Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE. — Devans99

Being "outside of time" wouldn't imply anything about creation or destruction. It would only imply something that can't move/change at all as long as it exists "outside of time." If it's possible for there to be existents that can't move/change at all (it's not clear how that would be possible, but let's suppose it is), that could be possible for any arbitrary existent, right?

Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE. — Devans99

If they are outside of time, they can't interfere with temporal events. So they can't create anything.

If they can create things in temporal world, then they are not outside of time.

You are self-contradicting. You are really, but really trying to prove something that is not so.

- you tried to deny infinity
- you tried to prove the existence of god
- you tried to prove that creation happened

And all you achieve is an endless argumenting with those fools who deem you worthy of replying to you.

Why not? There is nothing that happens without a cause. — god must be atheist

How do we know that? You're stating it as if it's just a given, or as if it's a logical principle--and it does need to be stated that way if it's going to be used in a proof. You can't appeal to empiricism for it if you're going to state it as a principle of logic.

Being "outside of time" wouldn't imply anything about being creation or destruction. It would only imply something that can't move/change at all. If it's possible for there to be existents that can't move/change at all, that could be possible for any arbitrary existent, right? — Terrapin Station

It is a challenge I admit. I think that the human race may have a limited understanding of reality - we are familiar only with spacetime and 'spacetime events'. Of everything in reality (and my argument is that there is a wider reality than just spacetime), it maybe that humans understand only a tiny fraction of it.

So the arguments for a start of time imply that timeless change must be possible - at least one causally effective agent seems to be required - but I cannot claim to understand how it works. It is argued sometimes that God exists in the 'eternal now' - our usual conception of effect following cause may not hold:

- God IS formulating a plan for spacetime
- God IS creating spacetime
- God IS finished creating spacetime

All these event, in some sense, from the perspective of a timeless being, might be happening concurrently.

So the arguments for a start of time imply that timeless change must be possible — Devans99

"Timeless change" is a simple contradiction on my view. Time simply is motion or change.

If you're saying that God is timeless, then god can't formulate, create, etc. anything. A timeless entity can't do anything.

I think that time has a start so something physical changed when we went from a no-time to time situation, so time is something physical (as in a container: spacetime).

Remember that I don't even think that talking about "nonphysical" things makes any sense, but I'm trying to pretend that it could make sense.

If it makes sense to talk about "nonphysical" things, I don't see why nonphysical things doing something, changing, moving in some way wouldn't be time.

It could be that the wider universe is a different type of container to spacetime with different rules.

My argument is the existing 'forever' in time is not possible. Introducing a second, similar type of time (call it time2), leads to the same conclusion - existing forever in time2 is impossible. This regress of times must terminate with some sort of non-time like environment in which both brute facts are possible and change is possible. That is a challenge I admit, but IMO that is what the logic points to.

Maybe God is non-material and so does not need anything like time to effect change.

It could be the timeless environment is like growing block universe maybe. So part of it has permanent, unchanging existence, but it can 'grow' to allow change of some form.

It could be the timeless environment is like growing block universe maybe. So part of it has permanent, unchanging existence, but it can 'grow' to allow change of some form. — Devans99

Again, change is time, so we'd have time in that scenario. It wouldn't be timeless.

The only way to get around that is to pretend that time isn't simply change/motion, but then we're "mystery-izing" time in an ad hoc way in order to reach a particular conclusion.

I think that there would be an unchanging, timeless aspect to the environment I mentioned - it would support uncreated brute facts. But when a brute fact performs an act, the environment is extended. So that would allow brute facts and change to co-exist. So it would be that something like time is there but it is optional in a sense.

Another possibility is future real eternalism - then change is just an illusion and everything has already happened in some sense - a completely static 4D brick of a universe containing God, us and spacetime. But its a hard sell...

Another possibility is future real eternalism - then change is just an illusion — Devans99

Change can't be an illusion, because the "illusion(s)" change.

In other words, say that someone wants to say that my typing this sentence, phenomenally, to me, is really just an illusion. But the supposed "illusion" is changing--I'm aware of typing "In" and then "other" and so on. If that's changing, then there is change--whether it's an "illusion" or not.

Change can't be an illusion, because the illusion(s) change. — Terrapin Station

If we only perceive part of reality (now) but all of reality actually exists in some unchanging form (past, present, future) then change would seem to be an illusion - nothing changes in reality - it is just what we are looking at that changes.

If you think of it as all existing and then there is a 'cursor of now' that moves across time - and we always see 'now' rather than past/future then it could be argued that we are not changing - the only thing that changes is the 'now' cursor - everything else is static.

If we only perceive part of reality (now) but all of reality actually exists in some unchanging form (past, present, future) then change would seem to be an illusion - nothing changes in reality - it is just what we are looking at that changes. — Devans99

Are you positing us as something separate from reality?

Not sure what you mean?

Imagine sitting still in front of window watching the world go by. The view changes but you do not. So we would be part of reality and unchanging - but we'd see the ever changing 'now' view of the world.

Imagine sitting still in front of window watching the world go by. The view changes but you do not. So we would be part of reality and unchanging - but we'd see the ever changing 'now' view of the world. — Devans99

Okay, but then the view is changing, and the view is part of reality, isn't it?

Okay, but then the view is changing, and the view is part of the reality, isn't it? — Terrapin Station

But at any given moment, we are static and our view is static.

Then there is the next moment, the view is different but we and the view are still static.

So nothing is changing from the perspective of a static 4D universe.

Then there is the next moment, the view is different but we and the view are still static.

So nothing is changing from the perspective of a static 4D universe. — Devans99

But something is changing from some perspective, otherwise there's not a next moment with a different view.

What has changed is the cursor of time has moved onto a different version of the person with a different view of a different 'now'.

But the past person and past view are static and the current person and current view are static - when considered from a 4d spacetime perspective.

What has changed is the cursor of time has moved onto a different version of the person with a different view of a different 'now'.

But the past person and past view are static and the current person and current view are static - when considered from a 4d spacetime perspective. — Devans99

Okay, but that doesn't get rid of a flow of time, because the "cursor of time has moved"

In the model I've been talking about (moving spotlight), there is a cursor of time that changes but everything else is static.

That model might not be right - we always think it is 'now' so maybe a cursor of time is not required, then everything would be completely static.

That model might not be right - we always think it is 'now' so maybe a cursor of time is not required, then everything would be completely static. — Devans99

My phenomenal experience is not at all static. So that would be a problem with that theory. ;-)

Maybe your phenomenal experience is static. I don't know. That would be weird, though.

Your model is idiotic and serves only to get the conclusion you want. So it isn't philosophy and you have an absolute cheek to speak about what is logical when you don't even understand logic. You ignore advice and there is a clear thread of you just moving on from being told you aren't making sense to you making even less sense when you try and explain what you mean.

Also the whole alter ego thing, that's called engaging in bad faith. You shouldn't need to create a new account to provide backup for yourself if your arguments were any good. But they aren't, they are just confusing pseudo intellectual wordplay. None of us are going to give you the reaction you want, its obvious you are just wanting someone to come along and go "Wow this is amazing, how come someone never thought of this before?" But the truth is, there is nothing so profound or unbelievable that it hasn't been said by a philosopher before. I'm paraphrasing Descarte there. So trust me, no one is going to swoop in and give you this reaction and if they do then they aren't a philosopher, it's your mother.

But you always experience what you are experiencing. You always belief now is now. So each version of you in 4d spacetime thinks now is now.

So we can comprehend only now but it is a different version of us comprehending a different now. But all is still static from a 4d spacetime perspective.

I am having difficulties expressing what I mean... does the above make any sense?

But you always experience what you are experiencing. You always belief now is now. So each version of you in 4d spacetime thinks now is now. — Devans99

Yes, but what I experience, my nows, are dynamic, they're not static. Again, maybe this is just me, but it's me nevertheless.

From a 4d spacetime perspective, all 'nows' would seem dynamic - it is always the case that now has just become then - so each now seems dynamic - but nothing is actually changing.

If you plot a 2d graph of space and time, then from the perspective of a point moving through spacetime, its position is always changing - so the point would always think the world is dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of looking at the graph, all is static.

If you plot a 2d graph of space and time, then from the perspective of a point moving through spacetime, its position is always changing - so the point would always think the world is dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of looking at the graph, all is static. — Devans99

If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't some sort of thing or container that other things are in) then there's something not static. Whether things could be static from some perspective is irrelevant. Something exists that isn't static.

If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't some sort of thing or container that other things are in) then there's something not static. Whether things could be static from some perspective is irrelevant. Something exists that isn't static. — Terrapin Station

But movement just becomes an illusion when you regard time as a spacial dimension - imagine a series of photos laid out in front of you that show the same scene photographed at different times - all is static to you - yet anyone in the photographs would have experienced change.

I don't have two accounts here. I wish you best of luck with your conditions.

Oh piss off. You insult me by asking if I have antisocial personality disorder then you wish me luck with my conditions like you understand a thing about them and as if they change your arguments from being trash. They don't and you're a fucking asshole for bringing that shit up at all.