God and the idea that he's timeless

[shunyadragon]

Of course they believe this. It is eminently logical that with no God a multiverse is REQUIRED. That is, the matter/energy came from elsewhere. I also believe it came from elsewhere.

Well, ah . . . you did not respond to post, and the false claims you made concerning science and scientists. Science does not make any claims as to whether God exists or not, and if the Multiverse exists, God could have Created the Multiverse.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't say time in this universe was infinite, I said it has a discreet beginning as spacetime/light's beginning, Gen 1:1.

Which may or may not be true.

The problem is you have what created matter/energy as ETERNAL, not infinite, without being divine.

A. I never said that matter/energy were *created*. And
B. There is no reason to think that something is 'divine' simply because it is eternal.

In other words, why is that a problem?

 

[shunyadragon]

Similarly taking Bahaollah as a manifestation of a fictitious entity - God, also is weird, when neither the existence of God / Allah nor the contention that Bahaollah was given any message from such an entity is without any evidence. You are a person of science. How did you fall for this hoax?

This confirms the bottom line of what you believe. No problem, but,of course, this view shut downs communication.

 

[Polymath257]

The example of the soldiers was only supposed to highlight an impossibility...NOT to actually describe a real life situation...ie no one imagines an actual army with an infinite number of soldiers.

So if there is no problem...are you saying the following quote is in error...ie actual infinities are not impossible? Or is it just that a universe without a beginning does not create the infinity thus described?

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

"The argument's key underpinning idea is the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities and of a temporally past-infinite universe..."

In either case, that is going beyond what I'm saying. IF there is no problem with actual infinities, then a natural world with no beginning is...no problem and no explanation or god is needed.

I see no reason why actual infinities are impossible. I have read Craig's arguments, but they ultimately say 'infinites have different properties than finite things' and make the conclusion that they are impossible. yet they are known to be consistent (yes, the very properties Craig mentions) mathematically.

The point is that no 'infinite traversal' is necessary: between any two points, there is only a finite amount of time. Yet, time can still go infinitely into the past. Nothing is actually traversing an infinite amount of time. It is just that at any time, there is something that exists.

Ultimately, the problem is that Craig needs to take some basic math classes involving infinite sets to modify his intuitions, which are wrong.

 

[Rizdek]

The "problem" of infinite regress isn't a problem.

It isn't reality, because it ignores something repeatedly mentioned by the Bible in its very first moments.

God, an eternal being created the heavens and earth.

Eternal means not have a beginning. That is, an uncreated being created all things. This is no infinite regress.

Also, I am so tired of the "modern" ideals of the secular world telling how "outdated" things like hospitality, kindness, and decency are. Just because we have high-tech doesn't mean our ability to make others feel welcome and loved.

I'm not sure how the idea of modern ideals

The "problem" of infinite regress isn't a problem.

It isn't reality, because it ignores something repeatedly mentioned by the Bible in its very first moments.

God, an eternal being created the heavens and earth.

Eternal means not have a beginning. That is, an uncreated being created all things. This is no infinite regress.

Also, I am so tired of the "modern" ideals of the secular world telling how "outdated" things like hospitality, kindness, and decency are. Just because we have high-tech doesn't mean our ability to make others feel welcome and loved.

I see no reason why actual infinities are impossible. I have read Craig's arguments, but they ultimately say 'infinites have different properties than finite things' and make the conclusion that they are impossible. yet they are known to be consistent (yes, the very properties Craig mentions) mathematically.

The point is that no 'infinite traversal' is necessary: between any two points, there is only a finite amount of time. Yet, time can still go infinitely into the past. Nothing is actually traversing an infinite amount of time. It is just that at any time, there is something that exists.

Ultimately, the problem is that Craig needs to take some basic math classes involving infinite sets to modify his intuitions, which are wrong.

I am not mathematician enough to make an assessment or to criticize Craig's position/intuition. Thanks for your input.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not mathematician enough to make an assessment or to criticize Craig's position/intuition. Thanks for your input.

Well, I'd start with the fact that an infinite regress has no start.

So, Craig's objection that an infinite traversal is required isn't the case. It is NOT the case of 1. A process starts, 2. An infinite amount of time elapses, 3. the current time happens.

Instead, the amount of time between any two events is always finite. But every event has a preceding event and a following event.

In the case of a soldier waiting for permission to shoot, it is NOT the case of the soldier asking (a start), the question going infinitely far back, and then the answer returning.

Instead, there are *always* soldiers who have permission. They got permission from the previous soldier and give it to the next. Each soldier eventually gets permission, but no soldier *initiated* the sequence of permissions. The permissions have always been traveling down the line.

The concept of 'no start' is counter-intuitive to many people, but it is NOT inherently contradictory. Furthermore, the mathematics shows it is a *logical* possibility. And I have yet to see a cogent argument that it is disallowed in the real world. ALL such arguments seem to assume their conclusion in one form or another.

 

[ajarntham]

Yes...at that point in the process, I think Craig would agree that he's not argued for, say, the God of the Bible. IOW, it's the first step in his line of reasoning that would LEAD to concluding the God of the Bible exists.

I haven't heard Craig try to make that case, but if it were agreed (at least for the sake of argument) that "our universe (and any others in the multiverse, if that exists) was generated by an entity which did not have a beginning in time," then to get from there to the God of the Bible, Craig would have to argue that:

1) This entity has to be sentient and purposeful;
2) This entity clearly cares deeply about sentient life like ours, though such life exists only in an infinitesimal fraction of space-time;
3) There is no better explanation for the current condition of sentient life like ours than the narrative of this entity's creations and interventions offered, more or less, in the Christian Bible.

I don't see how he could get past 1), myself. I suppose that if he could make a good case for 3), then he would ipso facto have made a good case for Christianity, but then he wouldn't need to start with the Cosmological Argument in the first place, would he?

 

[Rizdek]

Well, I'd start with the fact that an infinite regress has no start.

So, Craig's objection that an infinite traversal is required isn't the case. It is NOT the case of 1. A process starts, 2. An infinite amount of time elapses, 3. the current time happens.

Instead, the amount of time between any two events is always finite. But every event has a preceding event and a following event.

In the case of a soldier waiting for permission to shoot, it is NOT the case of the soldier asking (a start), the question going infinitely far back, and then the answer returning.

Instead, there are *always* soldiers who have permission. They got permission from the previous soldier and give it to the next. Each soldier eventually gets permission, but no soldier *initiated* the sequence of permissions. The permissions have always been traveling down the line.

The concept of 'no start' is counter-intuitive to many people, but it is NOT inherently contradictory. Furthermore, the mathematics shows it is a *logical* possibility. And I have yet to see a cogent argument that it is disallowed in the real world. ALL such arguments seem to assume their conclusion in one form or another.

That's interesting. I don't get too hung up on the concept of time because a) I'm not sure what it is beyond the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once and b) it's the series of events that is the issue regardless of any temporal gap that might exist between them. So

I haven't heard Craig try to make that case, but if it were agreed (at least for the sake of argument) that "our universe (and any others in the multiverse, if that exists) was generated by an entity which did not have a beginning in time," then to get from there to the God of the Bible, Craig would have to argue that:

1) This entity has to be sentient and purposeful;
2) This entity clearly cares deeply about sentient life like ours, though such life exists only in an infinitesimal fraction of space-time;
3) There is no better explanation for the current condition of sentient life like ours than the narrative of this entity's creations and interventions offered, more or less, in the Christian Bible.

I don't see how he could get past 1), myself. I suppose that if he could make a good case for 3), then he would ipso facto have made a good case for Christianity, but then he wouldn't need to start with the Cosmological Argument in the first place, would he?

Well, he's a gifted debater, possesses a boatload of info/facts and has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of pretty much all of the historical arguments/reasoning for and against God. AFAIK he has dealt with every single counter argument/defeater that I've ever heard. He maintains a website called reasonable faith in which he answers many questions and challenges people throw out there. If you are at all interested, you might want to view some videos of his debates. IMHO, he often puts his opponents to shame even though I agree with his opponents. That is, I am an atheist and am not convinced by Craig's arguments, but I certainly wouldn't do a good job countering them in a debate with him. I think it would behoove people who believe their atheism is founded on reasonable arguments to spend some time exploring what he says.

 

[atanu]

Am I the same in all those three states? It's easy to assume that and it might as well be true. But who am I really? Is the consciousness I imagine/dream while I sleep the same one that remembers it when I wake up? Dreams are a whole other interesting phenomenon which likely deserves a thread or six in its own right.

Your response is very refreshing and very unlike the common response that I get.

The main question remains. Are we subjectively the same through deep sleep, dreaming and waking?

Several questions will further arise from the above but in this thread my focus is limited. I just wish to suggest that the forms of deep sleep, dream, and waking are natural. But that which runs through these states, and knows the states, is pre-natural.

...

 

[atanu]

Am I the same in all those three states? It's easy to assume that and it might as well be true. But who am I really? Is the consciousness I imagine/dream while I sleep the same one that remembers it when I wake up? Dreams are a whole other interesting phenomenon which likely deserves a thread or six in its own right.

I also want to suggest that replace the word God with ‘Truth’ and see whether your questions get resolved or not.

Truth is that by which all things are known. If the truth itself is infinitely regressing and ever changing, what is the value of your enquiry?

...

 

[Rizdek]

I also want to suggest that replace the word God with ‘Truth’ and see whether your questions get resolved or not.

Truth is that by which all things are known. If the truth itself is infinitely regressing and ever changing, what is the value of your enquiry?

...

There's two parts to your statement. First. your phrase...'and ever changing,' doesn't seem to be a concern IN THAT if there is a background existence of the natural world that is timeless, it is not necessarily ever changing...in fact it might not change at all, itself, but something about it 'emits' worlds such as the one we seem to observe around us. IOW it produces things that change and evolve, but it, itself does not evolve and change. Also, if it is timeless it might not be infinitely regressing any more than a person's concept of God involves them thinking God is 'infinitely regressing.'

And as to the value of my inquiry...I find thinking about and discussing such things interesting. Whether it has any value beyond that, I don't know.

 

[atanu]

There's two parts to your statement. First. your phrase...'and ever changing,' doesn't seem to be a concern IN THAT if there is a background existence of the natural world that is timeless, it is not necessarily ever changing...in fact it might not change at all, itself, but something about it 'emits' worlds such as the one we seem to observe around us. IOW it produces things that change and evolve, but it, itself does not evolve and change. Also, if it is timeless it might not be infinitely regressing any more than a person's concept of God involves them thinking God is 'infinitely regressing.'

And as to the value of my inquiry...I find thinking about and discussing such things interesting. Whether it has any value beyond that, I don't know.

I agree. But do you envisage that background existence to be endowed with ability to illuminate and know?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which may or may not be true.



A. I never said that matter/energy were *created*. And
B. There is no reason to think that something is 'divine' simply because it is eternal.

In other words, why is that a problem?

Why is it a problem that everything that exists has no cause, knowing the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy? Are you joking with me?

 

[metis]

Why is it a problem that everything that exists has no cause, knowing the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?

With "quantum mechanics", the absurd can become the reality as the research is showing. Even a MRI machine defies basic physics as we know it-- or at least thought we knew it.

 

[tayla]

So...even if we are to somehow SAY God is timeless, if he has sequential thoughts, those would seem to indicate a kind of time passing because for all intents and purposes, isn't time the thing which keeps everything from happening all at once? And if his thoughts didn't happen all at once, they happened sequentially. So at a minimum we would think of sequential thoughts instead of ticks of a clock as being the measure of time, for God.

Yes. The idea of God as omnipresent and omnipotent doesn't make much sense.

 

[wellwisher]

If you plug in the speed of light; c, into Einstein's equations for Special Relativity, time, distance and mass become discontinuous. The equation for time is below. The equation for distance and mass look the same, but with t and t' replaced by d and d' and m and m', respectively.

If we plug in V=c, t' or dilated time becomes discontinuous or zero. Distance and mass will also become discontinuous or zero. At the speed of light space-time and matter, which defines how cause and affect occur in time and space in our universe, no longer apply.

With matter gone and the unity of space-time dissociated at the speed of light, one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in space without the constants of time, since there is no matter/mass. If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, you would become omnipresent. If you could move in time without the constraint of space, you would be omniscience, since at each instant of time you would know everything, everywhere, simultaneously.

Einstein had a diamond in the rough, but was afraid to say anything due to the rise of atheism in science which was the cancel culture of his day. I figured out this seam a few years ago and I am not afraid to bring it back to light for discussion. It appears the ancients understood special relativity and placed the spirit of God in the speed of light reference; omniscience and omnipresent. One only needs to translate into science.

 

[Rizdek]

If you plug in the speed of light; c, into Einstein's equations for Special Relativity, time, distance and mass become discontinuous. The equation for time is below. The equation for distance and mass look the same, but with t and t' replaced by d and d' and m and m', respectively.

If we plug in V=c, t' or dilated time becomes discontinuous or zero. Distance and mass will also become discontinuous or zero. At the speed of light space-time and matter, which defines how cause and affect occur in time and space in our universe, no longer apply.

With matter gone and the unity of space-time dissociated at the speed of light, one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in space without the constants of time, since there is no matter/mass. If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, you would become omnipresent. If you could move in time without the constraint of space, you would be omniscience, since at each instant of time you would know everything, everywhere, simultaneously.

Einstein had a diamond in the rough, but was afraid to say anything due to the rise of atheism in science which was the cancel culture of his day. I figured out this seam a few years ago and I am not afraid to bring it back to light for discussion. It appears the ancients understood special relativity and placed the spirit of God in the speed of light reference; omniscience and omnipresent. One only needs to translate into science.

That's interesting. If that is the way God can 'do things and still be timeless' then there are a number of points.

First and least important, I am not sure whether the ancients were prescient or just lucky.

Second, I'm not sure that explains how God can think sequential thoughts all at once. Does God think of things then make decisions, or do ALL his thoughts, however a god thinks, happen in one divine instant? If so, then his decision to create the world would seem to have happened in that instant and so...almost by necessity the universe must have always existed because the contention, as I understand it, is God has always existed...ie there was no time/case/situation/reality where God does not exist. So by definition there must have been no time when the thing(s) he did hadn't happened and one of the things God did was create the world.

Third, and most importantly to me, IF there IS some way for God to think and do things with no time separating these events and IF the universe HAD a beginning, then that means it is not logically impossible for something to be able to do things with no time in which to do them, and perhaps some arrangement of the natural world would have the same capability.

That seems to put the some arrangement of the natural world on equal footing with God as the source of the time/space matter/energy universe we see expanding around us.

I would say that if naturalists COULD have interpreted Einstein's work that way that it WOULD benefit them because it could imply that some aspect of the natural world COULD be timeless.

 

[Rizdek]

Yes. The whole point underlying the First Cause argument is that, if there is indeed a first cause, it must be a preternatural one.

I have no clue what that means.

Your asking what I mean by 'the issue of logistics.'

I am referring to why the problem of infinite regress does not apply to the preternatural. Just because it is other than natural, doesn't suddenly eliminate the logical dilemma AFAIK. Just uttering the word 'preternatural' and 'timeless' in the same sentence doesn't eliminate the problem of infinite regress.

We think of things happening in time, but to me, time is merely that which keeps things from happening all at once. If there was no time, say, between the time I was born and the now, then everything I did all my life would've happened in one instant, right? So I would be getting married in the very same moment my mom had me and also in the same moment when I retired from work and every other event in my life. But that is absurd.

But in like fashion, if God, for example, lives and thinks in one timeless moment, then EVERYTHING he thinks and does happens all at once in that one timeless moment. But if God created the universe, that would mean the universe was created in that one timeless moment which would lead to the absurd implication that the universe has existed as long as God has existed...ie always since there could be NO time when the universe did not exist. But everyone seems to be certain that the universe DID begin to exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But in like fashion, if God, for example, lives and thinks in one timeless moment, then EVERYTHING he thinks and does happens all at once in that one timeless moment.

If there is no time there is neither an "all at once" nor a "moment" (timeless or otherwise).

Talk of logistics is absurd. (At least take the time to look up the word.)

 

[Heyo]

If you plug in the speed of light; c, into Einstein's equations for Special Relativity, time, distance and mass become discontinuous. The equation for time is below. The equation for distance and mass look the same, but with t and t' replaced by d and d' and m and m', respectively.

If we plug in V=c, t' or dilated time becomes discontinuous or zero. Distance and mass will also become discontinuous or zero. At the speed of light space-time and matter, which defines how cause and affect occur in time and space in our universe, no longer apply.

With matter gone and the unity of space-time dissociated at the speed of light, one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in space without the constants of time, since there is no matter/mass. If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, you would become omnipresent. If you could move in time without the constraint of space, you would be omniscience, since at each instant of time you would know everything, everywhere, simultaneously.

Einstein had a diamond in the rough, but was afraid to say anything due to the rise of atheism in science which was the cancel culture of his day. I figured out this seam a few years ago and I am not afraid to bring it back to light for discussion. It appears the ancients understood special relativity and placed the spirit of God in the speed of light reference; omniscience and omnipresent. One only needs to translate into science.

You may want to re-read Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia