There could be a couple reasons. One is that, as you said, it is a meaningless concept, and as I pointed out to you, we cannot imagine meaningless concepts. Another is that our own limitations make it impossible to imagine and thus difficult to grasp, even if the concept is meaningful. The problem is in figuring out whether we are dealing with the former or the latter.
And as I pointed out to you, I can in fact imagine timelessness, even if it is an illogical concept (and I gave examples). Even though you seem to be a greater authority on what I can imagine than I am, it certainly seems to me that I am imagining them. But the problem is, even though I can imagine them, the concepts are still illogical in the real world. Yes, I put square circle in there too.
I agree that the claims can be refuted, but not
disproved. See the word unfalsifiable? That means you can't disprove them, but refutation can also mean that you show there is no evidence for them. I believe that is exactly what the late WinAce (may his memes live long) was talking about. For all definitions of "timelessness" I have ever heard, the claim of timelessness being logical falls exactly into that category of claims that is refuted by the lack of evidence.
Of course, both timelessness and God also fall into that category of claims that cannot be refuted because there is no adequate definition for them. Break up the word. Time. Less. That literally means "without time", not "everywhere in time" (or "omnitemporal", if I may coin the word). it is not "able to travel back and forth in time". In popular parlance, it means "unaffected by time", but of course no real things have ever been identified that are
actually unaffected by time. (Even diamonds will turn back to black carbon given enough time, but "
Diamonds Are a Long Long Time By Human Standards" didn't cut it for the James Bond filmmakers.)
You missed the point completely, which was that "There is no God," in spite of having a word of negation in it, is none the less an affirmative claim. Or as Randi put it in one of his
commentaries:
What Randi says sounds like exactly what I have been saying. Though I do not agree with him all the time, In this case I agree that the latter of those two claims, is the better. But of course, that statement assumes that there has been a definition of "God" put on the table for which he can state that there is no evidence.
But you aren't saying there is zero evidence for timelessness, but rather saying that it is illogical, which is a much different claim.
Okay, you got me there. There is not "zero evidence" for timelessness, because there is no scientific definition of timelessness, one that explains what being without time means. I retract that claim that there is zero evidence for it.
So your claim can be distilled down to "you believe it is possible for a thing, for which you have no definition, to exist."
Give me a suitable definition of timelessness, one that details the aspects of timelessness, and then perhaps we can discuss the evidence for or against it.
This is an incredibly fallacious argument. I can write, "A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C." The premises here are written before the conclusion. I can also write, "A = C, because A = B, and B = C," with the premises written after the conclusion. The order of the phrases does not affect the argument at all, only its presentation. "Before" and "after" here have nothing to do with the logic itself, only with how it is communicated. Come now, Tricky, you're not that dumb.
You have inverted the sentence order, but not the order of events. You could not conclude that A=C and hope that sometime in the future you would be able to establish A=B and B=C. See the word "because"? That means that those two premises were established first. Cause precedes effect.
However, I will grant that the discussion of the temporal element of logic does not prove timelessness to be illogical. It merely shows timelessness to be incoherent to logic because it violates the essential element of logic in that premises precede conclusions.
But I think we might have beat the glue out of this ol' dead horse. Shall we end this hijack?
This is an incredibly fallacious argument. I can write, "A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C." The premises here are written before the conclusion. I can also write, "A = C, because A = B, and B = C," with the premises written after the conclusion. The order of the phrases does not affect the argument at all, only its presentation. "Before" and "after" here have nothing to do with the logic itself, only with how it is communicated. Come now, Tricky, you're not that dumb.
