apart from time. He is in no manner restrained by the existence of time.

Doing consecutive tasks and acts require time. — bahman

Does a potter need to be a pot to make pots? No, rather he is above his pots and uses them as he pleases, just as God created time and uses it as he pleases. A potter is not restrained by his pots, as God is not restrained by his creation.

So what is the domain of philosophy of religion?
— bahman

We're doing philosophy of religion right now. Philosophy of religion is just a philosophical examination of religious concepts.

Could God make 1+1=3?
— bahman

If the God we are referring to is omnipotent, then yes. If God is all-powerful, he can restructure reality in any way he wants to. That's what omnipotent means. — JustSomeGuy

What is the point of defining religious concepts when there is no logic behind it? 1+G=whatever.

What is the point of defining religious concepts when there is no logic behind it? 1+G=whatever. — bahman

Either you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, or both. What you asked has nothing to do with what I said, as far as I can tell.

Either you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, or both. What you asked has nothing to do with what I said, as far as I can tell. — JustSomeGuy

I think I understand you and didn't understand me. 1+God could be whatever if we strive on illogic.

What does 1+God mean?
I didn't say anything about us "striving on illogic". I said an omnipotent being is not bound by logic. That's just true by definition. Something that is all-powerful cannot be constrained by anything.

What does 1+God mean? — JustSomeGuy

It could mean anything. if 1+1=3 is possible then 1+God=whatever is also possible.

I didn't say anything about us "striving on illogic". — JustSomeGuy

You accept illogic is possible, 1+1=3?

I'm sorry but you just aren't making any sense to me.

You accept illogic is possible, 1+1=3? — bahman

I'll say it one more time:

If God is omnipotent, then he is not constrained by logic.

We are not omnipotent. Asking if something is "possible" needs qualifiers. Possible in what situation? If you're asking me if 1+1=3 is possible in the world we live in currently, the answer is no. But God does not live in the world we live in, and so God is not bound by the laws of nature. God makes the laws of nature. So, if God is omnipotent, he could change the laws of nature to make 1+1=3, if he wanted to. It would be within his power.

Isn't 1+1=3 illogical?

Alright, you clearly aren't understanding the things I'm saying. Is English your first language, or no? I feel like there's a language barrier, but I could be wrong.

Alright, you clearly aren't understanding the things I'm saying. Is English your first language, or no? I feel like there's a language barrier, but I could be wrong. — JustSomeGuy

Yes, English is my second language and I am physicist. Where do you think I lack understanding?

You've asked me the same questions multiple times after I already answered. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence at all, the fact that you do seem to be intelligent is why I assumed there must be a language barrier causing our misunderstandings.

You asked me:

Isn't 1+1=3 illogical? — bahman

After I had just said:

If God is omnipotent, then he is not constrained by logic. — JustSomeGuy

If you're asking me if 1+1=3 is possible in the world we live in currently, the answer is no. But God does not live in the world we live in, and so God is not bound by the laws of nature. God makes the laws of nature. So, if God is omnipotent, he could change the laws of nature to make 1+1=3, if he wanted to. It would be within his power. — JustSomeGuy

I feel like that explanation answers your question. Yes, 1+1=3 is illogical. But if God is omnipotent then he is not bound by logic, so if he wanted to he could very well make 1+1=3.

Great. All I wanted to hear was that 1+1=3 is illogical. I will open a thread to know the opinion of others on this issue.