Time doesn't exist.

[JudgeRightly]

Your opinion on the immutability of God is noted...

What I said was not merely opinion. I made an argument, using examples from the Bible, and even asked you questions, which you will likely continue to ignore (second time you've done so, by the way).

and has been safely discarded.

Argumentum ad lapidem - appeal to the stone.

You don't get to simply dismiss an argument without making a proper rebuttal. Just not how it works.

 

[Clete]

Ok lets break it down a little...

Firstly... the phrase "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind." - I'm reasonably comfortable with as it stands, and I want to utilize that phrase (logical construct) as somewhat of a template to overlay the scripture reference (Acts 17:28)... to overlay in the sense of imposing its logical constraints upon that particular scripture.

Having said that... naturally I (and I hope you) consider the logical propositions found in scripture as having the preeminent position (ascendency) as they are of Devine Inspiration... but that scriptural understanding does not preclude the examination of scripture by logical constructs (propositions) of our own devising as we seek to explore the full scope of scripture (via thought experiments).

So, I will copy below a post from a discussion I am having with Derf on another forum... with the intention of laying out my thought regards that particular scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28 KJV) - and its relation to the issue of whether the concept of time (time) is an ontological feature of Creation (imbedded in Creation).

In short, whether scriptural or otherwise, there is no such thing as an irrational truth - by definition. That is to say that being irrational is the very definition of what it means for something to be false.

I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.

Then, if it is indeed an "inescapable logical necessity", you should be able to demonstrate that by showing the logical proof. Please do so.

My question is - Do you agree? or Do you disagree?

I see no evidence that it is so. Indeed, I'm not even sure what it means or even what it could mean. My suspicion is that you don't know what it means either and won't be able to explain what it means or how it applies to whether time exists in any manner other than as an abstraction.

 

[moonbeam]

In short, whether scriptural or otherwise, there is no such thing as an irrational truth - by definition. That is to say that being irrational is the very definition of what it means for something to be false.

How is this (scripture) logical proposition irrational? - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17:28 KJV)

Then, if it is indeed an "inescapable logical necessity", you should be able to demonstrate that by showing the logical proof. Please do so.

That was my opinion.

Your admission is that... "I see no evidence that it is so. Indeed, I'm not sure what it even means or even what it could mean."

I can see how that leaves you incapacitated.

I see no evidence that it is so. Indeed, I'm not even sure what it means or even what it could mean. My suspicion is that you don't know what it means either and won't be able to explain what it means or how it applies to whether time exists in any manner other than as an abstraction.

I can see how incapacitating that must be for you.

.

 

[moonbeam]

What I said was not merely opinion. I made an argument, using examples from the Bible, and even asked you questions, which you will likely continue to ignore (second time you've done so, by the way).



Argumentum ad lapidem - appeal to the stone.

You don't get to simply dismiss an argument without making a proper rebuttal. Just not how it works.

The biblical doctrine of the immutability of God is considered a fundamental doctrine found in scripture.
While not uncontested (as all biblical doctrines are) it requires close scrutiny of scripture references.
That being the case (and hopefully you agree) it requires a dedicated thread for the expansive discussion.
Perhaps you could start a thread and I and others could engage with you there.
.

 

[Right Divider]

The biblical doctrine of the immutability of God is considered a fundamental doctrine found in scripture.

By whom?

While not uncontested (as all biblical doctrines are) it requires close scrutiny of scripture references.

Not uncontested is a double negative. It most certainly is contested, because it has a lot of problems.

That being the case (and hopefully you agree) it requires a dedicated thread for the expansive discussion.
Perhaps you could start a thread and I and others could engage with you there.

You are welcome to start your own thread about it.
.

 

[moonbeam]

Not uncontested is a double negative. It most certainly is contested, because it has a lot of problems.

Double negation with adjectives and adverbs (not unexpected)
However, we can use not + an adjective or adverb with a negative prefix (e.g. un-, in-) as a way of softening or downtoning the meaning of the adjective. The meaning becomes affirmative, but the double negation shows that the writer/speaker is cautious about it. This is most common in formal writing:

You are welcome to start your own thread about it.

JudgeRightly raised the objection to my affirming the biblical doctrine of the immutability of God... the onus and prerogative is on JudgeRightly.
.

 

[Right Divider]

Double negation with adjectives and adverbs (not unexpected)
However, we can use not + an adjective or adverb with a negative prefix (e.g. un-, in-) as a way of softening or downtoning the meaning of the adjective. The meaning becomes affirmative, but the double negation shows that the writer/speaker is cautious about it. This is most common in formal writing:

Double negatives can lead to confusion and in many cases, like this one (not uncontested), are completely unnecessary. I would be much more clear to simply say that it was contested.

JudgeRightly raised the objection to my affirming the biblical doctrine of the immutability of God... the onus and prerogative is on JudgeRightly.

If you felt strong enough that there should be a thread about it, then you should go ahead and start one.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The biblical doctrine of the immutability of God is considered a fundamental doctrine found in scripture.

By Calvinists.

Are you a Calvinist?

I don't consider it fundamental at all.

But that's neither here nor there.

The point was that, in relation to what you saying immutability was incompatible with, you can safely discard immutability without contradicting reality. (IE, throwing the baby out with the bath water...)

While not uncontested (as all biblical doctrines are) it requires close scrutiny of scripture references.

The fact is that it IS contested, and rightly so.

That being the case (and hopefully you agree) it requires a dedicated thread for the expansive discussion.
Perhaps you could start a thread and I and others could engage with you there.

Considering the fact that you're the one who introduced the concept to the thread, I think it best that you do so. I will more than happily take you up on the discussion.

 

[moonbeam]

Considering the fact that you're the one who introduced the concept to the thread, I think it best that you do so. I will more than happily take you up on the discussion.

"JudgeRightly raised the objection to my affirming the biblical doctrine of the immutability of God... the onus and prerogative is on JudgeRightly"

As Pilate said to the gainsayers - "What I have written, I have written."

.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"JudgeRightly raised the objection to my affirming the biblical doctrine of the immutability of God... the onus and prerogative is on JudgeRightly"

As Pilate said to the gainsayers - "What I have written, I have written."

And again, my objection was in relation to your comment here:

We both agree that - The Father possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.
In fact, I would say God is the originator of any, and all, logical concepts (exhaustively)... both in the Creation, and His own person.

I am concerned that the concept of imposing (translating) your thought here - "New thoughts mean they didn't exist and then they started to exist." (which is the case in the creature, man and angelic) - upon the Mind of God, would demonstrates a change in knowledge, something akin to either an increase in known facts or concepts, and in a retrospective sense (reviewing those facts which are already known) a similitude of alteration from a previous state.

I believe that is in conflict with the incommunicable attribute of God, namely, His Immutability.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

You want to assert that a doctrine is true, and thus "God thinking a new thought" is therefore false, because it contradicts that doctrine, without first establishing it.

I'm not going to start a new thread when the topic has not significantly changed enough to warrant a new thread. I'd rather you respond to my argument that explains why your assertion that "God thinking a new thought" can be accepted (and immutability therefore can be discarded safely, within the context of this discussion).

In other words, you made a claim that asserts that "God thinking a new thought" is wrong, because "God is immutable." I responded with the point that God is not immutable, as per scripture, and gave examples, and now you want to try to move the discussion to another thread, while refusing to answer the questions I asked of you here in this thread (again, the second instance of you doing so), and that because of that, you cannot simply discard the idea of God being able to think a new thought.

You want to start a thread on the doctrine of immutability, go for it. I'm trying to stay on topic here in this thread, and trying to keep you from irrationally discarding an idea just because it doesn't comport with your a priori beliefs.

 

[moonbeam]

You want to start a thread on the doctrine of immutability, go for it. I'm trying to stay on topic here in this thread, and trying to keep you from irrationally discarding an idea just because it doesn't comport with your a priori beliefs.

We all have presuppositions - a priori beliefs - it is unavoidable - I'm sure your aware of that - and I'm sure your aware of your own a priori beliefs.

I will format an OP in the defense of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God and launch a dedicated thread in the appropriate forum.

I usually spend quite a bit of time developing my OP as a general rule, I like them to be robust, and a standalone document - so there will be some delay before I post that in the appropriate forum.

Something else to be aware off... I won't be available to defend it as vigorously as I normally would, as I could possibly be working away from home shortly - My work involves Fly in/Fly out for 14 days at a time doing 12 hour shifts split 7day/7night shifts on a continuous roster out of Perth Australia - it is both mentally and physically demanding work - that leaves me very little time while on site to do the following - absorb what my opponents thoughts are - give due consideration to what my opponents thought means in regards to my position - and prepare a suitable reply or rebuttal.

Anyways... "What I have written, I have written."

But what - "I have written" - I can erase...

.

 

[moonbeam]

.

I would like to make a general comment - and it is not to anyone in particular - it is something that is prevalent on this forum.
The incessant references to the over one hundred propositional fallacies that are known to occur in both formal and informal conversations is unnecessary and to be frank it is both extremely tedious and boring - sooooo tedious - and soooooo boring.

.

 

[moonbeam]

What is that supposed to mean?

The original question was - "The Father possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.... Correct?"

You seem to be having trouble comprehending a simple question - but have no trouble writing long in-depth posts on other occasions - and your always quick to highlight logical fallacies in other people's posts - Why the unnecessary obfuscation?

Derf was able to answer it forthrightly with the response "correct"

The distinction between Derf and you ( Judge Un - Rightly ) is that he is not interested in playing stupid ass games like you.

Which is why I have been ignoring your responses after this exhibition of your petty frivolousness.

p/s - If your still having difficulty comprehending the question ask Derf.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We all have presuppositions - a priori beliefs - it is unavoidable - I'm sure your aware of that - and I'm sure your aware of your own a priori beliefs.

I will format an OP in the defense of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God and launch a dedicated thread in the appropriate forum.

Thank you.

I would like to make a general comment - and it is not to anyone in particular - it is something that is prevalent on this forum.
The incessant references to the over one hundred propositional fallacies that are known to occur in both formal and informal conversations is unnecessary and to be frank it is both extremely tedious and boring - sooooo tedious - and soooooo boring.

Then quit using logical fallacies!

Seriously!

Usually people who complain about other people calling others out about their use of fallacies is because they themselves are using fallacies!

That goes for BOTH sides!

If you've been rightly called out for using a fallacy, then stop using the fallacy, and consider reevaluating your own position.

The original question was - "The Father possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.... Correct?"

Correct.

And my request was for you to define what is a "conceptual mind."

Are you not capable of doing that?

If you are, please do so.

You seem to be having trouble comprehending a simple question - but have no trouble writing long in-depth posts on other occasions - and your always quick to highlight logical fallacies in other people's posts - Why the unnecessary obfuscation?

Derf was able to answer it forthrightly with the response "correct"

The distinction between Derf and you ( Judge Un - Rightly )

I'm going to ignore this because at the moment I just want an answer to my question.

is that he is not interested in playing stupid ass games like you.

Which is why I have been ignoring your responses after this exhibition of your petty frivolousness.

p/s - If your still having difficulty comprehending the question ask Derf.

You accuse me of obfuscation, yet you won't define your terms, instead telling me to ask someone else?

Hypocrite!

Why is asking you a question about a term you used obfuscation, but you asking me questions about something not?

 

[moonbeam]

Thank you.
Then quit using logical fallacies!
Seriously!
Usually people who complain about other people calling others out about their use of fallacies is because they themselves are using fallacies!
That goes for BOTH sides!
If you've been rightly called out for using a fallacy, then stop using the fallacy, and consider reevaluating your own position.
Correct.
And my request was for you to define what is a "conceptual mind."
Are you not capable of doing that?
If you are, please do so.
I'm going to ignore this because at the moment I just want an answer to my question.
You accuse me of obfuscation, yet you won't define your terms, instead telling me to ask someone else?
Hypocrite!
Why is asking you a question about a term you used obfuscation, but you asking me questions about something not?

I will give consideration to what you have said... however I am not prepared to engage in conversation with at this time.
That may change in the future.

 

[moonbeam]

The Father (God) possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.

Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - so time does exist for us ontologically.

Ok let's break it down a little...

Firstly... the phrase "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind." - I'm reasonably comfortable with as it stands, and I want to utilize that phrase (logical construct) as somewhat of a template to overlay the scripture reference (Acts 17:28)... to overlay in the sense of imposing its logical constraints upon that particular scripture.

Having said that... naturally I (and I hope you) consider the logical propositions found in scripture as having the preeminent position (ascendency) as they are of Devine Inspiration... but that scriptural understanding does not preclude the examination of scripture by logical constructs (propositions) of our own devising as we seek to explore the full scope of scripture (via thought experiments).

So, I will copy below a post from a discussion I am having with Derf on another forum... with the intention of laying out my thought regards that particular scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28 KJV) - and its relation to the issue of whether the concept of time (time) is an ontological feature of Creation (imbedded in Creation).


I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.


For those who may find that objectionable, for one reason or another, consider the following breakdown of that scripture reference.

[ For ] preposition; intended to be given to.
[ in ] inside a container, place, or area, or surrounded or closed off by something.
[ him] personal pronoun; referring to God - so we can capitalize that [Him].
[ we ] generic pronoun; referring to people in general.
[ live ] verb; to be alive or have life.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ move ] verb; to (cause to) change position.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ have ] auxiliary verb; [ + past participle] used with the past participle of other verbs to form the present perfect and past perfect.
[ our ] determiner; the possessive form of we, used before a noun.
[ being ] verb; to (cause to) change position.

An analogy would be something akin to a woman who is with child, pregnant.
The child (creation) within her lives, and moves, and has it's being encapsulated within the sphere of her womb internally.
The ontological analogy is similar; the mother is the life giver [external sphere] the child is absolutely dependent [internal sphere] and receives its life force from the mother.

The logical construct we have in view in this discussion namely - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - supports the notion that time [the concept of time] must be, and is in fact, an intrinsic ontological element imbedded in Creation itself, because we know God does not possess a body, but he does possess a mind [intellect] and logic is the architecture of Gods mind, it is how he thinks [logically]... the entire Creation is internal to God... you could say the entire Creation is in Gods mind. Therefore, we could say time does exist as an ontological element imbedded in Creation and is an intrinsic element of Creation and does exist ontologically.

Which is exactly what Gods word say - "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28)

.

 

[Clete]

How is this (scripture) logical proposition irrational? - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17:28 KJV)

That sentence isn't irrational at all. It's the connection to that idea to the ontological existence of time that has no foundation.

That was my opinion.

Whether something is an "inescapable logical necessity" is NOT a matter of opinion. Indeed, it is the opposite of an opinion. If something is an "inescapable logical necessity" then is an established fact.

Your admission is that... "I see no evidence that it is so. Indeed, I'm not sure what it even means or even what it could mean."

I can see how that leaves you incapacitated.

I can see how incapacitating that must be for you.

That's a laugh! I'm incapacitated because I see no evidence to support YOUR personal opinions!

Was that a joke?

Do you even have any kind of actual argument to make or were you just pretending?

 

[Clete]

The biblical doctrine of the immutability of God is considered a fundamental doctrine found in scripture.

It is considered so in error.

While not uncontested (as all biblical doctrines are) it requires close scrutiny of scripture references.

Agreed! Please provide scriptural evidence that God is immutable in the classical sense of the word. (i.e. in the sense that God cannot change IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.)

That being the case (and hopefully you agree) it requires a dedicated thread for the expansive discussion.

Perhaps you could start a thread and I and others could engage with you there.
.

If anyone does so, make sure I get some sort of notification of it so I can participate.

In mean time, I doubt anyone would object to your posting something here.

 

[moonbeam]

That sentence isn't irrational at all. It's the connection to that idea to the ontological existence of time that has no foundation. Whether something is an "inescapable logical necessity" is NOT a matter of opinion. Indeed, it is the opposite of an opinion. If something is an "inescapable logical necessity" then is an established fact.That's a laugh! I'm incapacitated because I see no evidence to support YOUR personal opinions! Was that a joke? Do you even have any kind of actual argument to make or were you just pretending?

I will give consideration to what you have said... however I am not prepared to engage in conversation with you at this time.
That may change in the future.

 

[Clete]

Double negation with adjectives and adverbs (not unexpected)
However, we can use not + an adjective or adverb with a negative prefix (e.g. un-, in-) as a way of softening or downtoning the meaning of the adjective. The meaning becomes affirmative, but the double negation shows that the writer/speaker is cautious about it. This is most common in formal writing:
.

So I know JudgeRightly doesn't like doubt negatives but I just have to say that, as for me, double negatives have never been uncomfortable. You can feel free to not refrain from using them all you like as far as I'm concerned.