A parody on time
It's about time - a parody on time - by P.K.Odendaal - April 2013
Words ... words ... words. How do I start a parody with an article name which is already so ambiguous? Is the article about the subject time or is it the long expected thing to do? Is the parody on the subject of time or is it on the appropriate time?
And of course, everything about time is so slippery that I could not even think of an article name which is not slippery - and as this is positively not a material thing, I think I should call in our two conversationalists named GLC (God Loving Creature) and Atheist (our materialist), to whom you have got so used to by this time, to lead us into this subject. Their views are so widely divergent so that it might help us to understand the concepts of time better.
GLC: So Atheist - long Time no see. How have you kept yourself busy these last few months since the Time I have last seen you?
Atheist: I have been thinking of things intricate, complex and profound.
GLC: But that's a paradox. Things which are profound are simple, not intricate or complex. Intricate is the name we give to simple things we do not understand - and complex is a name we give to our subconscious.
Atheist: So what are you up to today? Trying to coax me again into believing what I doubt, and doubting what I believe?
GLC: That's it. So tell me what is the Time?
Atheist: It is now seven o'clock pm.
GLC: So I must presume that you mean that it is now seven hours in the afternoon by your clock?
Atheist: That's what I said.
GLC: So what is so special about your clock that you did not look for the time on my clock?
Atheist I could have looked at your clock as well; it should show the same time as mine.
GLC: No, my clock says it is five seconds before twelve am.
Atheist Then your clock must be wrong. I set my clock correctly this morning according to Pacific Time. It is now one hundred percent accurate.
GLC: We have not even started our dialogue and you have already made two serious errors. In the first place you set your clock according to the whims of somebody called Pacific, a person I do not think is very trustworthy or honest. And secondly, if you set it according to Pacific's time, who says your clock is still in absolute synchronization with this imposter's time? It may now be only 99.99% accurate.
Atheist: But we are now in Western Canada, and people here use Pacific Time to set their clocks by.
GLC: You are so provincial! I set my clock according to universal co-ordinated time (UTC). The next thing is that you want me to worship your gods, which I have not met, as you profess that they do not exist.
Atheist: You are splitting hairs now. The five seconds our clocks differ is only because they are not a hundred percent accurate. Clocks are like that - they are never exactly right, apart from the nine hours they differ from Pacific's time and UTC.
GLC: No, wait a bit ... you are the one who is splitting hairs. You want an absolute, perfect, physical and accurate proof that an absolute, perfect, physical and accurate God exists and reigns. Well ... that is what I call splitting hairs. I just believe in Him because I can see His creation. It is no use that I doubt the existence of General Motors Corporation if I drive a GMC motor car. I can see their existence in their creation - or do you want me to go and check up in their factory?
So do you want to tell me that no clock in the world is absolutely right?
Atheist: Yes, I have to admit that.
GLC: Will you then agree with me that nobody on this planet has got the exact or right time?
Atheist: Yes, sadly I must admit that.
GLC: But you told me last time that your scientists discover many phenomena based on time, and now they cannot even establish the exact time - and we are not even at the stage of arguing about phenomena yet.
Atheist: They sure know the correct time.
GLC: And how do they know that?
Atheist: They work on the time the sun passes a meridian. That's why they call it post meridian for us now.
GLC: And is the time of the sun moving over a meridian always exactly the same?
Atheist: No, they sort of even it out and call it the Local Apparent Time when the sun is supposed to exactly pass that meridian. It has got to do with the observational errors in getting the exact time.
GLC: Why do you not believe in a Local Apparent God, but you can believe in a Local Apparent Time?
So the people who set the time do not even have the exact time. Now you are taking this too far? But I do not blame you. Even Einstein proved that time dilates. Two observers who do not move at the same speed receive light at different times, so that they will have different exact times.
Atheist: No - you got it wrong. Einstein really replaced time with Space-Time.
GLC: Now, what Space-Time is it then on your clock now?
Atheist: My clock cannot give Space-Time. In fact the concept is so slippery that I do not think a Space-Time clock can be built.
GLC: Now what use is your clock then if it cannot give you the exact Time or Space-Time?
Atheist: But why did you ask me the time in the first place?
GLC: Simply because I recently read that someone said that we must live in the moment.
Atheist: How otherwise can you live then?
GLC: Very simple. You can live in the past, or in the moment or in the future.
Atheist: But that's not strange. Everybody knows what that means.
GLC: My problem really is that if my clock is not exactly right, I will not know whether I am living in the past or the present or the future. One really needs a very exact clock to determine that.
Atheist: But we will never know the exact time as you state it. It depends on many things. And as for living in the moment - now is the moment.
GLC: My biggest problem is not so much living in the moment. My problem really starts when I have to decide when I am living in the future or in the past.
Atheist: But that is easy. Anything which is ahead of the present time is future and anything that is behind the time is the past.
Now, by looking at my clock and yours, being the only tangible and physical manifestation of time that I have, I can see that I am living in the future and you are living in the past, because our times differ by seven hours - or for all we know, we might both be living in the past or future.
Atheist: You are again splitting hairs. Time is not the digits shown on the clock. It is a dimension. It does not exist as a physical thing. No one has ever been able to prove time or to see it or to experience it.
GLC: You don't say. And you believe in it?? How come you can believe in something which does not exist and which has not been proven?
OK. Then we can start where we should have started. What is time?
Atheist It is the number of seconds which pass between two events.
GLC: But we already agreed that the only thing which can tell us that is a clock, and that, we have learned, is totally flawed. If you take away our useless clocks, how will we know that any time has passed?
Atheist: Now ... that is really hard to say, because time does not exist as a physical thing. It is only a concept - an idea - a notion. It cannot really be determined.
GLC: But I thought that you did not believe in notions or ideas, being not physical or material.
Let me then ask you another question.
Atheist: Feel free to do so, but why are you so stupid today?
GLC: I need to understand scientific things properly before I believe in them.
The question is the following:
In Rev_10:6 scripture says ... And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
How will it be if time did not exist anymore, as it apparently will not do at the end of Time - as we say? We are also talking about the beginning of time. When was that?
Atheist: I really do not know.
GLC: If you do not know, how will you convince me that it exists now, when it started, and when it will end, and which agent will be responsible for its death?
I do not believe in your clock, and I do not believe in your time - so please convince me.
Atheist: I think I will under duress quote you from the bible:
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: v:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. v:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. v:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. v:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
The inference is the same. If you do not want to believe our clocks and our scientists, not even an angel from heaven will be able to convince you of it.