Yes. At least I want to honoor the tenor here. :think: IntoJoy was kind of complaining that we were hijacking that thread. I'll try and move it to one of the OV time threads.Fine by me. I was just wondering if you wanted to carry on that conversation. If you can't or don't wish to respond, it's up to you. I suppose every conversation must end somewhere.
Of course we have this between us. It is only my deposit here of good faith and counterpoints to ponder in a classic debate with closing words (mine given here).You are seriously missing something here, Lon. You haven't understood the problem at all.
Actually, I'm not opposed to that, but it only relates to our physical universe. To whatever degree God interacts with His creation, He interacts with time like points that create segments on a line that otherwise has no points nor marks. It is true that we must plot two points in order to discuss which line we are talking of/logically grasping.I am arguing that time is not a thing. It is just a concept to help communicate the idea that things happen in sequence. Hence the idea that time began is absurd.
Time is not a thing. Time is not a dimension. Time cannot be measured.
After the same fashion, I don't have a problem with people saying God experiences time, because He does, He interacts with us. The problem will always be where we perceived limitation ends or if we see it at all. Also, because a noun is a person place or thing like a concept, I do believe Time must be a 'thing.'
Time is the language of measurement of duration. Things are thought 'timeless' because duration has no perceived affect on objects we label as such and it conveys a truth we all understand and agree exists.
So, food for counterthought and I'll leave it at that: There is such a thing as timelessness that correctly surmises realities.