A universe with no beginning or end

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom
They don't explain the universe, they describe it.
The description is such that there is no such thing
as motionlessness.

Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?
To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.

Please explain your reasoning here, I entirely missed it's relavence/practicality.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by drag
Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?

You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?

To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...

Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.[/color]

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

One? We might be happy if it was only one. The reality is that it is leaving and spreading around viruses in different flavours, that spread and copy themselves around, making people think they can act in the name of God. Sometimes in the forms of people flying with airplanes into buildings, others commanding airplanes to drop bombs on innocent people, etc. etc. The world is still full of it!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?



Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.[/color]

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

If you think that Lifegazer is a fanatic, then your experience with fanaticism is very limited. Lifegazer is just dedicated to his idea (even if he/she did "take a break from it", earlier ).

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science,

Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?

So "percieved-universe" is entirely separate from "reality"?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
So "percieved-universe" is entirely separate from "reality"?

The point is that you don't know what sort of reality you are perceiving. And just because our perceptions are ordered so that we can understand them, does not confirm the external nature of that reality - not in the slightest.
I thought that would be obvious considering that most of my arguments are founded upon the same existing-order of those perceptions. However, please note that my conclusion (about the mind) is built upon knowledge of this order also. And it is not just assumed, as is the case with any materialist you might encounter.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.

Perceptions are part of the reality, the mind is part of the reality, the source of perception is part of the reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I did assume that in the second point, but not in the first one.

I have to disagree since you assumed that a static-unchanging existence would be without power to effect self-change.
By the way, don't you see the big-bang as an origin?

Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z⁺, d⁽ⁿ⁾P/dt⁽ⁿ⁾=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...

I do not just assume an origin for time. I argue that an origin is definite...
I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.
However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging. In other words, the statement "existence is eternal" does not imply that existence has always been fragmented and changing. It may once have been (and in some sense, might still be) singular... indivisible... unchanging.
Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite. I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant. You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.
This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.

"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.
Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."

You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not.

"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.

This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.

Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom
When someone wants to sieze upon the small
uncertainty, then we have to look at what
they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural
workings of the universe be replaced with an
omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that
once existed in a changeless state, and has
left no evidence of its existence except one
fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

I was kin'na talking about the timeless Universe
part, but this is funny. (No offense LG ! )

Nevertheless, although it is correct to deny
the "apparent" evidence LG often presents without
a real basis, I think that you should always
remember that "small uncertainty" you yourself
mentioned. That "small uncertainty" is very useful
(I'm starting to sound like Wu Li ) because
it commands respect towards any idea.

Besides, you have no way of quantifying it -
so maybe it's really very large...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
but this is funny. (No offense LG ! )

None taken. I do need to work on getting a life beyond these
issues.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

LG,
How can existence be singular ?
The fact that we think/feel ANYTHING seems
indication enough that the Universe must be
a system of two or more components, in
addition to the inescapable conclusion
of existence itself of course. I would
even venture as far as to say that it
is an absolute fact that the Universe
is NOT singular.

Live long and prosper.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have to disagree since you assumed that a static-unchanging existence would be without power to effect self-change.

That's right, I assumed that lifeless matter does not make decisions. I assumed it because it is better than the opposite, namely that subatomic particles think for themselves.

By the way, don't you see the big-bang as an origin?

Sure, but certainly not a static origin.

I do not just assume an origin for time. I argue that an origin is definite...

You didn't even argue it: you just assumed it.

I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.

Yes, I think that existence is eternal.

However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging.

The conclusion is reasoned. The time evolution of the state of a system is logically impossible from a static state, without some external impetus. But what is external to the universe? Nothing.

Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite.
I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

I suppose that will be your next thread then?

It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant.

Since my statement is the negation your statement, it is hardly irrelevant.

You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.

Not at all. The time evolution of a system is described by a differential equation. It most certainly is not possible for a system to evolve in time if all its time derivatives vanish, and there is no source term.

This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.

Why is all change "self-imposed"?

"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.

Why? It is the most sensible option, given the fact that:

1. The universe is in a state of change.
2. If the universe had ever been static, then it would still be static today.
3. Therefore, the universe was never static.

The only assumption involved here is that no supernatural influence intervened to act on a static system to make it dynamic.

Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

Why would that be?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
LG,
How can existence be singular ?
The fact that we think/feel ANYTHING seems
indication enough that the Universe must be
a system of two or more components, in
addition to the inescapable conclusion
of existence itself of course.

We are always having thoughts and feelings about things which don't exist. Dreams & fantasies, for example. In this case, our perceptions are of a singular origin (ourselves).
You seem to be forgetting that thought/feeling are attributes of a singular being.

I would
even venture as far as to say that it
is an absolute fact that the Universe
is NOT singular.

You need to think about this more.
Existence is homogenous and harmonic, sharing singular-laws of existence. The evidence we have actually points to a singular source of change.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You need to think about this more.
Existence is homogenous and harmonic, sharing singular-laws of existence. The evidence we have actually points to a singular source of change.

But, something truly singular can not change.
Something truly singular has no traits, no
distinctions, no different points of any kind,
something truly singular can not possibly
account fot existence - whatever it really is.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
That's right, I assumed that lifeless matter does not make decisions. I assumed it because it is better than the opposite, namely that subatomic particles think for themselves.

Subatomic-particles exist in time. They are part of the processes we are discussing. I am not suggesting that particles can think.

Sure, but certainly not a static origin.

Then you must believe that existence has eternally-changed, without an initial-cause; and that time is eternal.

The conclusion is reasoned. The time evolution of the state of a system is logically impossible from a static state, without some external impetus. But what is external to the universe? Nothing.

I do not argue for a cause outside/external to existence. I argue for a cause within existence itself. Existence is 'the whole', and any changes which occur must emanate from inside existence.
Thus, the time-evolution of the state of a system is not logically-impossible from a static-state, since the system can be affected by an internal impetus. Namely will.

I suppose that will be your next thread then?

I could do. I think it's worthy of a discussion. Maybe I'll make my point here, later.

Not at all. The time evolution of a system is described by a differential equation. It most certainly is not possible for a system to evolve in time if all its time derivatives vanish, and there is no source term.

Equations mirror time. They do not tell you whether time was created or not.

Why is all change "self-imposed"?

If 'existence' is taken as a whole, then what else can be responsible for the changes within it, other than itself?

Why? It is the most sensible option, given the fact that:

1. The universe is in a state of change.
2. If the universe had ever been static, then it would still be static today.
3. Therefore, the universe was never static.

'2' is assumed.

The only assumption involved here is that no supernatural influence intervened to act on a static system to make it dynamic.

What's a supernatural influence? One not understood by physics?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
But, something truly singular can not change.
Something truly singular has no traits, no
distinctions, no different points of any kind,

Your first sentence is an assumption. Your second sentence only applies in a physical sense. Clearly, for example, a singular being can have as many personality traits as we do, and remain singular.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.
However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging. In other words, the statement "existence is eternal" does not imply that existence has always been fragmented and changing. It may once have been (and in some sense, might still be) singular... indivisible... unchanging.

Here we go again. "singular existence" which is in a state of "no change", is inexistence, because there isn't change or motion, and existence implies motion and change. "Singular existence" is a rubbish concept, in fact I do not even understand what you mean with that. Just a play with words?
Can you clearify this? Can there be existence in a plural form? Can "everything" (the whole of existence) be plural?

Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite. I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

And here we go again, using Kant's argument, without mentioning that Kant also proved the alternative, that there can be no begin to time, can be proven...

It is because of the infinity of time is a contradiction that material existence evolves as an everlasting process, without begin or end!

It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant. You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.
This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.

"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.

What a play with words here. "Existence in a singular form". Is there a plural form of existence? And I do not mean the trivial concept of there being two things, because even if there are two things in existence, or infinitely many things, or whatever, there is always only one existence.

Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

Actually, by reason, there isn't a God. There is only material existence in everlasting process of change, evolving, becoming.
Because there isn't any being outside of time and space.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Subatomic-particles exist in time. They are part of the processes we are discussing. I am not suggesting that particles can think.

Well, you are suggesting that some thinking thing started it all into motion.

Then you must believe that existence has eternally-changed, without an initial-cause; and that time is eternal.

Yes.

I do not argue for a cause outside/external to existence. I argue for a cause within existence itself. Existence is 'the whole', and any changes which occur must emanate from inside existence.Thus, the time-evolution of the state of a system is not logically-impossible from a static-state, since the system can be affected by an internal impetus. Namely will.

And again, you have to assume a supernatural being with a will to accomplish this.

Equations mirror time. They do not tell you whether time was created or not.

The equation can and does tell me whether or not something should be moving, if the initial conditions are specified.

If 'existence' is taken as a whole, then what else can be responsible for the changes within it, other than itself?

How about the fact that it was always changing?

'2' is assumed.

No, '2' is observed. One would have to assume the existence of the will of a god to negate it.

What's a supernatural influence? One not understood by physics?

To be sure, there is plenty that is not understood by physics. But that is not what I mean. Supernatural means non-material, and thus not capable of interacting with the material world.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Here we go again. "singular existence" which is in a state of "no change", is inexistence, because there isn't change or motion, and existence implies motion and change.

Actually, 'nothing' equates to inexistence. If 'something' is shown to be eternally-existent, then even if it is in a static-state we still have a form of static-existence. What we don't have, is 'nothing'.

"Singular existence" is a rubbish concept, in fact I do not even understand what you mean with that. Just a play with words?
Can you clearify this?

A being. One being.

Can there be existence in a plural form?

Ultimately, no.

Can "everything" (the whole of existence) be plural?

Not as a whole, no. A whole is singular.

And here we go again, using Kant's argument, without mentioning that Kant also proved the alternative, that there can be no begin to time, can be proven...

Then I disagree with Kant, ultimately.

It is because of the infinity of time is a contradiction that material existence evolves as an everlasting process, without begin or end!

That's like saying "it is because infinite-space is a contradiction (because absolute-infinity = one/singularity), that material-existence can happen.".
Clearly, your reasoning is of the 8-pints-of-beer variety, here.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's like saying "it is because infinite-space is a contradiction (because absolute-infinity = one/singularity), that material-existence can happen.".

No, it is not. Not at all, in fact.

The conclusion comes not from the contradiction, but from the fact that the change we observe today could not have come from a static state. It says that, since both infinite time and finite time are equally absurd (and thus equally plausible), we should reject the one that contradicts the current state of the universe.

Clearly, your reasoning is of the 8-pints-of-beer variety, here.

You are the last person who should be saying that.

This is an argument that plenty of sober, rational people take seriously.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, you are suggesting that some thinking thing started it all into motion.

You say that as though it was an absurd notion. What do you think we are?

And again, you have to assume a supernatural being with a will to accomplish this.

I'm not assuming anything. What I'm saying to you is that the concept of will is alive and kicking in this universe. Therefore, it is incorrect to imply that is not an inherent-attribute of existence itself. Your argument discards this attribute of the universe which is already evident within it.

The equation can and does tell me whether or not something should be moving, if the initial conditions are specified.

Equations apply to effects of time. They do not ponder time's own cause. Physical-equations cannot be used as evidence that time has no origin. I'm surprised you don't see that.

No, '2' is observed.

The observation of existence in motion is not a proof that it was never static.

One would have to assume the existence of the will of a god to negate it.

Or one could try and show that such a will is evidently real.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
The conclusion comes not from the contradiction, but from the fact that the change we observe today could not have come from a static state.

And I have shown you that this end-conclusion is an assumption which discards an attribute of existence (will), in order to make that conclusion.
Furthermore, if all changes within existence are shown to be self-changes (as they must be), then reason is justified in stating that change itself is dependent upon the whole self, ultimately. Thus, we cannot avoid the conclusion that change emanates from existence itself. Or: Existence itself is the cause of its own changing-state.
Given this, it is impossible to by-pass the will of existence, ultimately, as the cause of all change.

It says that, since both infinite time and finite time are equally absurd (and thus equally plausible)

You think that finite time is absurd because you cannot see a cause for it. But conceptually, will does fit the bill. And will does exist within existence.

You are the last person who should be saying that.

This is an argument that plenty of sober, rational people take seriously.

Agreed. Just having a bit of banter.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You say that as though it was an absurd notion. What do you think we are?

We are thinking beings that came around a long time after the start of the universe, and thus could not have set it into motion. In fact, if it were not for the dynamics of particles of which we are made, we would not be here talking about this anyway.

I'm not assuming anything. What I'm saying to you is that the concept of will is alive and kicking in this universe.

Of course you are assuming something. You are assuming that some being willed the universe into motion, or maybe that it willed itself into motion, or whatever. There is no reason to think that.

Therefore, it is incorrect to imply that is not an inherent-attribute of existence itself. Your argument discards this attribute of the universe which is already evident within it.

It is evident as an emergent quality that has arrived on the scene much too late to have set the whole thing in motion.

Equations apply to effects of time. They do not ponder time's own cause. Physical-equations cannot be used as evidence that time has no origin. I'm surprised you don't see that.

Change occurring within time are exactly what I am talking about.

Once again, the argument is:

1. If a system is static, then it cannot become dynamic without external impetus.
2. The universe is a system.
3. There is nothing external to the universe to act as an impetus.
4. Therefore, the universe is either eternally static or eternally dynamic.
5. The universe is dynamic at this time.
6. Therefore, the universe must have always been dynamic.

The observation of existence in motion is not a proof that it was never static.

It is either proof that it was never static, or we have to assume some supernatural cause. The former is a strong inductive argument, the latter is pure speculation.

Or one could try and show that such a will is evidently real.

Good luck.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite.

I do not think you can do this and still cling to the idea of an omnipotent god in whose mind all things subsist. It is his omnipotence that will hang you in the end.

Let's assume your god exists...

God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything. Imagining an infinite number events occurring in an infinite amount of time is something. Since all events occur in god's mind (or imagination, if you will), then it is possible that an infinite number of events, ocurring in an infinite amount of time, have led up to now. On the other side of the coin, imagining a universe with a definite beginning is also something, so by the same logic god could also mave imagined that.

They are both equally plausible, and thus equally absurd!

As heusdens said, an attempt to get out of the contradiction he presented gets us into worse contradictions. Does this one do that? You bet it does.

Now, we not only have to accept the contradiction of existence, we also have to accept the additional contradiction of omnipotence. For example: "Can god create a jalapeno so spicy he cannot eat it?" Either way you answer, god cannot be omnipotent. Furthermore, we have to accept:

1. A being that has not left any evidence of its existence.
2. A mind that exists without a brain.

as well as a whole host of other issues that could be brought up if you really think about it.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
We are thinking beings that came around a long time after the start of the universe, and thus could not have set it into motion. In fact, if it were not for the dynamics of particles of which we are made, we would not be here talking about this anyway.

A 'property' cannot emerge within an enclosed system (existence) unless that existence already has the potential to do such a thing.
You don't get something from nothing, remember.

It is evident as an emergent quality that has arrived on the scene much too late to have set the whole thing in motion.

I never said that 'we' (conscious awareness within time) created the universe. I implied that a form of awareness (self-awareness) existed before the onset of time, which has now (via life) re-emerged within changing-existence.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I do not think you can do this and still cling to the idea of an omnipotent god in whose mind all things subsist. It is his omnipotence that will hang you in the end.

Okay, I'm listening...

Let's assume your god exists...

God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything. **Imagining an infinite number events occurring in an infinite amount of time is something.
Since all events occur in god's mind (or imagination, if you will), then it is possible that an infinite number of events, ocurring in an infinite amount of time, have led up to now.** On the other side of the coin, imagining a universe with a definite beginning is also something, so by the same logic god could also mave imagined that.

They are both equally plausible, and thus equally absurd!

God doesn't exist in time. God has an unchanging-existence, and is instantly omniscient. God resides at the eternal moment, and has all knowledge in that moment.
The error in your thinking is that you apply the logic of time to God's mind. You infer that God needs time to think about things. Yet if he is omniscient - as by definition - then God thinks/knows about everything in an instant.

As heusdens said, an attempt to get out of the contradiction he presented gets us into worse contradictions. Does this one do that? You bet it does.

We have to be careful when we apply reason to causality - especially in the case of God. I'm hoping that my above response will register as reasonable in regards to the definition of God itself. If so, then you'll see that your conclusion does not apply.

 

[(Q)]

Lifey

The error in your thinking is that you apply the logic of time to God's mind. You infer that God needs time to think about things. Yet if he is omniscient - as by definition - then God thinks/knows about everything in an instant.

It’s amazing how many times the word ‘logic’ gets bantered around but rarely used.

The claim that god is omniscient and that man has free will is an impossible combination. Omniscience means perfect knowledge of everything that is going to happen. Note that this isn’t clairvoyance but certain and perfect knowledge.

This means that from the moment of creation this god would have perfect knowledge of every event that is ever going to happen right until the end of the universe. This also means that every human event and decision will be perfectly pre-determined from the beginning of time.

If every such event is pre-determined than man cannot have free will to make any other choices other than that that has already been pre-determined. If man could make a decision that had not been pre-determined then that implies that this god would not know about it in advance in which case he could not be omniscient.

If this god is not omniscient then he cannot be omnipotent since if he is unaware of future events then he is clearly not all-powerful. So if he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent then clearly he isn’t a god.

However, if he is omnipotent and omniscient then man cannot have free will. If man has no free will then the claim that man can make a free choice to accept his savior or not is a mockery since those that do choose and those that don’t’ would have been predetermined by this god from the moment of creation. Or in other words he would have seemingly arbitrarily chosen some to go to hell and others to go to heaven. Man would have had no choice in the matter since these choices would have been made at the moment of creation before any man had ever made any choices.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
God doesn't exist in time. God has an unchanging-existence, and is instantly omniscient. God resides at the eternal moment, and has all knowledge in that moment.

1. Anything that exists, exists in time
2. God does not exist in time.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

# existenc in the above statements defined as material existence.

If God has an existence in a form of unchanging existence out of time and out of space, means that God belongs to a category of existence that is entirely part of the mind itself, and not 'something out there'.

-------------
Here is some application of some more usefull ideas on this.

premise: God does not exist in time

conclusion that must be true, based on this premise:
- God does not exist today.
- God did not exist yesterday.
- God does not exist tomorrow.
- God does not exist now.
- God does not exist now.
(some time elapsed after reading the previous one!)
- If God exist at any moment, then he exists in time, which is in flagrant contradiction with the premise that God does not exist in time.

Therefore:
- There is not anyone moment in time that God existed or will exist.

And thus:
- God has no history, no past, no present, no future.

And:
- God is not omnipotent, cause if he is omnipotent, he could exist in time.

And also:
- God does not think, because he has no time to think.
- God did not create the world, cause he had no time for that. (humour!)

However, one can still claim the following (not necessarily true, but cannot be proven false)
- God is all eternity (since 'eternity' does not exist 'in time')
- God exists in eternity (since 'eternity' is not any single moment, but all of time)
- God is time
- God exists beyond time ('before' there was time,' 'after' there was time, or 'adjacent' to time)