Outside the frame of measurement, time doesn't exist. It becomes an ILLUSION. Period!

pretty please, all those without saying anything

If Vacuum has Gases, then its subject to time, you might call it an illusion but its no more of an illusion than that of time we have on earth, that we are measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist anywhere we can't!, you're making a categorical error here

everything WITHIN our universe is subject to time but you apparently seem to disagree

BTW, let me get you straight, when you say this uncaused cause is eternal and you agree there are particles that exist without a solar system, does this mean these "particles" are Eternal? chose your reply wisely

ambassagod:

I will take it bit by bit.

We can only associate God's eternal reality in regards to time, for God's reality to be relatable to human. Just like using "him" when referring to God.

Outside time, simply means that God is not eternal. Because, eternal has before and after.

Whereas for there to be GOD as a "First cause", there must not be a before and after. Because, he MUST BE before time. Otherwise, he must have been caused, "before" him. Which simply portrays a caused entity and not an uncaused entity.

So, my use of the term "eternal" is only valid with the scope of time. So I would be quote Charles, since he hold same view with me.

“The attribute of eternity means that God exists endlessly. His existence extends endlessly backward and forward (TAKE NOTE: from our viewpoint of time) without any interruption or limitation caused by succession of events.” – Charles Ryrie1

HAHAHAHA@bolded. What do you nutjobs mean by BEFORE TIME or OUTSIDE OF SPACE, cos I hear these shi.t a lot.

ambassagod:
Outside the frame of measurement, time doesn't exist. It becomes an ILLUSION. Period!

Hahahahaha. Choi! People dey o.
Kingebukasblog, abeg come your brother.

NairalandSARS:


HAHAHAHA@bolded. What do you nutjobs mean by BEFORE TIME or OUTSIDE OF SPACE, cos I hear these shi.t a lot.

I can't recall ever saying I am debating you. Just get away the debate.

NairalandSARS:


Hahahahaha. Choi! People dey o.
Kingebukasblog, abeg come your brother.

Okay, bye and have a nice day

My head de explode!!!

What is this?

A debate?

Nawa oooo.

hopefulLandlord:
pretty please, all those without saying anything

If Vacuum has Gases, then its subject to time,

I disagree. There would be entities in the vacuum, but "time" is not one of those entities. For an entity to be proved what it is, it must stand true to its quality. For time, to be an entity, it must stand it's true quality of being measured.

So how do you measure the time in vacuum, independent of the solar system? I think that's a beautiful place to start, which I know you will avoid.

you might call it an illusion but its no more of an illusion than that of time we have on earth,

Sorry, I didn't call "Time" an illusion. If you think I did, you misunderstood it. And I guess you are already excited that you misunderstood it. I simply meant that if an "entity" is portrayed to be "time", and the entity doesn't stand true of the qualifies it needs to be qualified as time, e.g; measurablity, then that "entity" ceases to be time.

In the case of the earth, a solid and empirical reason why "time" is not an illusion is that it can be empirically measured, while an entity that is portrayed to be "Time" is simply an illusion can not be measurable, because it is not really what it is.

Then I repeat my question.

So how do you measure the time in vacuum, independent of the solar system?

that we are measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist anywhere we can't!, you're making a categorical error here

It looks like you're pointing to a different entity. For an entity to be qualified "Time", it must be measurable. Otherwise, it is non-existent. And that's not an error, because when an entity "Time" stands to be measurable, it satisfies the reality that it exists. Otherwise, allowing me to say "TIME DOESN'T EXIST".

everything WITHIN our universe is subject to time but you apparently seem to disagree

You can point out where I disagreed to this. You said this before, I told you I agree with you. Why? Everything in our universe is subject to time, because the universe has a basis on which the "entity" portrayed as time can be measured- SOLAR SYSTEM! And by that, it stands true to be "time", take away the solar system, Time doesn't exist. If you think it exists, then measure it. If you can't measure, then it doesn't exist, the entity(not time) is simply becomes "Imaginary", illusion and the "time" doesn't exist as such entity.

BTW, let me get you straight, when you say this uncaused cause is eternal and you agree there are particles that exist without a solar system, does this mean these "particles" are Eternal? chose your reply wisely

It depends on what you mean to be "eternal", so tell me what you mean as the word "eternal" before I can answer that.

I pointed this out up there but you avoided it. So, tell me what you mean by eternal in the context of your question.

rejosom:
My head de explode!!!

What is this?

A debate?

Nawa oooo.

Lol, have a nice day.

Please, don't comment again, to avoid derailing the debate.

ambassagod:
Time, is a system that MUST be measurable! Otherwise, it is not time.

cc Hopefullandlord

Ambassagod, it seems our disagreement so far boils to how one defines "Time" what do you mean by "Time"? can something happen outside time And space? if yes, can you give me examples of events that happen(ed) outside time?

You love dodging questions. And everyone is seeing that.

Time IS a component quantity of various MEASUREMENTS THAT IS USED TO SEQUENCE EVENTS, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them


What is an EVENT as an "entity"? Event is not just an occurrence. No, it is not!
It is an occurrence happening at a DETERMINABLE TIME(measurement of time!) and place, with or without the participation of human agents

So, event as an entity can ONLY take place at a a determinable time. Otherwise, it is not at event.

I said before that time must be dependent on solar system and not space, otherwise it can't be measurable which defies it to exist. Which means Time DOES NOT AND CANNOT STAND TO EXIST outside the solar system.

can something happen outside time And space?

No! Events cannot take place outside time and space because "EVENT" as entity cannot exist on it's own. It is dependent on time.

OtemAtum:
I am not an atheist, I am just saying that perhaps you guys don't understand one another yet. For example, atheists to me, believe that something is responsible for their existence, but they don't believe that the thing responsible for their existence is a god. But you believe that what is responsible for your existence is yahweh, allah or some other dudes like that.
So my point is that atheists are somehow right by realising that there is no separate being as God than the one manifesting in everything as consciousnesses. For example, I am just a fragment of that one whole God Almighty. And if you think that I am not, then it makes your own god smaller than the true one. Because your god minus me, you, atheists and everything is less in size and energy than the God that is the sum total of me, you, atheists and everything.

Ambassagod, sorry for talking once again. Just ignore me. Anyway, I'm fighting for both existence of a Creator, whose definition is complex though.

thank you..hope you are trough!!?...

ambassagod

You seem to have a lot of time in your hands, so I have a proposal. I didn't bother reading through the whole thread but what I can say is that hopefulLandlord isn't doing a good job debating you on this - no offence. So whenever you're free or you feel like it, I'd love to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of God, not that it matters anyway - seeing as scores of other sympathizers on Nairaland have been putting up irrefutable arguments almost on a daily basis.

My quest is personal as I have noted through reading your posts that you're just a coward feeding off on triumph over intellectually weak minds. Besides its been a slow week at the office and what better way to pass time than to engage in a little God debate.

I look forward to your reply.

Ever8054:
thank you..hope you are trough!!?...

Okay bye. Please, don't comment again. This is a serious debate going on. You can hang around if you have anything you gotta learn. Thank you.

Challspace:
ambassagod

You seem to have a lot of time in your hands, so I have a proposal. I didn't bother reading through the whole thread but what I can say is that hopefulLandlord isn't doing a good job debating you on this - no offence. So whenever you're free or you feel like it, I'd love to take up the challenge of disproving the existence of God, not that it matters anyway - seeing as scores of other sympathizers on Nairaland have been putting up irrefutable arguments almost on a daily basis.

My quest is personal as I have noted through reading your posts that you're just a coward feeding off on triumph over intellectually weak minds. Besides its been a slow week at the office and what better way to pass time than to engage in a little God debate.

I look forward to your reply.

Okay.

Don't reply again please.

You can look for some other person to debate. Until I am ready, I can come for you. Thank you.

Ever8054:
thank you..hope you are trough!!?...

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I hope we are not wasting our time here?

are you here to define god as first cause?

please I'm not here for meaningless wordgames

ask those atheists what they mean by "nothing" because its definition varies from person to person and I'm not redefining "COMMON AND GLOBAL" terms to suite me, what Krauss means by nothing in his book isn't what you would agree as nothing, which is what I'm talking about, I think you've not even read the book which explains the confusion

"First Cause" is simply a foggy term that neither I see no sense in arguing against nor agree with

you do not in an argument define things into existence then claim some points on the fact that your opponent didn't argue against it

what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here?

I Still say, again, I'm agnostic to "first cause"

BTW I wonder what's so difficult in mentioning those " Many Atheists" that claim nothing, we need to check out what those atheists mean

he asked you a simple question "since Lawrence did not mean " nothing " in its literal sense, them what did he mean? and where did he get his own definition of "Nothing" from! and why if not to make a pointless point...
the guy is really dragging your bowls around in a very calm and logical manner,..lol...sorry for interference ambassagod...

Martinez19:
the words of a mental slave to Yahweh.

see this one,!!...if you are sure of what you believe, I would beg ambassagod to allow you join the debate as I watch your pity brain reset...by anassagod..if you think iam liying ask hopefulandlord"....lol..hopefulandlord is running in circles like a headless chicken..

hopefulLandlord:


okay, like I've repeated many times over, what Krauss means by nothing is NOT what you mean by nothing

you're now free to mention another atheist out of the " many atheists" that agree with your definition of nothing and said we came from nothing

remember, "there are many, even many on Nairaland", that claim still needs to be proven

and stop gisg galloping

..ambassagod,you see why I say atheist are a waste of space and oxygen with brains they don't use?..this is how this guy would be going T and F until he runs out to tell others how he worn a debate he only make comments but did not participate.
..me can never argue some one who recreate words with common meaning to unfounded meaning just to make a pointless point..I will never..

Ever8054:
he asked you a simple question "since Lawrence did not mean " nothing " in its literal sense, them what did he mean? and where did he get his own definition of "Nothing" from! and why if not to make a pointless point...
the guy is really dragging your bowls around in a very calm and logical manner,..lol...sorry for interference ambassagod...

Lol.

So funny that he keeps on avoiding all my questions. Anyway, don't interfere again so the debate won't be derailed.

ambassagod:


I disagree. There would be entities in the vacuum, but "time" is not one of those entities. For an entity to be proved what it is, it must stand true to its quality. For time, to be an entity, it must stand it's true quality of being measured.

there's time everywhere there's space, Minkowski spacetime shows this

So how do you measure the time in vacuum, independent of the solar system? I think that's a beautiful place to start, which I know you will avoid.

like I said, that something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist

you're defining a watered down version of time and asserting it, Science says Time began with the Big Bang and didn't exist before then and let me point out the solar system didn't start with the big bang

Sorry, I didn't call "Time" an illusion. If you think I did, you misunderstood it. And I guess you are already excited that you misunderstood it. I simply meant that if an "entity" is portrayed to be "time", and the entity doesn't stand true of the qualifies it needs to be qualified as time, e.g; measurablity, then that "entity" ceases to be time.

what time science is referring to is totally different from the one you're implying here

In the case of the earth, a solid and empirical reason why "time" is not an illusion is that it can be empirically measured, while an entity that is portrayed to be "Time" is simply an illusion can not be measurable, because it is not really what it is.

Then I repeat my question.

So how do you measure the time in vacuum, independent of the solar system?
It looks like you're pointing to a different entity. For an entity to be qualified "Time", it must be measurable. Otherwise, it is non-existent. And that's not an error, because when an entity "Time" stands to be measurable, it satisfies the reality that it exists. Otherwise, allowing me to say "TIME DOESN'T EXIST".

You can point out where I disagreed to this. You said this before, I told you I agree with you. Why? Everything in our universe is subject to time, because the universe has a basis on which the "entity" portrayed as time can be measured- SOLAR SYSTEM! And by that, it stands true to be "time", take away the solar system, Time doesn't exist. If you think it exists, then measure it. If you can't measure, then it doesn't exist, the entity(not time) is simply becomes "Imaginary", illusion and the "time" doesn't exist as such entity.

Time certainly exist in a "vacuum", although the human forms of measuring it may quickly become meaningless as you look past our solar system. The movement of a galaxy that spins once every 220+ milion years is not easily explained or talked about in terms of seconds. The collapse initiating a supernova may only take (man) seconds to occur, but it could just as easily be measured in units of time called "blazos" that are each 2.345 seconds in duration. The man time scales are "arbitrarily" defined using our own familiar surroundings. Time itself will proceed with or without their benefit.

so yes, time exists everywhere in the universe independent of any system, except you want to bring black holes into the discussion

It depends on what you mean to be "eternal", so tell me what you mean as the word "eternal" before I can answer that.

I pointed this out up there but you avoided it. So, tell me what you mean by eternal in the context of your question.

actually you're the one that gave the first cause eternal property, so do define comprehensively what you mean by "eternal"

Ever8054:
..ambassagod,you see why I say atheist are a waste of space and oxygen with brains they don't use?..this is how this guy would be going T and F until he runs out to tell others how he worn a debate he only make comments but did not participate.
..me can never argue some one who recreate words with common meaning to unfounded meaning just to make a pointless point..I will never..

please, keep out cuz you stink up the room, have you read Krauss book or you just looked at the title and made supposition? I suspect the latter judging by this post of yours

please stay away

been very busy today, so my reply may not be coming as fast as yesterday's

The 'nothing' of today becomes 'something' in the future or by the use of microscope. For example, you may say thereis nothing in a bowl, but another person may say there are actually something. There are bacteria, viruses, etc.

So I understand what hopefullandlord is saying that there could be different definition of 'nothing'. Every 'nothing' can become something as soon as they are discovered to be something. But it doesn't make those who initially thought of them as nothing liars. That's why science give space for modification.

I'm observing.

hopefulLandlord:


please, keep out cuz you stink up the room, have you read Krauss book or you just looked at the title and made supposition? I suspect the latter judging by this post of yours

please stay away

you talk as if you are on a serious debate..but I tell you ! you are just like we who are following.just point out on single question you have answered from the start of this trend..?.
..I won't call it a debate hence ambassagod is the only one trowing question but you the sounds...has been dodging the question like kilode"..
go and face ambassagod,I did not call you for a debate, don't use me as escape route..
lol..I should stay out" as if Iam responsible for his dead and empty brain...!!!

Ever8054:
you talk as if you are on a serious debate..but I tell you ! you are just like we who are following.just point out on single question you have answered from the start of this trend..?.
..I won't call it a debate hence ambassagod is the only one trowing question but you the sounds...has been dodging the question like kilode"..
go and face ambassagod,I did not call you for a debate, don't use me as escape route..
lol..I should stay out" as if Iam responsible for his dead and empty brain...!!!

okay

hopefulLandlord:
there's time everywhere there's space, Minkowski spacetime shows this

This is critically false, until proven otherwise. So the burden of you is on you to prove to me HOW TIME IS DETERMINED IN SPACE. So to be straight enough. I will ask you again, which you will still avoid and I am okay with that

If time exists everywhere there is space, then how is time determined in space?

like I said, that something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am very sure you aren't referring to the entity "time" here. You asked me for a definition of time, I gave you just that. While hinting that it must be measurable. Any entity that is portrayed to be "time" but cannot be determined, not "TIME", because time IS ALWAYS measurable where it exits.

If it exits in space, how is time determined in space? (you will still avoid this question)

you're defining a watered down version of time and asserting it,

This is simply your opinion, and has no logical sense whatsoever!

I repeat:
If it exits in space, how is time determined in space? (you will still avoid this question)

Science says Time began with the Big Bang

I don't know if you saw this from point. Any mention of big bang so far? Anyway, if you are simply implying that, time has a beginning, then I agree with that completely!!

and didn't exist before then and let me point out the solar system didn't start with the big bang

I wonder which of my comments you are trying to refer this to.
You are simply INTRODUCING a point that has never been mentioned here so far. Did I ever mention big bang here? Point it out please.

what time science is referring to is totally different from the one you're implying here

That's an entirely false statement. Scientific time is one(an entity) that can be QUANTIFIED AND MEASURED. So try again!

Then if your claim is scientific, then I DARE YOU to answer the below single question you keep avoiding.


If time exits in space, how is time determined in space? (you will still avoid this question)

Time certainly exist in a "vacuum",

If time CERTAINLY exits in space, how is time determined in space? (you will still avoid this question)

although the human forms of measuring it may quickly become meaningless as you look past our solar system.

Unfounded excuse! Try again.

We can measure an entity, "time" because it is empirically existing, in relation to the solar system. The reason why the entity "time" would be meaningless to be measured outside the solar system is because it is not there. You think it is there, but it is not. It doesn't exist. In such a condition, the entity becomes imaginary, unreal and inexistent.

And a scientific time is not imaginary, it REAL, that's why it can be MEASURED, CALCULATED AND DETERMINED.

The movement of a galaxy that spins once every 220+ milion years is not easily explained or talked about in terms of seconds.

I wonder if I wrote something about this on my answers. So I am sure you aren't referring to this argument. Because, on its own it is meaningless to the arguments. Follow MY point, and refute MY points. Not the other way.

The collapse initiating a supernova may only take (man) seconds to occur, but it could just as easily be measured in units of time called "blazos" that are each 2.345 seconds in duration.
The man time scales are "arbitrarily" defined using our own familiar surroundings. Time itself will proceed with or without their benefit.

This is completely OFF-POINT with the points I have raised so far. You have to go back to actually get what I wrote and not referring to an imaginary point that exits nowhere in this debate so far.

so yes, time exists everywhere in the universe

Yes, I agree. Because solar system is inclusive. That's why can be able to measure, calculate and determine that entity "time". Otherwise "time doesn't exist".

independent of any system,

False! It becomes an imaginary entity that can not be calculated, determined or quantified. And as such, doesn't stand the qualities to be referred as time.

Otherwise, you have to determine it. And that points you to the same question above.

If it exits in space, how is time determined in space? (you will still avoid this question)

except you want to bring black holes into the discussion

I have nothing to do with this. Trust me, I am good at this. I haven't mentioned black hole, so bring bring them yourself if it has anything to do with the scientific fact that "Time must be measurable and calculated". If it has no connection with my points, the trust me I am gonna let it stay on you and never argue about it as it is out of the points raised so far.

actually you're the one that gave the first cause eternal property, so do define comprehensively what you mean by "eternal"

I will put forward, a resounding comprehensive meaning of the word "eternal" in my context, as it relates to God.

hopefulLandlord:
been very busy today, so my reply may not be coming as fast as yesterday's

Okay, same with me though.

OtemAtum:
The 'nothing' of today becomes 'something' in the future or by the use of microscope. For example, you may say thereis nothing in a bowl, but another person may say there are actually something. There are bacteria, viruses, etc.

So I understand what hopefullandlord is saying that there could be different definition of 'nothing'. Every 'nothing' can become something as soon as they are discovered to be something. But it doesn't make those who initially thought of them as nothing liars. That's why science give space for modification.

I'm observing.

..that ones sees nothing in a bowl and another letter sees whatever in it do not give "NOTHING" a different definition....here is the balance...
..(A)>sees "nothing "=common definition of nothing.
..(B)>sees "something"=common definition of something..
Note÷.eventuality,does not change meaning of word but can only change the word with a meaning that best describe the new event. so if Lawrence says" Nothing " to his audience the meaning of the word is established.
..in a case,he actually means "SOMETHING else"
he will definitely not use the already established word"NOTHING " in its original meaning to negotiate the "THING" on his mind.
.that is where the event changes and requires a new word with a meaning suitable to the change.

Lawrence,. says "NOTHING" but means something else=confusion in its original meaning nothing else..

OtemAtum:
The 'nothing' of today becomes 'something' in the future or by the use of microscope. For example, you may say thereis nothing in a bowl, but another person may say there are actually something. There are bacteria, viruses, etc.

So I understand what hopefullandlord is saying that there could be different definition of 'nothing'. Every 'nothing' can become something as soon as they are discovered to be something. But it doesn't make those who initially thought of them as nothing liars. That's why science give space for modification.

I'm observing.

MR. man, can you do me a favour by "JUMPING OUT" of this debate.

So much irrationality!! And you aren't ashamed of that!

Good Night! You are not needed here.

Hint for followers:
Nothing means NOT A SINGLE THING.