God and time
God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.
If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.
Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless?
If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.
Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless?
Comments (190)
God exists as an independent dimension above all others. S/he/It encompasses all other dimensions, such as space and time.
Interesting answer, can you expand?
I think God is needed to explain the state of the universe but I have difficulties fitting him into any viable model of the universe. Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension? Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?
When we think of time, we apply the synthetic principle of grasping ceaseless changing – one needs to grasp the changes in the thought, to exit their flow for some instant. Similar thinking has been exercised for understanding the essence of God.
Probably, the idea of universal God coexists with the notion of time.
It's not just when it creates, but when it thinks. If god thinks (has a mind), its thoughts change.
Quoting WallowsThere is more than one dimension, so back to polytheism?
If "god" were a dimension, then why call it "god" and not just "dimension"?
There's an idea that eternal and infinite means existing outside of the frames of space and time as opposed to existing comprehensively within the full spectrum of space and time. The latter would still imply God is limited by space and time thus making Him relative. So, if by God is meant absoluteness, then God becomes such as is untouched by the influence of space and time.
Unfortunately, science does not have a concept of anything beyond space and time.
I generally agree with this. I see nothing fruitful from thinking God is in the sky somewhere.
I'd call it pantheism if I were hard pressed.
What do you want me to expand on?
Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension?
Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?
Well the entire scope of dimensionality is the same wrt. to God. It's up-down not bottom-up.
This video and some of its comments sparked my curiousity.
Also, in most faiths, God interacts with humans and this would seem to suggest a God that is in time; consider the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth or the second coming of Christ, are all these "timeless" actions? It would be very strange to suggest so...
This too is a good video to spark some thought.
If God creates time and even if he always in the state of creating time, then God is eternally creating time.
Just like a person who is eternally creating a sand castle is eternally changing so too is God if God eternally creates time.
The traditional notion of God is absurd. I wonder why we spend so long discussing the traditional notion of God as defined in ancient religious texts. The older something is, the farther it is from the truth.
Anyhow, I think the concept of a changeless God is workable if you take the eternalist viewpoint. If we make God eternal outside of time and make time part of God then God never changes (from a 4d space time perspective God is completely static).
If God has causal power then God is part of causation and exists in time. It can't exist outside of it because it operates within it.
Well, I figure that this is how they will respond to your objection: God's thoughts are eternal and unchanging and therefore timeless; all of God's thoughts are not occurring in time in the way our thoughts occur, but instead they have always been.
However, even this response doesn't make sense if God is the creator of time. The very act of creating space and time, ex nihilo, is a change; even if God is eternally creating time and space, then God should be described not as unchanging, but as eternally changing.
However, this objection would not explain why God chooses to remain timeless as opposed to entering in time. It doesn't sound like a logical contradiction to say that a timeless being can enter into time so if God is omnipotent, then the issue remains: why is God timeless instead of temporal?
A changeless thing would be like numbers in mathematical Platonism. Numbers literally do nothing and thus are timeless in the fullest sense of the word, but God is not timeless in the way numbers are in mathematical Platonism so it is a weird description to call God changeless if God is eternally creating time and space.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-eternity/timelessness-and-omnitemporality/
Isn't there a new moment of time created at each instant as time passes?
Quoting Wallows
Quoting Devans99
Quoting BrianW
and a few others.
I am skeptical that we as human beings can say anything at all of value about the nature of "God" . I know of no reasonable basis to believe that we poses the tools or capabilities to understand such a thing as what "God" can or can't do, be or not be, think or not think. It could well be no more accurate than a puppy's explanation of relativity.
Made by God that is.
Like the events in a dream are make-believe (made by the dreamer) so everything, other than God the dreamer, is make-believe.
I think because we understand relativity, we stand in good measure to develop a concept of 'not relative' or absolute. My point is that, if by God is meant that which is 'not relative', then, we should reject the limits of space and time as well.
Archaic time is circular. Periodic regularity of the world's performance is reflected in the behaviors of human kind.
To perform a ritual (to imitate the order of the universe) is to hold the universe together as it appears in a religious way.
This is to make philosophy religious (imbue its rituals with value by maintaining them). If we don't voluntarily perform the rituals of reason according to philosophic laws or sensibilities, ie. the arduous (or fun) task of mediating reason cooperatively by studying exemplars and the means of exemplars, they will die.
Reason by its (in)numerable modes coronates the philosopher and gives life (spirit) to the endeavor. The ability to reason endows the philosopher with value in the eyes of his peers. When you show that you can perform well you are coronated, but there are never ending levels to this (like martial art belts).
What does this have to do with God?
Nothing... as Black Belting Banno said, (the notion of) God is absurd.
Repeat the Bannonian mantra...
We must distill out the absurdity and live only the in the purity of a courteous surety.
Exactly. How does an unchanging thing cause change?
Quoting Walter PoundThat last question doesn't make sense.
Quoting Walter Pound
Which number? There are an infinite amount of numbers (infinite change).
Do you have a reasoned argument that we have the ability to make such claims, or assumptions. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems an important concept that we should all understand. That if we make any proposition at all about the nature of God, we have no real basis to justify that claims.
Including gods existence itself.
A first cause maybe, but being not so much.
How could we possibly know if the first cause is a being?
Let me define necessary being - A necessary being is a being ( some identifiable entity) who's existence is not contingent on anything. And who's existence is necessary for the existence of all contingent beings.
Right, but how do you get to a being or entity?
I understand your point, I just dont understand why you use “being” or “entity” rather than “cause” or simething similar.
Yes, in asking why.
Im not asking you to discuss cause vs being. You said a case can be made for being, Im asking you to explain it. Typically a person who says they can make a case for something is willing to do it. Well, alright, carry on with whatever you were doing I guess.
I highlight that God is claimed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything logically possible, and since there does not seem to be anything illogical about changing from one state to another, then God should be able to enter into time and become temporal; thus, if God can do this, then we are still left with a question as to why God does not enter into time?
A non-religious example might be space. Everything is overwhelmingly made of space. There may be some hidden property of space which causes it to generate what we call "things" in space. Thus, it might be said that we are both created by space and made of space. We are space. Space and we are one, and the divisions we perceive between "us" and "space" are inventions of the observer, not a property of what is being observed.
Changing from one state to another is a changing entity! What is illogical is no change causing change.
Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you.
GODS: Proposals about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.
LOGIC: The poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.
You seem to insist that we accept the infinite ability of human reason as a matter of faith as you do. Sorry, this is a philosophy forum, so, you're outta luck.
Please note that this is the exact same challenge which you reasonably apply to holy books, prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. You have a good methodology, but you aren't loyal to it, applying only to the other guy's chosen authority.
PS: How many times do I have to type this?
I am not even asking for proof ( whatever that is for such a concept ) just asking if someone can make a reasonable argument that we humans have a basis for saying anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God.
There are just so many If --- Then God arguments that propose as true the "if" and then propose as false the "then" with some kind of truth assumption on our ability of know as even close to true any of it.
This includes the argument from evil, and every God paradox you have ever heard.
Good point!
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, there is such a basis. Our need to know, or failing that, pretend we know.
Whether we can say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God is obviously true, because we say such things all the time. Whether we can say anything meaningful and credible is another story.
However, by asking the questions and trying to provide answers we can learn more about ourselves and our relationship with this place we find ourselves in. If we can learn enough, and successfully address that relationship, the question of God may resolve itself without being answered.
I don't have to prove anything. It is your responsibility to prove that God exists in the first place to then go on to say that we can never understand a god. How you can prove the existence of something for which you claim we can never understand - I have no idea, but good luck.
Yes, God can. Ask Her. :up: :wink:
Ah, I see, we're supposed to believe in the qualifications of your chosen authority on faith. Like you do. Hmm, that sure sounds familiar...
Quoting Harry Hindu
I haven't claimed there is a God. Thus, I take no responsibility to prove any of that.
It's the same qualifications you have, I'm sure, or else you'd have a lot of contradictory ideas floating around in that head of yours.
All unfalsifiable claims have the same amount of evidence - none. Therefore, they should all be given the same amount of weight - none. I'm sure you don't just go believing in every claim made by some human being. What makes one claim by one human (or several), that has no evidence to support it, better or more believable than another claim that has no evidence to support it? Isn't evidence that makes one claim better than another?
Quoting Jake
So, you're arguing my point. I haven't claimed there is a God either, so why is it my responsibility to prove anything if it isn't also your responsibility? :brow:
Right. So, it is up to the claimant to define what it is their term refers too. What does the string of symbols, "god", refer to? Some religions call the universe, "god". If this is the case, then we don't have a disagreement about the nature of "god", we have a disagreement about the term we use to refer to it. Why would one use "god" when we have "universe"?
This is human logic. Please prove that human logic is qualified to address any subject of any scale anywhere in all of reality, because that is the scope of God claims.
You're making an unwarranted leap from 1) the fact that human reason has proven itself very useful for very many things at human scale, to 2) the unexamined assumption that therefore human reason is qualified to examine any question, no matter how large the scale.
Theists often do the same thing. They will make an unwarranted leap from 1) the fact that holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, to 2) the unexamined assumption that therefore holy books are qualified to examine any question, no matter how large the scale.
It's the same process in both cases. A leap from a well established fact, to wild speculation.
How you experience this observation should tell you whether you are a person of reason or an ideologist.
If you are a person of reason you will realize that you have nothing to build atheism upon, and nothing to build theism on, and you will become a man without a country, so to speak.
If you are an ideologist you will reject all this with a wave of the hand and go back to chanting positions you've already chained your ego to. In this case, you will find yourself competing with theist ideologists who mastered the ideology dance thousands of years before you were born.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't you been spewing sarcastic scorn upon anything theist in every other post you've added to the forum? It seems you're making a huge claim. It seems you can't prove any of it.
Sorry, no personal disrespect intended, but you know, reason, like faith, can be very inconvenient.
The Atheist claims - If God is the 3 O's - then God should not permit evil - therefor there is no God
My point is that neither the Atheist making the argument, or the theist attacking the argument - have any basis at all to make any proposition at all about the nature of God - All such propositions from both the theist and the atheist have no basis in reason - and are all propositions based on faith.
And the point of this mutual faith based operation is to try to make reality smaller, within our grasp. Very understandable and very human, but...
Reality would actually be far more interesting, wonderous, spectacular, and inspiring if it is way to large, complex and sublime etc for us ever to be able to grasp.
Consider an example, if you will. Think of all the times you've heard the story about the couple who fell in love, were so excited to be married, but then got to know each other so well that it became boring, so they gave up and quit. Many couples struggle to keep the mystery going because it is the mystery, the unknown, the ignorance, which keeps the project alive. Once everything is known, once there is nothing new to learn, once you've seen it all before, been there and done all that, the dance can be over.
Maybe it's wiser to skip all the fantasy knowings and just let reality be vast and mysterious beyond comprehension? Maybe trying to make reality smaller is a mistake driven by fear?
Common definitions of "being" include simply "the quality or state of having existence" or "something that actually exists."
This is ridiculous. Jake's posts are even more ridiculous.
"The Atheist claims - If God is the 3 O's - then God should not permit evil - therefor there is no God"
isn't a statement of faith. It is a statement of logic.
Atheists don't make claims about God. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists!
Someone makes a claim. Other people ask questions about the claim because the claim isn't coherent on it's face. When the person making the claim can't answer the questions, or can't be consistent, then why would faith be the reason the other is rejecting the claim?
What you and Jake are saying is that everything - all knowledge - is faith-based. If that is the case, then there is no such thing as reason or logic, as those would just be forms of faith. If faith is all there is, then why are you on this forum trying to be reasonable? Just make your claims and leave, or don't make any claims at all. Everyone will believe their own subjective things based on faith and you won't be able to reason with anyone.
Saying if god is x then god y. Is making a claim about the nature of god. Logical or not, it is a claim about the nature of god
My very simple question is what is your rationale argument that you or me or anyone for supporting that we can say anything at all about what god is or is not
And I already said that atheists don't make those types of claims or else they wouldn't be atheists.
Quoting Rank AmateurOnly theists make claims about the nature of god, so that would be a question you ask them, not an atheist.
I only attempted to say anything about god when I was a theist. Then, I started to question my beliefs, not make more claims. At that point, you could call me agnostic. I was no longer a theist making claims about the nature of god. I was questioning those claims.
Now, I'm an atheist because other theists couldn't answer my questions consistently. When the claims of theists are more consistent, that would give me good reason to take their claims seriously.
Your problem is that you think that atheists make claims about the nature of god. That is a contradiction.
The argument from evil is an atheist argument that is based on the nature of god.
The argument that started this thread is an atheist argument that is based on saying something about the nature of god
My point is, that neither theist or atheist have any basis to say anything at all about the nature of god and any argument either makes that uses the nature of god as a proposition is outside reason and is faith based
No, it is based on the theists' claims about the nature of god. What they are saying is that IF the theist claim is true, then...
Quoting Rank Amateur
No, it was based on some theist's claims about the nature of god. What they are saying is that IF the theist claim is true, then...
Quoting Rank Amateur
My point is that only theists make claims about the nature of god.
Theists make positive ones, atheists make negative ones
By the way I know of no reasonable theist argument that ends with a conclusion therefore there is a 3 O God. All such theist claims such as this are based on faith
Let me make one try putting this in form
P1. There is such a thing as the argument from evil
P2. This argument end with the conclusion “there is no god
P3. This argument is made by the atheist
P4. This argument contains propositions about the nature of god. Notable for sake of argument that god is the 3 O’s. Also that if so god is allowing evil
P5. The entire logic of the atheist argument from evil is based on a contradiction in the nature of god
Conclusion: Atheists base arguments on the nature of god
Harry - if you want to hold the conventional atheist claim that they make no claim. The only argument you are allowed to make against any theist is:
I don’t believe in God. That is it. And the second you refuse to justify that position with reason. It is no longer a reasoned belief. It is now a faith based belief.
I didnt get a notification for this, for some reason.
Im aware of that usuage, but it seems pretty clear that Rank was using it differently. “A necessary being” was how he put it. That is different that even just “necessary being”, which would be more in line with the usuage you pointed out but still (imo) a pretty strong implication that he was talking about a being with some kind of personage.
Yeah, I agree that it's almost always used with a religious connotation, but it wouldn't have to be. Simply arguing for a necessary being shouldn't be sufficient for that. Folks should have to do extra work to support that the necessary being would be anything like a god and not just a physical field or whatever.
I'm going to stop you right there.
The argument from evil is dependent upon a theist's claim that a god is good - about the nature of god. No claim about the nature of god - no argument from evil is necessary.
Quoting Rank Amateur
For the last time, atheists base arguments on the claims of theists.
Indeed, that is why I tried making the distinction between first cause and a “being”.
People often try to masquerade the first cuase as a theistic argument when it actually is no more than a deistic argument.
Ok, when you say “necassary being”, are you talking about an entity, or a first cause? Do you mean “being” as in existing, or “being” as in “a being”?
No. You made a formal argument based on faulty prepositions. I already told you this. I questioned your first premise.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You are just too dense to get it.
Lol, im trying to understand what YOU are saying.
I may not understand what you are intending by the word “being”, so I wanted to know in what sense you are intending the term. Do you understand what I mean by the two senses of the word “being”? “Being” as in ”a state of existing” or “being” as in “an entity”?
Please, using reason and not opinion what proposition is false, and why
I'm abit lazy, So I didn't read the rest of the comments, hence on the risk of repeating something already said:
Where does it say that god is the creator of time?
If I read genisis 1 it states:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
In the beginning of what?
Time? matter? existence?
I think it's most sensible to interpret it as "in the beginning of consciousness, God created the heaven and earth"
In wich heaven and earth are not nessesarily references to spacial locations, but rather to states of being. where earth references to the current state of being and heaven to the ideal state of being.
Hence to conclude that it must mean that god created the physical world seems rather silly to me, since I don't think that was the main concern of the people who wrote those lines.
Since god is also referred to as the light, I have no problem with god being timeless, since literal photons are timeless too according to einsteins theory of relativity. Since that tells us that the faster something moves, the slower time passes for that moving object, untill one reaches the ultimate speed, the speed of light, where time is so much slowed down that it stands still.
In what sense do you mean the beginning of consciousness? Do you mean once consciousness arose evolutionarily? Or something else?
The beginning of human consciousness. One possible interpretation is as you say, evolutionary, but it can also be seen as developmental (as in how an individual becomes concscious somewhere between the point of fertillisation and their 5th year of life). Both ways seem to make sense, so perhaps both were intended.
So you'd say that either there's no creation of heaven and earth until humans, as a species, develop consciousness, or that there somehow keeps being no heaven and earth for each individual until they're about five years old?
But a claim is made about the nature of God; that he is all powerful enough to prevent all evil. If God is good but not omnipotent, a universe that contains some evil is maybe the best we can expect (if God is not perfect)?
So taking a realistic view of God as a a non-perfect being then the problem of evil goes away. The amount of evil decreases with time as civilisation improves so things should work out OK in the end.
Just as time is relative, so is perception. So why not both, from the perspective of the totality of humanity the first goes and from the perspective of the individual the latter goes. Not saying this is the case, just that that seems the most sensible interpretation I've thought of so far.
If I am understanding your question correctly, the argument you are having trouble with takes this form:
1. God is changeless.
2. God is timeless.
3. If God creates the world the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change.
4. Therefore, God is not changeless.
You are right to be questioning this argument as it obviously yields a strong contradiction. When we were looking at arguments for the existence of God in one of my philosophy courses, I also had a hard time understanding how God could remain changeless if he existed outside of time, then created both time and the physical world, and then began existing within time. This seems absolutely bonkers to think about, but the way it was explained to me clarified it all very much and I hope it can do the same for you.
The objectionable premise in the argument you presented is premise 1 that says that God is changeless. This is the most fundamental premise for the argument and directly contradicts the conclusion yielded from the argument we are working with. This is because this premise is false. There is the common understanding among Christians that God is unchanging but there is biblical evidence that refutes this idea. Take for example the many instances in the Bible in which God changes his mind about a certain issue or task at hand. Think about the disparities between the New and Old Testament that are both supposed to the word of God. These many contradictions should be enough to illustrate that God does have the capacity to change.
This makes it totally plausible that God experienced a change when he created time and physical space. He existed unchanged, suspended in the infinity that existed before time, and the first change that occurred in the world as we know it was a change within him when he decided to create the physical world in time. It is incorrect to believe that God does not have the capacity for change, especially because he is all powerful and change is form of power.
Who says that God is timeless? The bible says that God knows time (a thousand years is like a day to Him).
Yes, time is present wherever there is change, and since God knows change, then He knows time - the only real assumption we should make, is that God, being beyond reproach, can not die. Therefore He is endless.
In order to critique this argument, I'll begin by restating it. Essentially, your assertion is that:
1. If God created the physical world along with time, then he experienced a change (from existing alone to existing with time).
2. If God experienced a change, it calls into question his ability to be timeless and changeless.
3. God created the physical world and time.
4. Therefore, we must question his ability to be timeless and changeless.
If we're using this argument with regard to most monotheistic, God-worshipping religions, such as Christianity, God is usually regarded as an eternal deity; God exists within eternity and isn't generally regarded as experiencing, say, aging. One thing that came to my mind when reading this argument was the creation story from the Bible, in which God seemingly experiences time in a linear fashion; first one day, then the next, and so on.
However, if God exists within eternity, it is possible that he could then create "time," as we know it, while continuing to exist within the separate, unchanging eternity. Traditionally, the belief is held that eternity has always existed, and God has always existed within it. Therefore, God could have created "time" without being altered by its creation. I recognize that these are broad statements, but I wanted to introduce this idea before I explain it below.
I believe that one issue with your argument is P1's implication that God would be changed by the mere introduction of time. If, as you're stating in this argument, God created time, it does not necessarily follow that he would be changed by it, or that he would "exist with time" at all. I'll elaborate on this point by addressing P2, which further proposes that God could be changed by time.
An issue with P2, which is an extension of my comments regarding P1, is that God is traditionally not regarded as existing within time. He is viewed as being timeless in that he is outside time altogether, completely separate from it. If this is the case, it seems reasonable to infer that he could create time without being affected by it. I saw this concept referred to in other replies to your post: people used phrases such as “a different dimension,” and “a different plane,” when describing the idea of God’s separation from time. In this view, God could avoid the "change" that you reference because he does not have experiences in an order that our idea of time could explain, and we wouldn't be able to determine a point at which his experience shifted and he changed. This concept of God as existing outside of time can be a difficult one to understand, and I freely admit that there is a bias present, because it hinges on beliefs that many religions hold about the eternal nature of God’s existence. Nonetheless, it has the potential to pose a problem to this argument.
There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way.
However, if one were to use some sense of reasonableness, I could stand corrected but I believe the popular Holographic Principle in physics today, posits storage of information (unchanging) at the horizon of black holes all at the speed of light (eternal/timelessness). Even Stephen Hawking admitted his mistake... .
When something is logically impossible, it means it is something that cannot exist. Something cannot be both true and false. Consciousness is not an impossible attribute. It is clear consciousness exists. We could have contradictory ideas of how consciousness exists, and these can be thrown out. But consciousness itself must operate on some logical means, because consciousness is not both true and false at the same time, its very much true.
Not true. I use the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming, crashing and killing yourself. Was it true you were driving yet not driving? (Was it your consciousness driving or your subconsciousness driving at the same time daydreaming that caused your death?) In either case, that's logically impossible to do (explain).
The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM.
If you run into a contradiction when constructing words, then you should examine your words more closely.
Driving the car could mean many different things depending on context. Let us define it your way however, that a person needs to be actively paying attention. If that is the case, when you are daydreaming you ceased driving the car. You may have been holding the wheel, but you were not paying attention. Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming.
But lets say driving the car means being behind the wheel in a conscious or subconscious state. In that case, daydreaming meant you were driving the car in a subconscious state.
If there is one thing that is incontrovertible, is that you cannot have something both true and false.
The philosophy/psychology/phenomenology of the dialectics of love, paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, you know, stuff you have no interest in... .
But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, I wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM.
I know what you mean. I experienced the same frustration in the Kant thread.
It's 'for' a priori formal logic. And what is your consciousness 'for'?
LOL
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
If you noticed, I gave you two definitions and noted that what "driving" is depends on context. You are saying, "I 'was' driving the car". What is your particular definition of driving? Is it that you are conscious? Your full attention at the wheel? Can you drive while daydreaming? If you break down what it means to drive, I'm sure you'll find its impossible to both drive and not drive at the same time.
Are you saying that it is impossible for a person to do two things at the same time? I know I can. I can both drive and day dream at the same time. Of course, this is not a safe thing to do - but that is a separate issue.
Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled.
Alright, what is your definition of controlled? Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling?
But how is driving and not driving possible?
Quoting 3017amen
That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry.
Nah, you stopped paying attention.
Really? I'd call it illogical.
Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!?
Nice!
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting 3017amen
Suicide, then. Unfortunate either way, but not the alleged contradiction.
Are you sure? How could I willfully commit suicide while I was driving and daydreaming?
?
Okay!?
A dipolar God is most certainly logically possible. Have you read the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies?
= suicidal tendencies, yes?
Mmmm interesting. Would those tendencies come from your conscious, subconscious or Freudian unconscious mind?
Quoting 3017amen
You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox?
Or would you rather parse the nature of [your] causational suicide?
You mean like the questions you evaded in the Kant thread? Sounds like another angry atheist pivoting LOL
Go back on the particular thread and do your homework. Otherwise don't troll this one.
Nope, this:
Quoting 3017amen
You keep bringing your car thing up.
Oh gotcha. Okay.
1. He was driving and not driving.
True or false?
But George is not God.
By George, I think you're onto something!
He seems to be quite mysterious :smile:
Quoting jorndoe
The "atemporal god"?
1. He was driving and not driving.
True or false or contradiction?
Last time: show your alleged contradiction or move on.
I took this to mean you understood why the driving/not driving idea was not contradictory logic, and did not press the issue. Acknowledgment of such things is unimportant as long as you understand in your own mind. But I see you've continued to insist on this paradox in the thread, and now I'm not sure if you were simply dismissing the point. I have great respect for your viewpoints, and enjoyed our conversation in my last thread immensely.
Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part.
If you define controlling as something that can also be subconscious, then yes, the person drives to their death while daydreaming. We could say that their subconscious control was not enough to handle the vehicle when it came into a situation it needed conscious control.
If you understand, there is no need to reply. This conversation seems to have become a little heated, and in such cases, an acknowledgement does no one any favors. If you disagree however, feel free to reply with a counter point.
Philosophim!
Thank you kindly as I indeed have mutual respect. There are a lot of angry atheists on this site so I take it with a grain of salt and just have fun with them.
But I think you're missing the point. I perceived being on the Beach surfing or in some other place and not driving, while at the same time driving. All I knew is that I was at the beach in the beautiful sunlight enjoying myself. Yet simultaneously driving a vehicle. There are multiple truth values associated with my perception from my consciousness.
Although your argument his very intriguing and deserves another thread... , since consciousness itself has yet to be fully explained.
But, as with most logico deductive arguments/propositions (a priori formal logic/logical impossibilities), it's all about words, language, semantics, etc., hence:
He was driving and not driving or, He was kind of driving.
It's either true or false. It can't be both true and false at the same time, otherwise, it's considered logically impossible.
If God is to have relevance to the world, it must be in some relationship to the world, taking in the experience of the world and responding to it, offering possibilities for advance or creativity. That is the God of the Bible.
I think the di-polar picture of God with a primordial and a consequent nature found in Whitehead and in process theology is one notion of God worthy of some consideration and discussion in philosophy of religion.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
OK, Mr. Dickens which was it? Was the best of times or the worst of times. You can't have it both ways. You're violating LEM there Mr. Dickens.
Quoting 3017amen
Exactly - you are asserting an illogical statement that has no basis in reality.
In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here.
I'll disagree with you on this one. It's not that they are lying - or even stupid or ignorant.
They have (metaphorically) painted themselves into a philosophical corner. For them to acknowledge even the smallest possibility that they are wrong would require a completely re-wiring of their thought processes & the way they conceive themselves. (I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this)
That is not going to happen due to any online exchange.
The best one can hope for is that a seed has been planted that may take years to bear fruit. Cursing and insults are counter-productive in this regard. My 2 cents. . . .
Really, are you sure?
Well, the history of Poetry itself is quite intriguing, as you may know. It dates all the way back to Africa and what they call the 'pyramid texts' written, I think, back somewhere around the 25th Century BC. As you could imagine, much of those texts were religious in genre (as there are many genre's today in Poetry) and captured the emotion of the time. For example, dealing with death rituals; the afterlife, tombs, mummy's, you know ancient Egyptian kinds of things. And much like this emotional discussion, life and death can be quite an existential sojourn.
However, we are not talking about emotion, we're talking a priori logic. And so to that end, try to parse these propositions:
1. He was driving and not driving. True or false or something else?
2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]
3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?
I think they all have to do with some form of Ontology, but am not sure.
Nice!
So if existence is dependent on the passage of time then could anything have qualities that reside beyond the relevance of time? I doubt it.
Furthermore, Time, space, energy and matter are all interdependent in one another for their existence in relativistic terms so I don’t see why if we focus on time we ought not to account for the simultaneous development of the other fundamental states.
Perhaps God is the point from which time space energy and matter proceed and is therefore a unified single entropic state of creation rather than something that interacts with the specific traits that it generates.
Benj!
Keep in mind that if the prevailing Big Bang theory is correct, then it follows that something outside of time created temporal time itself. And of course, that's all within the context of creation xnihilo. Perhaps you are thinking that time always existed in some way shape or form...
Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence.
So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same.
A true contradiction can be shown through math. 1=1 Now equality is entirely, 100% the same thing. There is zero difference in even the tiniest point. The problem is I think you're taking general words that are similar, but not quite the same.
Its like saying, 1.00001 = 1.0000001. The decimals have a lot of zeros, and for most general purposes, we shave off the remaining decimal places because we don't have time in communicating to use exactness everywhere.
A lot of descriptions of God are like poetry. What they are trying to convey is the majesty and mystery of God. A fine pattern in poetry is to relate things we normally think as the same in a general context, result in an odd dissonance when placed in a context they normally wouldn't.
So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments.
Now this does not mean that we cannot make them into logical arguments by putting the dropped decimal places back. Yes, it is impossible for a God to do anything, even contradict itself. So a simple fix is to add the decimal places back that state, "God is as powerful as it is possible to be within existence." Basically instead of saying God = infinity, we say God = The biggest real number expression of power in existence.
When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. God cannot be outside of this.
Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing.
I understand the zeal for belief in God. There is nothing wrong with that. It does not make you unintelligent. It is a hallmark of intelligence that we should be curious about and question about God.
But a zeal for a belief in God should not allow us to dismiss the reality in front of us, or ignore logical principles. Perhaps that means you will have to abandon certain ideas about God. Or perhaps you will have to add the decimals back to some of that poetry, and understand the point in a new light.
At the end of the day, if God exists, he gave us a brain that is better than, for all we know, anything else in the entire universe. God would not want us to throw that away to believe in God. How are we any better than the animals then? God would want us to use that brain to discover God as God actually exists, and not simply be inspired by poetry, or how we might desire that God exists.
Philosophim!
Consider that logic cannot explain the true nature of consciousness (we cannot create or design consciousness from nothing/something; we can only make babies that replicate it). And consider that logic cannot fully explain the universe (ToE). And if we have a conscious existence that is beyond logical explanation, there must be something that goes beyond the natural realm of explanation, hence, transcendence. We can describe things using logic and math (the speed of neurons/electrons/photons, laws of gravity, engineering formulas, and so on), but we cannot explain the true nature of existing things-in-themselves. As Kant might argue, that which is beyond logic, is either phenomenal and/or metaphysical.
Of course, easy examples of phenomena/metaphysics is the feeling and perceptions of colors, of love, of music, of mathematics, of time, etc.. All of those things that we perceive, like time, are not materially objective phenomena. In fact, the metaphysics of time perception, as we know from relativity and time travel, presents a sense of illusion and unresolved paradox. Logically, among other things, those are our descriptors of it.
Quoting Philosophim
Of course. And those general descriptors are concepts like: contradiction, paradox, logically impossible, logical possibility, super-natural, transcendence, et al. Those descriptors in themselves are descriptors for a reason. Consider a different set of axioms or truth's in a world that did not have those existing descriptors from the languages describing their reality. In principal, in a different world, you would have a slightly different set of descriptors, presumably. In layman's terms, 'the problem' as you say, is ignorance/incomplete knowledge about things-in-themselves; the nature of our existence.
Alternatively, in theoretical physics, we do have theories that posit a dipolar God that fits into the notion of logical possibility. So sure, I can agree with you there to that extent.
Quoting Philosophim
No exceptions taken.
Quoting Philosophim
Exceptions taken as noted; please see my forgoing response above. The 'proof' lies in consciousness, the thing-in-itself, being logically impossible to explain. And that doesn't preclude meaning of life questions/explanations, which are not limited to other metaphysical phenomena that humans may experience and grapple with.
Quoting Philosophim
Self-awareness.
Quoting Philosophim
Agreed. Hence your sense of poetry. But no worries; metaphor, allegory, poetry and analogy has existed throughout ancient history as yet another form of metaphysical language, all to achieve another means to an end. Accordingly, our descriptors for the beginning and end, are beyond logic.
Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.
Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions.
Perhaps if you changed your word choice, you would not encounter issues. Few people would take issue with, "We do not know how consciousness works." But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist. Apart from poetics as discussed, that won't convince many people to listen. If you are interested in spreading your belief about God, you want as many people who will listen as possible.
To conclude, when you say things like, "logically impossible attributes exist", you are conveying something which itself, cannot exist. If it is logically impossible, then exists in both a state of truth, and falsity. You can't state it exists, because, it also does not exist. And at that point, we aren't talking about anything real. If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas.
Those are my thoughts anyway. Enjoy the Friday 3017amen, I know I am!
I'm not with you on that one. Consider the liar's paradox. The only way out (or at least one way out) is paraconsistent logic making it both true and false. But that's not the axiom for logical impossibility because under those rules, it can't be both. The proposition that he was driving and not driving is logically impossible since we know under those rules it cannot be both (at the same time and same respect). Yet your consciousness allows for that. In other words, there are multiple truth values that contradict each other. (You can apply the same rules to omni-3, ontological, and cosmological propositions because they are a priori modal/formal logic/deductive reasoning.)
To this end, I was dreaming about sitting on the beach=one truth value. I was driving my car=another truth value. I had two completely different perceptions of reality seemingly at the same time because my body was still driving somehow while at the beach. As far as I was concerned, I was not driving at all, yet in reality, I was in fact driving. So while my mind told me I was at the beach, it wasn't really true at all, it was an illusion (kind of like time---another analogy altogether). My mind tricked me because the reality of me dreaming about the beach instead of driving caused me to crash and kill myself without my knowledge and awareness of driving. I had no control over this stream of consciousness; the conscious, subconscious and unconscious phenomenon.
The point to all this is, formal logic is not suited for explaining the nature of existence, the things-in-themselves, unexplained phenomena (and otherwise simply living life a posteriori).
Quoting Philosophim
That's correct. It can't be explained using deduction. and so it transcends logic. Under the rules based on a priori propositional logic, it becomes logically impossible. I didn't invent the rules.
Quoting Philosophim
That's the point Philosophim. When someone says they don't understand something, one should use the rules of logic and reason to parse the statement in order to determine it's truth value. The concept of God a priori (deductive logic) is no different. It is very obvious that finitude exists, and for that very reason, we have said other concepts such as paradox, contradiction, logicall impossibility, etc. also exist as a result of that same sense of ignorance. Otherwise, why do those concepts exist?
Thank you for the well wishes Philosophim, I hope you have a wonderful weekend. We can continue the discussion next week. I want to try and see if you can get out of your confort zone and perhaps embrace the notion of illogical existence, and what that really means.
I'll leave you with a light hearted quote from pragmatist William James: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There is in the living act of perception always something that glimmers and twinkles and will not be caught, and for which reflection comes too late."
Yes, we require a meta-analysis of the meta-metaphysics that underlie the discussion of god as numerous assumptions go into prescribing a specific nature to the label "god". We, as philosophers, should be worried and constantly vigilant of whether our discussions have devolved into semantic games with adjustable boundaries of meaning to any or all terms important to the argument.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Rather true as the problem of evil is only an argument that pokes holes in a particular conception of god or the Judeo-Christian one common among layman (though even this definition is vague from philosopher to theologian with regards to precisely clarifying its properties).
Quoting Jake
Is the logical apparatus (classical logic) able to reflect reality model wise on those scales? Yes, then we can safely continue using it until it breaks but if not then in comes uncertainty or metaphysical vagueness inherent to reality which could forego any collisions henceforth.
Quoting Jake
Gods are usually proposed as a particularly anthropomorphized beings that are supposed to serve as an all encompassing reason for what is compared to others. Using the term to mean talk about fundamental structures of nature everywhere or every when is to invite a term with rather thick baggage. Logic on the other hand is an abstract model that with certain accompanying axioms (classical logic, para-consistent, fuzzy logic, etc) serve better uses technologically or in performing metaphysical overhauls of our ontology.
Experience and our thoughts exist so what is it that does and doesn't exist? What else is it that you require to constitute consciousness that isn't our readily waking experiences and our mental abstractions there from.
Quoting 3017amen
Driving needs to be defined here as I could define driving as that experience of operating a vehicle as only indulging in purely waking experiences rather than abstractions in full. So because you were dreaming you were then not in fact actually driving.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, you were not directly aware of and performing the task of driving so therefore you were not driving. You were dreaming and not driving. . . remember a limp body un-respondent to external stimuli holding onto a steering wheel in a moving hunk of metal wouldn't be readily intuitively defined as driving a car.
It seems that your issues are more semantic than they are ontological.
Logically impossible to investigate fully not to explain. To assert it's not possible to describe or abstractly investigate our mental faculties via forms of logical analysis internally is one thing but this merely relays the fact that we cannot think outside ourselves. . . have you forgotten that and will correct this statement of absolute truth into one of contingency.
Consciousness exists but it's logically impossible to explain. In the context of an attribute that transcends formal logic, Jesus also had attributes that were logically impossible to explain.
Quoting substantivalism
He was driving and dreaming and unwillfully killed himself.
Quoting substantivalism
He was not driving, he was on a beach, but happened to be driving.
It seems that your issues are more a priori than they are phenomenological.
.
No. Logically impossible to explain.
Quoting 3017amen
Because intuitively explanation involves our ability to investigate and therefore fully understand whatever is that we are explaining I can give you this that it's logically impossible.
Quoting 3017amen
I have no idea whether the abstractions we use completely and indubitably reflect the reality is in terms of the true nature of our experiences. This means I cannot absolutely say anything about including whether the abstract relations or modeling of reality we get from using classical logic or a weaker form is really uncovering all there is to reality or missing something.
Quoting 3017amen
His acclaimed miracles are only that, claims, and to further substantiate that his miracles deserve to be placed not in the real experience of seeing a fictional character on screen but in the box of experiences you have everyday with your acquaintances or the physicality of your chair you'll have to argue for that. Though, there is a difference between lacking an explanation and seeing it as logically impossible so you will have to tell why these dubious metaphysical claims of Jesus are not just to belong in the bin of fictions but also as events on there own happened for reasons no person could understand or gain any knowledge therein from.
Quoting 3017amen
He was driving? Then he knew the proper protocol and had training to avert whatever disaster was about to transpire. He didn't do any actions, have waking experiences that is, to avert the disaster so it occurred. . . he wasn't therefore driving. To be driving you have to be aware of and fully prepared to interact with your waking experiences not do so with your inner abstractions.
Quoting 3017amen
You, with previous knowledge and experience, definitely know the difference (if not rather implicitly) about what is a waking experience versus one that's a dream or an inner abstraction. Imagine sitting in a chair then open your eyes (assuming you are already in a chair) and pay attention to how they appear. Both equally as real but their relationship to you as well as their surface level natures are distinct ergo imagining you are at a beach is not the same as having a waking experience of being at a beach. NO materialism or naive realism technically has to be assumed here and any form of idealism probably would tell you something similar i'm assuming.
Also, driving has to involve the waking active experiences of a person and given they were indulging in (willingly or unwillingly) in those of the imagined then they couldn't be driving.
Yes because his obituary was noted in the media.
Ergo, it being true that creating space, time, and matter neither adds nor subtracts from omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, god remains changeless despite doing these things.
Sure. We can discuss a priori concepts of God.
Firstly, would you like to make an argument relative to the effectiveness of mathematical truths viz the concept of a timeless God?
As far as I can tell, the only mathematical concept applicable to god is infinity. Time, to my understanding, has to do with real numbers and while real numbers are a bigger infinity than naturals there are infinities bigger than reals and then there are infinities bigger than those infinities and so on. Quite naturally god as an infinite being must be this infinite progression of infinities and since time is only as big as the infinity of reals, it must be that god can't be contained in time - god's timeless.
Are you thinking that say, if metaphysical abstracts like mathematical truth's, are necessary to describe the rational laws of the universe, then a necessary God of similar abstract truth is logically possible? Mind you, all of that (that judgement) is based on deductive reasoning, including math itself, being a priori.
Or saying it another way, if mathematical truth's are timeless and eternal, how can we link it to the concept of God? And maybe the more important concept is whether or not mathematics have an independent existence or are invented by us, it is an a priori truth nonetheless.
That's a lot to take in. Think of it this way. Math is more of a language than anything else - I think Galileo made that remark. The laws of the universe are not mathematical in the sense that it's math, as language; it's only that the laws are "written" mathematically. Laws are "alterable" and I can only convey that using an example. Take the law of universal gravitation: G(m1*m2)/(r^2). It's mathematical alright but the exact relationship between the variables and constant needn't be as it is to us at the present moment and the value of G also could be something else. For instance, it could've been G(m1/m2)*r^3. This demonstrates that there's nothing "timeless and eternal" about the laws of nature themselves.
Where does god come in? If he does/did exist, only as an author of these laws who made a decision to use math as the language of choice. The language is, quite possibly, timeless and eternal but the laws themselves are not.
Ok. So I think you see where I'm coming from, and I also think I see where you are beginning to come from. You seem to be implying that illogical thinking is a solution to problems. Not the only solution mind you, but depending on how you are defining it, you can come to an illogical conclusion.
To think illogically is to hold contradictions. It is to believe in something that is impossible to exist. It your choice to believe such things. I however, cannot. To me, any time I encounter a contradiction, I know I have done something wrong in my thinking. It could be my understanding, my definitions, or just simply reality not adding up as I intended.
While you can choose how to think in life, I would caution against applying illogical thinking to God. If God exists, it is not a contradiction. God is not illogical, and the things which would extend from God, are not illogical either. Illogical Gods are the fictional myths of Cu'Thulu for example. They are seen as villians and the patron deities of irrational cults. Irrationality is often seen as madness. The Christian God never processes to be illogical. Mysterious? Yes. Beyond our complete understanding? Yes. But there is the underlying idea that there is a plan, an order, and a logic of good that God understands in their plan for humanity.
This is evidenced by then 10 commandments. Simple, logical laws that define how a person should live. Jesus acted with a logical intent. While some who did not understand why Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross might call him mad, when understood it is logical.
It is not that I think you are mad, it is dipping your toe into illogical thinking is to speak with madness itself. It is the realms of cults, and evil. I think you are dipping into illogical thinking in your zeal for understanding what is simply outside of our bounds of knowledge. You are looking for a solution when the only answer is, "I don't know." It is ok to realize the limits of what we can know. It is ok to believe in a God when we do not know all of the answers. But I feel dipping into illogic to get such answer is a road to hell paved with good intentions.
What? He (lets assume it was you and you survived the crash) didn't have any waking experience of interacting with the car nor being able to do so (ergo he was focusing on a different kind of experiential input) but to be considered driving the kind of experience you must indulge in is that of what we call waking experiences (who's surface level nature is starkly different to that of the imagined or dreamed).
There are a lot of concerns I have with your thinking. Other than your point about having a lack of understanding (finitude) which of course I agree with, I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there
I don't want to hijack this particular thread however, I would welcome another thread if you want to discuss those 'ethical' concerns further (purpose, meaning, causation, will, and so forth).
If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. Whether it's the illusion and paradox of time; the phenomenon of love, dialectic versus binary thinking, a priori vs. a posteriori logic, etc., our disposition is to dichotomize and chose either/or rather than integrate those opposites of illogical contradiction, as naturally occurring in nature. And when recognized properly, leads to confirmation, (at the very least) that something else is in control that is indeed counterintuitive.
We can start by parsing the phenomenon of love relative to the human condition, as it has been perceived and understood from various disciplines. We know that love itself is a mystery, but we also know that acts of love can transcend pure reason (the a priori). And finally, we know that love is both a subjective and objective truth: not either/or.
You can start the thread with whatever argument you feel the strongest about...
How intriguing . . . please explain.
I don't think I can make it clearer than that.
There's no reason why physical laws have to be such that the exact same mathematical relationship holds between the various parameters involved, right?
So for me the Big Bang would be a something like a condensation of space, time, matter and energy into one. And that they contract and expand into their respective behaviours from this state
Lol, no, I mentioned these archtypes as warnings about using illogical thinking. Perhaps it was a poor idea. My intent was to ask you if you had thought about whether using illogical thinking was a good idea, even if it could give you an answer (not a logical one of course) that you desired.
I have a feeling our differences are in the definition of illogical. Typically in the context of philosophy, one of the basic definitions of illogical, is concluding something wrong in regards to equivalence. By equivalence, I mean equal down to the very tiniest part of the context and meaning behind the statement. I feel that when you are referring to illogical, you are doing it in a context beyond philosophy where equivalence is not the focus, but "Almost or similarly equivalent".
So yes, outside of philosophy when people say, "Love is illogical," I understand the context is one of sentiment, not equivalence. Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. Of course, the context of what "Love" is may also differ. Romantic love, love for your fellow man, and love for your enemies can all be variations of love that may or may not be illogical if examined in an atomic context.
There is nothing wrong with using language in a loose manner to describe sentiment such as awe, wonder, etc. But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". Wisdom requires tight definitions and logical conclusions. The sentimental arguments are concerned with working through our emotions, and can serve that purpose well. Budah claimed it was not the fundamental questions of the universe people were asking that needed to be answered, it was simply a matter of the heart and an emotional need that needed to be fulfilled first.
Quoting 3017amen
If you believe that you can argue about such ideas within the context of logic and illogic within the context of philosophy, then feel free! If it is a matter of sentiment, poetry, and is not willing to drill down into its atomic parts, then there is no need. I have no questions of matters of the heart at this time in my life, only matters of logic. Feel free to start the thread as I would not be sure where to even begin. I will keep an eye out and join you there.
Yep, point well taken! Most think there was a continuum of expansion. Others are not so sure:
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important.
Quoting Philosophim
Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. That's of course a generic definition from
Webster's. And that's also sort of a segue to love. Is love itself considered sound reasoning? And as you suggested, in passing, how does one prove it's illogical? What is considered love's means and methods? Are they transcendent in some way? (Sorry for the questions, just putting some metaphysical thoughts out there... .)
Now Philosophim, what I thought you were going to respond with is a clear distinction between a priori and a posterior kinds of logic, all in order to distinguish the limitations of each. But I see you didn't go there. However, in the context of our discussion of logical impossibility, which is based upon a priori deductive reasoning, the question relates to how can consciousness be explained through deduction. That's the specific question (for you). And that's the other important question.
So if there was a new thread, it would be called something like: What are the limits of deductive reasoning (and logical impossibility).
A good question. I believe wisdom is the realization of reality as much as humans can comprehend it. I believe the motivation to find wisdom can be many things. Some people have an innate desire to simply know the reality of a situation. Some want to know what to do with their lives going forward. Some need it for utility. After all, if you have a solid understanding of reality, you are able to much better predict and shape it into what you want.
Quoting 3017amen
This is a general descriptor that unfortunately does not answer what it means to have sense, or clear sound reasoning.
Sound reasoning can be summarized as "Holding non-contradictory thoughts". In philosophy, were we are looking for exactness, This means A != A is illogical. A compared to A, is an identical identity to the smallest unit of measurement. A !=99.99999999% match to A is not illogical, but logical. This is because there is a difference between both A's, within a certain unit of measurement. In general language, we often use very broad terms that mean different things in different contexts. So we may use something like, "A birch and a redwood are both trees. In this sense, they belong to a broader term, so we can say,
Birch = tree && Redwood = tree. But we can't say, Birch = Redwood in the technical sense, because they aren't a 100% exact match.
In another sense, we lower the exactness needed. I can say two pieces of cut metal are 1 meter long if I don't care about it being off by a millimeter, and I can say "They are equal in regards to the context of a meter". If however I care about millimeters, "They are not equal in regards to the context of millimeters".
So love then. It depends on the context of love that you speak of. It depends by what you mean when you say its irrational. To be irrational, there must be a comparison to something. Saying love is irrational without comparing it to something, is like saying, "A birch tree is wrong". Wrong how? Irrational how? That's the technicalities of philosophy. A large part of it is diving into the language, finding idosynchrasies in conclusions, and trying to make the implicit underlying assumptions of the topic, explicit to reveal where these idosynchrasies come from.
I actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Well again, based on how you define it. These are terms that have been battered about by Quine and several other philosophers for years. I find I don't need them as distinctions either to think logically. So when I think of consciousness, I do not think it is illogical, because I find no contradiction in the existence of consciousness within reality. As for the actual inner workings of consciousness, not knowing, does not mean it is illogical. For years people did not understand what the Sun was, or how it worked. That did not make the existence of the Sun illogical.
As for philosophical guesses at consciousness, I believe it is moving out of our hands. We must look to neuroscience for answers, and can postulate on that. For example, https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20long%20thought%20that,work%20together%20to%20form%20consciousness. here you can read about Harvard reasearchers who believe they have identified where consciousness is developed and handled in the brain.
Sorry if it was a bit long! I will look for any posts you have started if you want to carry on the conversation elsewhere.
That's quite problematic Philosophim. Are you saying that there is no difference between propositions that are tautologies and logical inference( the a priori vs. the a posteriori)?
I believe you're missing a previous point about analytics and the fact that philosophy lives in words. Embrace the notion that a priori logic is not designed to parse or explain the nature of our existence. It may describe it, but it doesn't explain it (the thing-in-itself). Instead, a posteriori empirical analysis is the so-called general rule of the day.
For example, going back to propositions that try to explain conscious existence, consider once again the illogical daydreaming while driving scenario. If one were to further advance a proposition that describes the victim who is subsequently in a coma alive but yet not alive, what would be the truth value to that proposition? Would there be multiple truth values?
A simple study of dialectic reasoning would suggest that living life is much more than a priori deductive reasoning. Generally, life is both/and, not either/or. A priori is either/or. And that is why it's not suitable to parse things that involve consciousness; sense experience. (Which is another reason why the only outcome to the a priori is logical impossibility.) That is just one reason you would be incorrect in suggesting there are no differences between the a priori and the a posteriori. There are many more examples....
Actually, this may be a good time to get on another thread as we had discussed. I have a thread on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge So far it hasn't garnered much discussion beyond a few troll posts, but I know you'll take the conversation seriously. Here you'll get to see what I mean by stating the a priori and a posteriori distinction (depending on how they are defined) are false dichotomies. Its also the perfect place to discuss what is logical and illogical. I should have though about it sooner. =P See you there!
The concept of an all-powerful god leaves itself open to all manner of paradoxes.
"Can god create a physical place that god cannot enter?" will serve as an example.
Supreme beings are best left out of philosophical discussions where definitive conclusions -- that is, truth -- is sought.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Say God is timeless, changeless, and the greatest being. When God created time, if he did depending on what scale of time you believe, he made a change. While he still experienced change around him, he himself did not change. One can be surrounded by the change they bring about it, without that single act of change causing change to them. Just as God can create time and subject us to it, he can remain outside of the restrictions of time. Say I invent or create a device that assists people with writing their address on an envelope. I have created a change, yet I remain the same intrinsically as I was before. I could have more money and the title of inventor, but I remain myself. Even using my own product would not fundamentally change me. Unless, one would argue that growing in mind and thought changes you, then by creating this invention, or learning any new piece of information would change me.
This is my original thought formation of my argument, however, premise 1 has a major issue because it does not contain any supporting evidence.
1. A being brings about change through some action. Said being is surrounded by that change, then said being can remain unchanged.
2. God a being, brought about time, a change in his surroundings.
3. Thus God can remain changeless even if bringing about change.
Here is my revised argument:
A being surrounded by change has the choice to change or remain unchanged.
God is surrounded by the changing of time, but chooses to remain unchanged.
God is not changed although he is surrounded by the changing of time.
God can remain unchanged because he is omnipotent.
1. If God is changeless, then He cannot create time.
2. Theists are committed to saying that God created everything at a given point, including time.
3. Therefore, God cannot be changeless.
Your justification for premise 1 seems to be that God cannot be changeless and also create time, as God 's experience will then change; He will have gone from being alone to existing alongside something else. I think this points to an ambiguity in the term "changeless." There are two ways that one can "not experience change:" either one does not experience any internal change, or one does not experience any external change. It is important to clarify that one can experience internal change without experiencing external change, and vice versa. For example, the temperature of my room can fluctuate by one degree, but my internal state (including things like beliefs, character traits, mental properties, etc.) can stay the same. Also, my internal state can change (maybe I change my belief about whether the cosmological argument is sound) while the temperature in my room stays the exact same. Thus, God's internal state can remain unchanged while the external world changes significantly. Theists are only committed to the view that God's internal state is without change (i.e., God always remains omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.). Because premise 1 relies on there not being a distinction between internal/external states, then I think we have significant reasons to reject premise 1.
I also think that we have significant reasons to reject premise 2. This argument is presenting a cosmological picture in which God existed from eternity and then at some point created time and space. I think this picture necessarily brings about some absurdities. First, the view entails that we have to say things such as "before time." For example, one can say "God existed before time." But it makes no sense to use temporal language, such as "before," to describe a period in which there is no time. Second, this view entails that there was a time before time began. Again, it seems absurd to speak of temporal measurements like times, periods, moments, ages, and eternity when there is no time at all. This leads me to conclude that the theists should affirm that time has always existed to avoid these absurdities. This also does not entail that there is something outside of God that exists necessarily and coeternally alongside Him; the theists can just say that God has always willed that time exists. For these reasons, I think we should reject premise 2.
Yes, I am agree with you in this point. But probably what theists tend to argue is that God is such omnipotent. Therefore, he is not affected about human basic rationalism. We can debate and argue about time because it is literally something affect us. But it is supposed that God is (at the same time) a "being/non being" or "he is/not everywhere", so he is not affected neither bothered for something as time.
We can say here then, that probably for God and theists some aspects as time is just worthless.
“God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.
If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.
Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless?”
In this post, I will attempt to formulate a response to the question posed and explain how God can be changeless while still being the creator of time.
This question seems to take the form of two arguments. The first argument seems to go like this:
Change constitutes the passing of time. (Newtonian view)
If something does not change, it is timeless.
God does not change.
So, God is timeless.
The second part of the question seems to be an objection to premise three:
If the creator creates the physical world and time, the creator must experience a change–from existing alone to co-existing with time.
God is the creator of the physical world and time.
God does indeed change–from existing alone to co-existing with time.
I will start by deconstructing each of these arguments, to hopefully come to a conclusive answer to the question posed, by the end. First, I will object to the first premise of the objection made in argument two.
I create a sculpture.
I go from a state of existing alone, to a state of existing with this sculpture.
I have not changed.
Premise one of Mr. Pound’s objection fails simply because a change in the environment does not necessarily change the being involved. I think a modification to this premise would be something like this:
If the creator creates the physical world and time, the creator must enact some change.
Though I believe this modified premise is true, it would not lead to the conclusion that God does change. Overall, my objection to the objection is really just support for premise three of the original argument that God does not change.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the statement, “God does not change”. Here are some references to the Bible that speak to this idea.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Is-Unchanging
The meaning of “God being unchanging” is testifying to God’s character being unchanging–not the conditions in which He lives. While God can create and change existing things, He himself does not ever change who He is. Take for instance:
James 1:17– “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”
James seems to clearly indicate here that though God is unchanging, He still enacted some change by sending “good things” and “perfect gifts”. This makes sense, considering that giving a gift to someone does not necessarily mean that the giver changes in character. And to go back to the original wording of the argument, because God must go from existing without a perfect gift, to co-existing with a perfect gift, does not directly change God.
So, because God can change things without changing Himself, it is possible that God created both the physical world and time while still being changeless.
In response to Devans99:
“I think God is needed to explain the state of the universe but I have difficulties fitting him into any viable model of the universe. Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension? Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?”
In this post I will specifically focus on the last question. I believe in the form of an argument, the question would go something like this:
If things change, time must pass.
So, if someone changes things, they must do so while time passes.
If someone does things while time passes, they operate in time.
If someone operates in the dimension of time, they are not timeless.
God operates in time.
God is not timeless.
My objection would be against premise four:
Two dimensions are side to side and up and down.
Three dimensions are side to side, up and down, and forward and backward.
If a figure is three dimensional, it still has the ability to move in the dimensions of side to side and up and down.
A three dimensional figure can operate in two dimensions.
If a figure operates in two dimensions, it does not exclude the figure from being a figure of a higher dimension.
Thus, if God operates in the dimension of time, it does not exclude Him from being timeless.
The original question: “If God is timeless, how does He change things?”
When we say God is “timeless”, I believe we make the mistake of thinking this means God cannot change things while time passes, or that God is unable to move in the dimension of time. God being a higher dimensional being does not mean He cannot function in time, but instead, that there are more dimensions which He has the option to move through.
Some will argue that even if this is true mathematically, it is illogical to assume the same for the dimension of time.
In response, let us consider a hypothetical. Let us say that time froze. Everything in the universe stopped, pausing at point A and resuming at point B. For all we know, this could have happened five minutes ago. And let us say that time indeed froze–time did not exist between A and B. Would it be illogical to say that God did not freeze? If God created time and is timeless, it would be reasonable to say that God, indeed, can exist in this gap between A and B. But God is not moving through the dimension of time. Rather, He is operating in a higher dimension.
If this is the case, God can obviously exist without time. To create universes, God must have existed independent of time, in another, unknown dimension, by which humans cannot comprehend the laws of. The moment God creates the universe, time begins. But, God still has the option to move through time or independent of time.