Augustine’s Nature of Time & Timeless God – Part III
<<<<<<<<Go Back To Part II | Go Back To Part I>>>>>>>>
Even though Augustine provides reasons to support his statements in Confessions, some of his reasons or statements are still subject to critic. From here on, I will state possible objections by the critics and defend with my own reasons to support Augustine and strengthen his arguments. First of all, Augustine’s statement that time seems to move toward the non-existence (past) gives opening for critics to object by reasoning that in all cases, time only flows from the past into the future; coffee and milk will mix spontaneously after pouring the milk in (future) but will never un-mix after pouring milk in (past). The critic’s reason seems to be reasonable only on the ground that the critic already knows that milk and coffee will mix. What about to the majority with no knowledge of it? In my opinion, to such people, time flows from the future into the non-existence past; they can predict at a certain moment (present) that milk and coffee will mix (future) by basing on their previous experience that X and Y does mix recently (present of future things), at the instant they pour the milk into coffee they will see that it mixes (present of present things), and in the end they knew that milk and coffee did mix (past) and next time, will remember at an instant like they remembered that X and Y did mix before (present of past things). Therefore, I believe “time exists … in the sense that it tends toward non-existence”.
Second, a critic can argue that time exists not at the present instant with no duration but instead that it does have measurable duration, can provide examples of how a person can tell how long it takes for an object to move from point A to B, who can run faster or how a watch can tell the duration, and can argue how all the measurements can be done not through the mind but experimentally, externally from the mind. The critic needs to keep in mind that these are two different “times” she is referring to. Augustine is referring to time from larger creation view point in the sense that in eternity, there is only present, but in this world there seems to be past, present and future, which conveys that the bodies are created with time and moving in time. However the critic is referring to the different notion of time or fractional instant of the creation timeline. Nonetheless, if we are to accept that past and future have no existence or that time doesn’t have real existence in them, at any instant present, there will be no duration; for instance when trying to measure how fast a person is running at the present, she will see that it is immeasurable. And if we are to judge who runs faster, in order for us to remember the “time” taken for both runners, we may have to simultaneously recall form memory of their times and in this case, present is working with the past through memory, using the distention of the soul, the mind. In these cases, either the critic’s counter arguments are irrelevant to Augustine’s main concept of time or the arguments which are meant to contradict his concepts are instead being supportive. Read the rest of this entry »





















































































































