Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

Unless the cause originates from something timeless - ie a timeless eternal God?

Thats my thinking. Anyway...

 

[Enteebee]

Unless the cause originates from something timeless - ie a timeless eternal God?

Something which is timeless can only be in one state, if god exists outside of all time then he could only do one thing (perhaps this thing is create the universe, but he would be unable to decide to do so, it would essentially be a deistic god) if it is not in one state then there is some new 'time' in existence.

Thanks...can you also tell me how it is we can be sure that time began when it did and that time ever = 0? What evidence is available to us?

The second law of thermal dynamics amongst other things. Though of course there are hypothesis which consider 'time before our time', multi-verses etc...

 

[BradCube]

Causality requires time, do you understand this? What is this "first principle of causality" anyway?

I do in one sense, but in another, no not at all. I can understand that to say "before" an event without time seems illogical, but how does this mean that a cause cannot be timeless?

 

[*TRUE*]

Something which is timeless can only be in one state, if god exists outside of all time then he could only do one thing (perhaps this thing is create the universe, but he would be unable to decide to do so, it would essentially be a deistic god) if it is not in one state then there is some new 'time' in existence.

Can i be really blunt and sound blonde for a minute?
If that something is GOD as i imagine him , he created every force and concept there is , and is not bound by them as we and creation are.
Sorry.

 

[BradCube]

Something which is timeless can only be in one state, if god exists outside of all time then he could only do one thing (perhaps this thing is create the universe, but he would be unable to decide to do so, it would essentially be a deistic god) if it is not in one state then there is some new 'time' in existence.

You seem to be approaching this from a human time understanding though. It is not necessary for God to "decide" what he is going to do - or at least he certainly doesn't take "time" to do so. He necessarily knows what he is doing regardless of whether time passes by. It's not a problem to me for you to say that God can only be in one state, because this is what most Christians believe anyway right?

 

[Enteebee]

I do in one sense, but in another, no not at all. I can understand that to say "before" an event without time seems illogical, but how does this mean that a cause cannot be timeless?

Causation only exists inside of time.


|-----------------TIME---------------------|
Event A >--------------------> Event B

Without time it's just.

A IS.
B IS.

 

[*TRUE*]

no, particles do not come from quantum foam, nor rely on quantum foam. quantum foam is what potentially could be the result of quantum fluctuations. should also note that this relies on the theory of quantum gravity, so there is no evidence that space-time even looks like this at all.

Are you feeling better?

 

[Enteebee]

You seem to be approaching this from a human time understanding though.

What understanding would you like me to approach it from? I'm explaining it insofar as we understand time. A thing without time is in 1 state of existence, if it 'creates the universe' it was 'stuck' in the state of 'create the universe'.

It is not necessary for God to "decide" what he is going to do - or at least he certainly doesn't take "time" to do so.

Without a 'human notion of time' the idea of a decision is illogical by 'human notions of logic', but I suppose we could just throw them all away.

It's not a problem to me for you to say that God can only be in one state, because this is what most Christians believe anyway right?

Most christians belive god decided to create the universe, decided to create man, has a persona of some type... i.e. Most christians believe in a 'personal' god and an omnipotent one.

 

[BradCube]

no, particles do not come from quantum foam, nor rely on quantum foam. quantum foam is what potentially could be the result of quantum fluctuations. should also note that this relies on the theory of quantum gravity, so there is no evidence that space-time even looks like this at all.

I think I may have to do a bit more reading up on this first, before I sound like an idiot too much more. Either way though, don't these fluctuations and particles rely on energy already being present?

 

[*TRUE*]

yes, i feel great today thanks for asking diana, hows yourself?



quote]

Glad to hear it!!! I am totally better , I think i just needed to sleep

 

[BradCube]

What understanding would you like me to approach it from? I'm explaining it insofar as we understand time. A thing without time is in 1 state of existence, if it 'creates the universe' it was 'stuck' in the state of 'create the universe'.

I'm not saying to throw away your human logic. I am saying not to apply your sense of time to what it was like "before" time as such conclusions reached don't make sense.

Without a 'human notion of time' the idea of a decision is illogical by 'human notions of logic', but I suppose we could just throw them all away.

Well, I suppose this is what I am saying. The decision process doesn't make sense when outside of time because our decision process relies on time. I think we are agreeing on this point.

Most christians belive god decided to create the universe, decided to create man, has a persona of some type... i.e. Most christians believe in a 'personal' god and an omnipotent one.

Decided is the word most used, but I think "willed" could be equally substituted to convey what most Christians mean.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm not saying to throw away your human logic. I am saying not to apply your sense of time to what it was like "before" time as such conclusions reached don't make sense.

I'm not applying my sense of 'time' to what it was like at time=0, I am explaining what it's like when you have no time.

Well, I suppose this is what I am saying. The decision process doesn't make sense when outside of time because our decision process relies on time. I think we are agreeing on this point.

It isn't that it "doesnt make sense" per se, I'd say that it's that it's impossible.

Decided is the word most used, but I think "willed" could be equally substituted to convey what most Christians mean.

Free will? You can't have free will outside of time.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Causation only exists inside of time.


|-----------------TIME---------------------|
Event A >--------------------> Event B

Without time it's just.

A IS.
B IS.

God in the Bible is always saying "I am"

 

[BradCube]

no, at small scales conservation of energy can be violated but only for a small period of time. no energy needs to be present. although im not exactly sure what you mean by that.

I suppose I simply mean to ask, doesn't a fluctuation require some energy or anything in order to have reason for it to fluctuate? Probably reveling a lack of knowledge here.

 

[Enteebee]

God in the Bible is always saying "I am"

a deistic god that cannot determine his own fate, has no personality and makes no decisions can exist outside of time. So sure, it could just "be"... but it would "be" something much less than what any theist would want

u know this anyway though.

 

[BradCube]

Free will? You can't have free will outside of time.

I think I am agreeing with you on both points before this one and probably on this one also. Just did some light reading that made a fair amount of sense in my mind on this topic. From this is seems that the concept of God can still fit within a timeless to time present stage. I propose that Gods first action (creation of the universe) coincides with the creation of time. They occur simultaneously because it is necessarily so.

I doubt God really has free will anyway, at least in the sense you are proposing. He is limited by his character after all. It's not as though he can decide to become non-omnipotent for example. I suppose it depends on the definition of free will we are using, but I don't see this as a problem currently.

 

[Enteebee]

I think I am agreeing with you on both points before this one and probably on this one also. Just did some light reading that made a fair amount of sense in my mind on this topic. From this is seems that the concept of God can still fit within a timeless to time present stage. I propose that Gods first action (creation of the universe) coincides with the creation of time. They occur simultaneously because it is necessarily so.

I doubt God really has free will anyway, at least in the sense you are proposing. He is limited by his character after all. It's not as though he can decide to become non-omnipotent for example. I suppose it depends on the definition of free will we are using, but I don't see this as a problem currently.

I think you should find another way to get around my problem... because tbh, you've now really pushed god out of all the gaps. What does god exist to do? We have the universe existing, we have time beginning, we have all the matter/stars/planets etc forming, we have life, we have evolution, we have us.

 

[BradCube]

but he is god, he can do what he wants!

Heh heh, it seems we are going in circles. He uses the very power that enables him to perform an action, that would mean he is not able to do so. I propose a logical contradiction!

 

[BradCube]

I think you should find another way to get around my problem... because tbh, you've now really pushed god out of all the gaps. What does god exist to do? We have the universe existing, we have time beginning, we have all the matter/stars/planets etc forming, we have life, we have evolution, we have us.

How so? I think it shows that the universe can still have a cause, even if the cause was timeless. It also is a good way to propose how a timeless God can interact with a world embedded in time.

I must say, I'm still unconvinced that I should have no trouble accepting that the universe needs no cause because there was no time. This will require some extra thought and research on my part. Could just be a thing that takes me a while to get my head around. With that, I'm off again for the night!

Thanks for thoughtful discussion - very much appreciated

 

[KFunk]

Wait..Kfunk cannot be an atheist...Im sure he must be an agnostic (who leans toward atheism)

Correct.

The technical distinction I like to draw (and I apologise for the following paragraphs, they will be a touch pedantic) is that the law of the excluded middle doesn't have to hold in the realm of belief. The law claims that for any given proposition 'P' either P is true or not-P is true, e.g. either the cat is on the mat, OR the cat is not on the mat.

Note, though, that this kind of law does not extend to belief. This is because it is possible not to believe that P whilst also not believing that 'not-P'. This is reasonable wherever there is not enough evidence to conclude either way. For example, I don't believe that I have an odd number of eyelashes, nor do I believe that I do not have an odd number of eyelashes.

Why is this relevant? Because as an agnostic (and, on some days, an atheist) I lack the belief that 'god exists' (which is different from simply believing 'god does not exist'). I suspect that many differences in action between the theist and atheist can be explained through the presence and absence, respectively, of a belief in the proposition 'god exists'. But then this same distinction applies for the theist versus the agnostic, and so in practice the agnostic and the atheist come out as very similar.

I haven't thought out this line of argument in full, but I suspect it forms part of the reason why I can make claims like 'in practice it is as though I were an atheist'.

An agnostic is someone who believes it cannot be proven either way, it is an epistemological position... but you can still have beliefs based on probabilities from the best current data, obviously your beliefs are not 'proven' absolutely, but most people don't need that sort of validation.

I agree with your claim about probability-based beliefs, but I disagree with your definition of an agnostic. They need not hold a position as strong as 'it cannot be proven either way'. They only have to claim that thus far it has not been proven in either direction.