Brian2
Veteran Member
I see God as unchanging and as not being controlled by time, as existing from eternity but a timeless eternity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Most Basic Question...
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
I see God as unchanging and as not being controlled by time, as existing from eternity but a timeless eternity.
Brian2
Veteran Member
So are you saying that you also don't believe in infinite time into the past or that it is possible that infinite time into the past could exist?
Heyo
Veteran Member
So, timeless and spaceless? I agree.
Timeless = not in time = never.
Spaceless = not in space = nowhere.
God exist[s|ed] never and nowhere.
I'm saying that there's a question, so there's something.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Sounds like the singularity out of which the universe and everything is supposed to have sprung for some unknown reason.
I wonder if God was in all of space and time even before it existed. Hmmm.
not necessarily, or at least it is worth analyzing It. What most people considers logically impossible is usually only a paradox, or something that they cannot imagine. But both are not sufficient to deduce logical impossibility, which is a much stronger claim.
To make an example which can serve as a warning, it is logically possible to take a sphere, dissecting it into parts, and reassemble the parts to create two spheres totally identical to the original. it is actually a theorem, which by definition must be logically tenable. Whether that would be also nomologically possible, is debatable, but for sure it is logically possible, even though most people would say it is logically crazy.
but let us first get finished with infinite regress. That is, the idea of an infinite chain of antecedent causes of the current status of affairs, without having therefore a first cause.
since you seem to be concerned mostly with infinite past time, AND infinite regress DOES NOT entail infinite past time, I can deduce that you concede that infinite regress is not impossible, per se, anymore. Right?
if you concede that, and with it you concede the the lack of necessity for a first cause, we can move to infinite past time.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
I imagine infinite regress could happen in finite time if cause and effect happened at the same time, no time delay.
not necessarily.
This is the basic fact: the sum of an infinite sequence of contiguous, but non instantaneous time intervals, can be finite.
so, if these time intervals separate the time between one causation event and its effect, it does not really matter.
simultaneity is not required in any parts of the reasoning, and the basic fact always holds.
so, no matter what, infinite regress, even where all cause/effects are not instantaneous, does not entail infinite time. So, we have a logically viable scenario in which:
1) the time between an effect and its antecedent cause is bigger than zero. Always
2) every cause is an effect, and has therefore an antecedent cause
3) this entails an infinite sequence of causation events back to the past, each of them taking bigger than zero time
4) the entire sum of those time intervals is finite. Ergo, the entire sequence is bounded in the past
5) every state of affair is entirely explained by its antecedent cause. None excluded.
6) we have fully explanatory power without a first cause, which cannot possibly exist
so, according to this, I don’t know how you cannot concede the logical possibility of infinite regress. Unless you defeat any of the points I mentioned, which I believe you cannot.
and once we get over this, we can start treating the alleged logical impossibility of infinite past time. I am confident that would be possible, too.
caveat: I assume the traditional ontology of time. The so called A-theory, which corresponds to our intuitions of past, present, future and an associated passing, or flow. If I used the B theory, all cosmological arguments would be moot, anyway. But that would be no fun.
ciao
- viole
joelr
Well-Known Member
No we don't know what began the big bang.
A brain is the basis of consciousness. You cannot cite evidence in a story and consider it good evidence. Consciousness only arises in complex brains.
To you maybe. Potentiality isn't vague at all. Wavefunctions are what all matter is made of and follow very precise mathematical laws.
We know to an extremely fine degree the extent we can measure probability at the quantum scale.
They do demonstrate that a God is not needed. Nature contains forces and uses probability to create. This is all that is needed.
No it's a paradox. So in reality there was a "first"? So before this cause there was no reality? That is a problem and sounds unlikely.
If this was the first and from that comes a complete thinking, conscious being, with unlimited powers......? Well that is the most improbable thing I have ever heard. Both concepts.
It's unlikely there was ever a first cause in reality. If there was it would be simple. Possibly just pure potential for things to exist.
Why would Inana be true? Why would fictional stories be true?
Actually science is practicing the scientific method perfectly. Look at all the progress. The reason science hasn't come up with God as an answer is because there is no evidence for a God. Zeus is the answer to no scientific problems. Yahweh is no different.
That applies to a God as well. So a God also has the infinite regress problem. Reality is probably eternal. Time is only local and in parts of reality. Reality may be infinite, this local part of reality has evolved into universes that use probabilities. Why would we need a super being involved in this?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is easy. Your argument is in part cognitive and not just empirical. For #4 for the first case of "is", it is not an empirical and observational proposition. It is a result in your brain of how to do cognitive processes, but that is not the same as it is so independent of your brain.
The argument here is whether infinite regress is logically possible. Not necessarily whether it has been instantiated in this universe. therefore, the empirical evidence is not required. We are addressing the logical possibility, not the nomological one.
Because the claim was that infinite regress leads to logically impossible situations, in general. Which, as we have seen, is not necessarily so.
Ciao
- viole
Brian2
Veteran Member
How does an infinite sequence of larger than 0 intervals give a finite length of time?
let us suppose we count in hours. So, 1 is one hour. 1/2 is half an hour, and so on.
1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ….. = 1 hour
ciao
- viole
Brian2
Veteran Member
Science can study a brain and link consciousness with activity in the brain at various sites. It could be the case that the consciousness is in spirit that is attached to the brain and can read the brain and can give input to the brain to produce more activity in what is essentially a complex computer but not alive, in the sense of being conscious as chemicals and electrical impulses and nothing else.
All I can say is that this is an interesting theory. But of course there is more to the universe than just something that exists and how is it known anyway that it can be said that the universe, at the quantum scale, existed before or at the very beginning of things?
Before this effect (the universe) there was no reality as we know it. It is outside our experience and so is paradoxical.
Why can't the first cause be this complete thinking, conscious being, with unlimited powers? instead of this being coming from a cause?
Why can't the being's thinking be instead "knowing"?
Why can't the being's consciousness be "life"?
Why can't the being have all power because it is the only thing, nothing exists outside of it?
And yes it would be the only potentiality for other things to exist.
Fictional stories aren't true but why do they all have to be fictional.
The existence of a non material God or gods is not a scientific question. Science cannot say yay or nay and cannot claim that stories are fictional or not unless the claims in the stories can be shown to have not happened.
A God who caused first, does not need to have had a beginning in time.
It is interesting that time can travel at different speeds or maybe even suspended in parts of the universe but that overall the whole universe is the same age.
I don't know why I should believe in science speculations about reality when this universe and this earth has evidence of a God who has told us the big answers to the big questions imo
joelr
Well-Known Member
you are adding a redundency. When you have surgery, you are gone. You just wake up, no time, no dream. Like death probably is.
This does not prove Krishna, Zeus or Jesus is real.
We don't know what existed before the big bang. Guesses won't help.
There was probably some reality.
Because why can't it be Gandolf from LOTR? OR Zeus? Because the evidence for those is they are beings in a myth. Same with Yahweh.
In fiction. We don't have evidence or reason to believe that is real.
Then why couldn't the being make "life" in the same way? Why go through laws of physics up to self replicating chemicals and make it look like nature is random, creative and not a being who just "lives" for no reason. It's fiction. Nature is what it is. We have seen nature. Creative forces, probabilities, change, evolve, no mind
Why would everything, which is probably infinite, be a being? It would be alone, it would need the power to cross an infinity to know it's self, why would it be a mind? Minds take complexity and evolution. We already have creative forces of change, we don't need a fictional being who happens to be like us but greater. That is the answer, we see people and envision a super-person as the first.
Potentiality already exists without consciousness. Don't need a God.
Right now some things are not possible. They might never be possible. Or Maybe Zeus is real. OR is it the religion popular now, it has to be that one? Wow, so convienant. Not Allah, or Brahman either? Yeah, no chance.
That isn't an argument. I can say the same about Santa Clause, Superman as well as Allah and Brahman.
Because science has been demonstrated to provide actual answers. We now understand physics, biology, the human anatomy, chemistry, you are on a computer, driving a car with an iphone and can look at pictures of galaxies billions of light years away. And you question science?
And no, no God has given any answers.
He said there was a firmament and more nonsense. Not one single scientific fact was learned. Pi was not even correct.
He also forgot about Satan, savior demigods and HEAVEN, until Greeks and Persians occupied, then somehow it got figured out, even though they already knew?
Did God tell you about the Earth rotating around the sun? No?
Atoms? No?
Germs? No?
Many prophecies that never happened Yes. Around 200 - Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes
So what the heck are you talking about????????????
Even Islam had more science (they copied from Greek science books)
Or did you mean souls go to heaven cuz Jesus? That was Greek, Persian myth -
Second Temple Judaism[edit]
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[51] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[51] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[52][53] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[53] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[53] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[54] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[53] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[51] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC).[44] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[44]
Heyo
Veteran Member
You serious?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Then I have to tell you that your maths doesn't work out.
The sum of an infinite sequence can be finite, but you'd have to show that it is. In fact, in the real world this is impossible. The speed of causation is 3 * 10⁸ m/s. Or, iow, when you reduce the time intervals towards 0, the radius of causation shrinks proportionally. The number of elements in a chain of causes is therefore limited and no infinite regress of causes is physically possible.
My math is calculus as it has been known by males still wearing ridiculous wigs.it is actually quite basic.
i am surprised you doubt it. Can you show me where I am wrong?
I hope you indulge me if I do not get particularly impressed by rebuttals that reduce to “you are wrong”.
Well, i can show you. This is usually shown in Calculus 1.0. The sum of a geometric series converges. Absolutely, as I said. You can google for the proof. It is quite easy. Actually, you do not even need Calculus to see that. Just cut a pizza by half, one of the two halves by half, and so on, and you will see that.
and for what concerns the “in the real world cannot happen”, it could be true. But this is not the scope of this rebuttal. The rebuttal is to show that infinite regress does not lead to logical impossibilities, not that it can be possibly actualized in nature. Two different things. And therefore, considerations about the real world, are not relevant, at this stage. I first need to hear that logic is OK, before we move to nomologic, which relates with laws of this universe, which are a very strict subset of what is merely allowed by logic.
However, just for fun, how do you know? We have no clue beyond the Planck Scale at the so called “beginning“ of the Universe. There is no physics for that, yet. So, any claims about physical impossibilities are sort of irrational. For sure, postulating a first cause is as equal as me postulating infinite regress and no first cause beyond the Planck scale. Who is right? Well, if we consider what we know, we are both equally entitled to claim that. Which for sure allows us to logically conclude that: the first cause arguments does not obtain, as long as there are alternatives that are equally possible, and have the same empirical evidence. In this case, none.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
But can you do it in finite time? For the pizza example you reach both a spacial limit (size of molecules) and a time limit (time needed for a cut). Mathematically you could do it and you can show that the size and the time converge to a finite number.
(You might remember that in calculus you have to show that the upper and lower boundaries converge to a common, finite number.) Your approach that time can be halved infinite times is naïve without showing that causation can also.