You can't. You can only form beliefs about it. Some people use the word 'know' to mean 'believe' elliptically. But it's not the same to those of us who are more cautious about our epistemology.
Math is much bigger than the small portion that scientists use for support for their theories. Its truths are self-evident, and therefore we can actually know them and not just believe them.
If time is the gap between events, then your belief must be that there was time before our universe. Unless said creator literally did nothing and then at one instant, not a short amount of time, an instant, he set our entire known universe in motion for literally no reason and with no forethought
Dat transition and those assumptions.
With all due respect, I'm not trying to debate you. I really don't care what you believe. I will never renounce my belief in God. If you wanna call me stupid then that is fine.
Just asking for confirmation here. Time is the gap of ... what?... between events? Like what is time a measure of? I can understand the idea that time can only be understood when it is the gap between events. But I'm having a hard time (lol) accepting that it only exists in that form.
I think close minded/ignorant are more accurate than stupid. AT least in this context
Transitional though? You mean bone fragments of some fish that scientist assumed had some sort of fingers means it led from a fish to an animal walking on land? If that ain't faith I don't know what is.
It is faith, and don't let anyone tell you differently.
Ho lee . It's a fossil that has come to life! Bet that lil dudes offspring will eventually become a lemur because evolution.
Humans pick their own starting and stopping points.
All of this is a human struggle to understand. We do our best in science to observe, measure, set standards of communication, apply reasoning and math. But even logic and math is fallible.
All of us should try reading Kurt Goedel, or explanations about his ideas on fundamental flaws in math and logic.
Its very humbling. And we build so much off of logic and math. The magic guys can use this to help further their disdain for some very basic human thought.
Same with math if you read Goedel. Math is fallible. The truths of the very fundamentals of math are not logical or self evident to Goedel.
And the foundations that the beliefs are built upon in science are very stringent compared to other human endeavors. The fact that we can say where the moon will be in 342 hrs. is very powerful and furthers my beliefs that science works very well if used properly to gain knowledge about the universe.
Much like RG, this guy knows nothing of the Bible. He believes that the Bible says God sends people to , that alone tells me he has no real knowledge of the scriptures. And what's the point of his rant? God is evil? How can a God he doesn't believe in be evil?
Math is incomplete. It can't explain everything. That's not something anyone's debating. Math isn't stronger than empiricism because it explains everything. It's stronger because what's true in math is true. Full stop. What's true in science is just what works the best. The door is left open for something better to come along. That's not the same for mathematical truths.
We agree that science is useful and great and totally the way we should go to try to figure things out. But that doesn't mean we can safely say we "know" anything that comes from it. That's not a knock on it. That's just not what it's made to do.
You can make up your own ideas if you wish.
Time is a human construct that works well.
What other form would you like? You can present a new form and explain it. I think I see what you are trying to say, but measurements and standards are a very fallible human practice. Einstein basically honed our ideas of time and events.
Go for it.
Just so I understand your point of view.... regardless of what evidence is presented.... you will just ignore it because you WANT to believe something different?
You are WAY beyond stupid.
"Stupid" is pretty much ignorance...
What you are claiming is WILLFUL ignorance, and that is FAR worse than stupid.
the way i understand it, change can only occur if time exists. if you go from a state of no universe to a state of universe, that is undoubtedly a change. you can call it a change, you can call it a gap between events. they're essentially the same thing. if said "creator" literally appeared and only in that same instant created our universe, then you can argue that there was no "before"... but it sort of seems silly to think that way
I agree.
Except what's true in math is true. This is NOT believed by a number of mathematicians and logic guys. It's more than incomplete, one has to completely change the context according to adherents of Goedel. To where it might not be useful in the context of this entire discussion. Take a look at it sometime.
im out...
What evidence have you presented? A YouTube video of some 30/40 year old loser who has no knowledge of the Bible? This guy is supposed to destroy my beliefs?
He literally points to scripture in the bible... there is no misrepresentation here.... He points them out by scripture.... He was himself a teaching Theologian, far more qualified in the "faith" than you ever will be. What more do you want?What evidence have you presented? A YouTube video of some 30/40 year old loser who has no knowledge of the Bible? This guy is supposed to destroy my beliefs?
No I didn't have to. Just wanted to.
yes or no: it's illogical to believe in watch maker from another universe.
Just because you read a book doesn't mean you understand it. All he's doing is trying to claim God is evil because bad happens. Okay, what are atheists doing to help the children starving in Africa? All this dude is doing is telling people that believing in the Bible is stupid. Yeah, he is really helping humanity.
And why are you so angry about what I believe?
No, I get the extension you're making about "before." I just mean in general that I can't really understand how time is dependent on events. Like I get that a second is how long it takes for a cesium atom to revolve a certain number of times or whatever. But I think that that is simply a measurement of time and not the origin of it.
The way I've always understood it, in order for anything to exist, it needs to occupy both space and time. Time is supposedly the fourth dimension because it's necessary for matter.
Maybe that type of time is different than the one we were talking about?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
