DHA's Wager

PecosGeorge Your definition is neglecting to explain the origins of god and the basis of your phrasing that god is "very much so possible". Does this mean that it is highly likely that god exists or just that you need the existence of god in order to put a foundation to your ideas about the world?

quote:

---

Absent proof that {A} exists and
Absent proof that {A} does not exist

​

What is the more logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist, or
(3) We don't know.

---

One major problem is the first two lines:Absent proof that {A} exists and
Absent proof that {A} does not existHow can you evaluate this without knowing what {A} is? Secondly it is impssible to prove a universal negative. Please show me that there nowhere where in this universe is a planet identical to this one in every way - except that coke bottles are all blue!But even your examples with the calescednt are bong.Compare:
1. We have evidence of Dinosaurs until 65 million years ago.
2. In all layers above there are no traces.
3. We have not had any sightings of dinosaurs recorded in known history.Now only 1. is actual evidence, so by your standard we cannot say anything about dinosaurs existing today?The coalescent is different
1. We have fossil evidence of it X millions year ago.
2. In all layers above there are no traces
3. We have found fresh specimens recentlyNow we have to lines of real evidence 1. and 3. Together they would seem to support the theory that the coalescent has indeed existed the last X million years.What we do is we use the evidence as datapoints, and use hypothesis or theory to supply missing datapoints.The god theory has no datapoints. Indeed in general the god concepts makes no predictions as to what would constitute datapoints - barring specific cases such as the flood, that has been shown wrongWhat you are saying is that if tell you that you have a goat sitting on your shoulder - then you cannot conclude if this is true or not - since all you can observe is the lack of evidence of the goat sitting on your shoulder - and absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence!/Soren

quote:

---

Then either God is in the universe and therefore must have created himself, or he is outside the universe, which calls into question what we mean by 'the universe'. Both positions are logically inconsistent.

---

I'm privy to what scripture relates regarding the origin of god. He has no beginning, he has no end. Define infinity. Nor can I say that self-creation applies. Spontaneous combustion requires material to combust (LOL)

quote:

---

Why "very much so"? Is "very much so possible" somehow better than just plain "possible"? I think it's bias that makes you say this.

---

Of course I'm predisposed to the existence of God, I'm Christian. And that is 'very much so' true, and 'very much so' is emphasis, granted it is unnecessary. But why do you point it out? Everyone has idionsyncracies of speech.

quote:

---

Of course there are. But I didn't ask for proof. I asked for a definition.

---

I strayed off the subject. Pardon.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

PecosGeorge

​

God is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.

​

Your definition is neglecting to explain the origins of god and the basis of your phrasing that god is "very much so possible". Does this mean that it is highly likely that god exists or just that you need the existence of god in order to put a foundation to your ideas about the world?

---

Hi, Sidelined......but what has sidelined you? (LOL)The bible says that God has no beginning and no end. That is very much so possible so far as I'm concerned. In no way do I suggest that anyone should agree.God serves me very well regarding a foundation for the world. It does, however, NOT make me oppose any and all scientific effort for or against God. That may make me a slightly different kind of Christian, but science is no threat to what I believe, the opposite is true. I am encouraged by it.
(Now I have to get some work done. Good day to you).This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-17-2005 09:53 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

Indeed. But they should not become a functional part of a logical argument, and that is what happened, or so it seemed. That's ok. We all do, sometimes.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

PecosGeorge I am not sure if there is a conceptual difficulty that is presented with the assertion of a god that has no end,however there is a huge paradox concerning one that has no beginning.Consider what is is implied by no beginning.This is the same as saying that god never became god.It also implies that time had no start,without which the progress of time itself cannot proceed and,hence our time frame can never be arrived at.Nor can god's.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

quote:

---

I am not sure if there is a conceptual difficulty that is presented with the assertion of a god that has no end,however there is a huge paradox concerning one that has no beginning.Consider what is is implied by no beginning.This is the same as saying that god never became god.It also implies that time had no start,without which the progress of time itself cannot proceed and,hence our time frame can never be arrived at.Nor can god's.

---

What is implied by no beginning, so far as I go, is timelessness, or time measured other.Time and the measurement of it, means something to us that is not compatible/applicable with what it means to God or about God. The measurements we apply to time are convenient and appropriate for us. Time so measured serves our purpose (so we'll know when we are old, or late, etc.).
Psalm 90:4
'For a thousand years in your (God's) sight, are like a day that has just gone by.....(meaning time as we measure it, does not apply to him)
2 Peter 3:8....with God a day is LIKE a thousand years.....(again, our measurements do not apply).A day is like a thousand years, is an attempt to help us understand God's timelessness or beginning and ending in ways elusive to what we know.And an astronomer said.......'Master, what of time? And he answered.....'You would measure time, the measureless and immeasurable?' (Gibran)'For what is time? Who can even in thought comprehend it so as to utter a word about it? If no one asks me, I know. If I wish to explain it to one who asks, I know not.' (St. Augustine, The Confessions).

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

That's correct. GOD was always GOD, never something other than GOD. Isn't our timeframe related to the Universe? I added a little to your quote. Does that better reflect what you were saying?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Time is one dimension of the measurement of an event.In our universe 3 dimensions of space; length,width and depth signify the coordinates for the location.To fully describe an event we must also include time which is the relation of the space position of matter to the movement of matter within that space.
Spacetime is an conditional aspect of the existence of matter in the same way that mass-energy is.Since they are measurements they can have no meaning in the absence of matter.To say that god never had a beginning means that time could never begin and the relative movement within matter upon which the definition of time depends could not,by implication,initiate and,thus,our time today could never have been arrived at since,without a beginning,it extends infinitely into the past.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

sigh. Logic 101 course signup has already been filled ...add one {A} to one {A} ... do you need to know what {A} is to know that you get two {A}'s? This is exactly the same kind of issue.You do not need to know what {A} is to judge the validity of the logical construction. And that is why the scientific, logical answer is always uncertainty when such a circumstance is encountered. Rather than this being a problem for my argument, it reinforces it: the only logical conclusion is uncertainty, that "we--don't--know" the answer, and either assumption that we do is erroneous from a logical basis. Correct, probably more so than you realize. Current thinking is that birds are dino-survivor descendants from the impact event.The example of the coelacanth (correct spelling btw) is just precisly an example of something for which there was no current evidence and conventional thinking was that it was extinct, that absence of evidence was evidence of absence.Coelacanth Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Coelacanth - Wikipedia
in addition to my previous link.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

PecosGeorge An unfortunate quote since we do indeed measure time as I outline in post #99

jar I am not saying god was not always god. I am saying that god needs have a beginning as I outline in post #99

And that's what I'm disagreeing with. I don't think that's correct.Time is only something that has a reference within this universe. It's likely not something that existed before the Big Bang.Time, as we know it, begins with the Big Bang or very shortly thereafter. But theists believe GOD existed before the Big Bang, Before Time, for ever. We don't believe GOD had a beginning.edited to add a " "This message has been edited by jar, 03-17-2005 09:29 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar That is the crux of the problem though,in that you are saying god existed before the big bang,before time for ever. As you see in the italics you are employing temporal terms and applying them to imagined events before time {and therefore before temporal events}I am not sure if you are appreciating the pardox presented by no beginning.To exist infinitley into the past means that an arrival at any given point on a timeline can never be reached.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

You're right. I see no paradox.Time is a construct of the Universe as we know it. It is a constraint of the Universe as we know it. We can only speak using terms that have a referent to things we can experience.GOD however, is truly beyond our full comprehension. The Universe, as we know it, exists within Him. Even that is an imprecise rendition but unfortunately, we do not know enough, or have a language that is adequate to describe GOD. Instead we struggle using our imprecise language to explain as much as we can. But GOD exists at every point on any timeline and in addition, at points not referenced by time. GOD exists infinitely in the future as well. And He exists simultaneously in the past and in the future,any point and every point.We're getting way away from the initial OP and I don't want to bring the wrath of AdminJar down on me but this is similar to other discussions we've had. GOD does not exist in time, or space, but both time and space may well exist in Him.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion