No ID = A Paradox

quote:

---

So who designed god? And who designed that uber god. And who designed that ultra uber god?

---

Asking those questions in a temporal context implies that God exists within a timeframe. If time has no meaning to God, then referring to actions past-tense would be meaningless to the creator, but meaningful to the creation in the universe where he laid out that principle.According to theology, God exists outside of time, therefore it's not a matter of God coming into existence, but that he has always existed. Omnipresent throughout time, so-to-speak.And no, I'm not going to prove it to you.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Surely you have evidence that god exists and exists "outside of time"?

---

Implying that you have evidence that he exists "within a timeline"? Or that he doesn't exist at all?My statment was merely a thought on the matter, making sense from nonsense. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all fact of the situation.

quote:

---

How is god always existing and the universe always existing any different? Well we have evidence that the universe actually exists, unlike god.

---

My thought was that time has no meaning to God, therefore he does not exist within our limited understanding of time. Indicating that someone created Him implies that there was a past tense action. If God has always existed, then this is not the case.You don't have evidence as to whether God exists or not. The bible declares that the universe itself and all it's attributes should be proof enough.

quote:

---

I wonder what Occam would have to say about that?

---

I don't know, nor do I care.

quote:

---

Translation: I can make up any story I want but I don't want to have to defend it.

---

Wrong. I find it fascinating, however, that you think your senses have evolved to the point of telepathy. Nice character debate.

quote:

---

If you aren't willing to defend your beliefs why bother posting?

---

1) Because I can, and...
2) Because I enjoy critical thinking.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

This doesn't make sense.

---

Sure it does. You're making a simple thought into a complicated one. Typical human behavior. I guess I'm subjected to that, as well.

quote:

---

-If time is a property of the universe alone and not something which applies to God, then the universe must have been created as an object outside of time, i.e time exists within the universe, but if you are God you can see the universe from the outside, from a vantage point of outside time

---

My statement implied that the past-tense creation of the universe is from our perspective, but not God's.

quote:

---

-which means that objects which exist outside of time can be created

---

Confusing, isn't it? That is putting objects as we know them in the universe outside the context of the universe, because the universe exists within the principles of time.

quote:

---

- which begs the question what need is there to posit a God?

---

So we can better understand ourselves, our position, and our purpose.

quote:

---

-alternatively, it opens up the suggestions that God himself could have been designed.

---

No it doesn't, if he's always existed simultaneously.

quote:

---

This "outside of time" argument doesn't have any legs as far as I can see - just an ill-thought version of the "ineffability" argument (aka argument from infinite malleability )

---

Not intellectual and complicated enough for you, I see. It was just an "If, then" statement, not a position on fact.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

yes, according to theology. but why the hell should i trust theology?

---

I'm not telling you to. Believe whatever you want.

quote:

---

You're not going to prove it to me!

---

What's the point? You and others like you have already made up your mind.

quote:

---

Then there's absolutely no reason why i should believe you.

---

Nope. I'm just exploring possibilities and providing critical thinking.

quote:

---

It's like faith, why bother?

---

Because I enjoy thinking in the context of purpose, rather than random chaos.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

If i can believe whatever i want, does that mean if i'm not a christian then i don't go to hell?

---

Interesting bait. I think you know the answer to that question, as you seem knowledgeable about Christianity.I'd rather not go off topic.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

There is no reason why anyone can possibly punish me for not believing the bible, since to the observer, it is impossible to tell which (if any) belief systems are true!

---

Oh there are several reasons, whether you accept them or not. Because if what you're saying is true, how do we know what is true? We wouldn't.If you like, we can start another topic in the "Faith and Belief" forum and discuss it.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

The discussion so far had been going something along the lines of:

​

1. If everything is designed then who designed God etc?
2. Aha! God exists outside of time, so he need not have been created.

---

This is clearly where you have misinterpreted what I've stated.I did not say or indicate "Aha! God exists outside of time, so he need not have been created." However I said "If time has no meaning to God, then referring to actions past-tense would be meaningless to the creator, but meaningful to the creation in the universe where he laid out that principle."Notice how I pointed out the words "if" and "then" in bold. It was a hypothetical statement. I then turned around and pointed out that theology indicates that indeed God is not subjected to time. This is not a scientific argument that requires proof, this is merely a hypothesis derived from logical reasoning.So I take it based on all of what you've stated about your point #2, you completely misunderstood me.

quote:

---

Question: does the universe exist outside of time?

---

The universe is subjected to time. There is no evidence that it exists outside of time. There is past, present, and future.

quote:

---

Time is certainly a property of the universe

---

Is time a property of the universe or is the universe a property of time? I think the latter is true. Everything in the universe seems to be subjected to time.

quote:

---

it begins at the Big Bang, so the universe as a 4-d spacetime object exists outside of time. Indeed to an omniscient onegod (which I'm assuming) the whole universe is a 4d object embedded within a higher dimensional "no time" space.

---

This is assuming that dimensional planes have meaning to God. If they don't, then he is everything and he is nothing at the same time.

quote:

---

This is the crux really. I can't see how you posit a "notime" space and simultaneously assert that the universe exists in time, when spacetime itself began at the Big Bang.

---

Hypothetical thinking and logical reasoning, really. And I'm not convinced that the "big bang" was the event that created the universe and/or spacetime for that matter.

quote:

---

Anyway, if the universe as an object exists outside of time, then its pretty obvious that we're in exactly the same boat as we were before - left with the three possibilities (i), (ii) and (iii), because we are saying that objects which exist outside of time can be created, which means God could have been created. Saying God exists outside of time has no bearing on whether or not he could have been designed himself.

---

I wasn't stating that the universe is an object that exists outside of time, I indicated that it's possible that God exists outside of time. I should probably state this a little more clearly: If time is a property that doesn't affect God or does not pertain to God, then time is meaningless and nothing "created" Him, because he has always existed. The word "created" implies a past tense verb or action, which would have no barring on God in this context, because he exists outside of time and inside throughout time. Omnipresence.

quote:

---

but this doesn't support your idea that God existing outside of time means that he doesn't require a Creator, by extended analogy from (i). Thats why I say this one doesn't have any legs.

---

I was merely following your lead on that tangent. The question "what need is there to posit a God?" did not pertain to the original discussion. I was presenting a point of logical reasoning, not trying to prove that God exists to those who don't believe anyway.

quote:

---

Ineffability = idle speculation.

---

Not always.

quote:

---

So by saying that we cannot comprehend God renders the argument "God could not have been created" meaningless, as it carries the same weight (truth?) as "God could have been created by anything he wanted to be created by".

---

I'm quite comfortable with the assertion that I cannot fully comprehend God. Otherwise, would he be worth worshipping?------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 02-06-2003]

quote:

---

You are confusing the universe itself, with its contents. Massive objects in the universe are certainly subject to time (photons etc as you know are not). I'm obviously not saying that there isn't a past, present and future, but the general consensus is that space and time are properties of the universe and that both "began" at the Big Bang singularity. We can argue this if you like - but maybe on another thread?

---

Indeed. That is where the confusion came in. I completely overlooked the general consensus on Relativity. I was thinking by my own perceptions of time in regards to the timeline and how physical objects are affected by it.I was also under the impression that the universe, not just properties of the universe, exploded into being at one given moment. That even the universe, itself, is subjected to time according to big bang. Because it exploded (past tense) into being approx 13 billion years ago (indicating a length of time or period of time that has passed). That being the case, big bang theorizes that the universe, itself, is subjected to coming into existence or creation in the past.But the theory of relativity disproves that saying that space and time are relative and are properties of the universe, and that the universe is not subjected to it.So, which is it?Yes, perhaps another topic in the cosmology forum would be a good idea. Science cannot answer many things about the universe and has only attempted to do so. From a physical science perspective, either side of the debate deals with ineffability and therefore becomes speculation. That wont stop either side from forming hypotheses and working theories. For myself, I won't stop at physical science. I also embrace the theological perspective. The attempted how's (science) and why's (theology), so to speak. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that God does exist, He is not affected by time as it is one of His creations, and that He is omnipresent.

quote:

---

The argument "God exists outside of time" can be used as an interesting footnote, but doesn't answer the question "who designed God", because the universe also exists outside of time.

---

But according to Big Bang, the universe is subjected to a moment of creation in the past, therefore still subjected to time. If the universe was (past tense) created (past tense) so many millions of years ago (indicating a timeline), then how is it "outside of time"?Where have I gone wrong with this reasoning?

quote:

---

How about replacing "created" with "is responsible for" whenever I use it incorrectly, and I'll give myself a few bonus beatings for good measure?

---

Yes, english is a clumsy language. Quite amusing.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

There is no evidence for a magic man with super fancy magic powers living in the sky. Sorry.

---

True, but there is evidence for the omnipotent God who created everything, who loves us, and wants to redeem us.To the skeptic, it isn't that there's no evidence of God, but the issue is that there is not sufficient evidence of God. This is one of the outcomes of the dispensation of grace, and one of the purposes for the tribulation.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 02-07-2003]

quote:

---

Let's say I had the theory that things fall to the ground because an invisible fairy blows onto them. Question is, is the fact that things do indeed fall to the ground proof for my theory?

​

My guess is that it is only if corroborated with other evidence such that it makes the theory unique i.e I additionally have to provide solid evidence that something is blowing on these objects, and that something is a fairy, and not a leprechaun etc.

---

I understand where you're coming from with that reasoning, but not all evidence is considered "scientific". This is the case whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike, etc.

quote:

---

Arthur C. Clarke has a deceptively powerful idea, which is that the technology of a sufficiently advanced intelligence ("SAI") would be indistinguishable from magic. This is pretty self-evident when you imagine what a 10th Century peasant farmer might make of television, toasters, guided missiles etc.

---

Arthur C. Clarke is a science fiction author. Most of his work should be treated as such. For example: 2001 has passed and humans still haven't even travelled to Mars.In my opinion, embracing his fiction as fact is a proposterous notion and wishful thinking. Kinda like accepting Star Trek as our definite future. The human race is going to remain the same and have the same traits regardless of technological acheivement and circumstantial changes. And here comes my point: Humans had many of the same behavioral patterns in the 10th century as we do today.

quote:

---

Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).

---

Yes, it's easy to fall into circular reasoning, isn't it?

quote:

---

So, even if you had proof of miracles (which I don't think you do), you could never distinguish those miracles from (a mischievious, if you like) SAI technology - ability to read minds, part oceans, cause catastrophic floods, tell the future etc

​

Which is no evidence at all.

---

Ok, we disagree. We also disagree on the definition of evidence.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Everything inside the universe is, yes (except massless particles) - the universe itself isn't, if it can be viewed from the outside.

---

And since we don't know if it can be viewed from the outside, there's no way to tell scientifically if this is the case at this time. Interesting "if, then" statement though. And "if, then" statements are all that I've been suggesting scientifically in this discussion. I'm not posting in this thread in an effort to provide proof.

quote:

---

Given then that the universe, from this preferred vantage point, exists outside of time - all the properties which one can assign of objects existing outside of time (e.g requiring / not requiring a designer) can be attributed to the universe.

---

Ok, then. How does this apply to a being (theoretically) whose main attributes exist outside of the universe or are not affected by the universe? Would they still need a creator or is it possible that they just are?

quote:

---

I've been labouring this, I know and its only probably only a very minor quibble in the grand scheme of things - but it does highlight a more generalised quibble I have. As you've probably guessed, I don't believe in God - partly because I don't know what God is supposed to be. Sure, I know some of his properties, omnipotent, all-merciful, compassionate, terrible wrath etc, but what exactly is he/she/it? An intelligent being? Something that "sits" in a higher dimensionsal space, creating life to worship him, "thinking" deep thoughts and feeding off "love".

---

And that's the problem with skepticism of the matter. It doesn't matter what information is brought into the discussion, the sketpical party will always debate it and/or discard it.Ok, I don't feel it's necessary to continue this particular discussion. It was a very interesting discussion, however we're obviously polarized in our postures on the matter.

quote:

---

Its nothing more than applied common sense.

---

I disagree. Modern science does not always apply common sense.

quote:

---

I need hardly remind you of Galileo and the Christian church either.

---

Using the church as an example for refutation would be meaningless. People are people.

quote:

---

I think there is a fundamental difference between religion and science - I don't hold that science is just another religion.

---

I agree with this statement. I don't hold science as "just another religion" either. This is not a contradiction in my stance. I don't think that theology = religion. Nor do I think that faith always = religion. It's a problem with semantics.

quote:

---

I'm talking from the perspective of an observer sitting outside the universe and observing it.

---

So, someone in the Good Year blimp looking at a street parade: They can see the entire parade as it's happening, whereas people on the street can only see the various parts of the parade, as it moves down the street. Meanwhile, that parade does not affect the person in the blimp that way because they can see everything. If someone can look at the universe and "it's properties of time" from an outside perspective, how would time relate to them? Would they come into existence, or would they have always existed?------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Then don't think about Clark, think about cargo cults. These are a real world example of his SAI/God idea-- maybe not his idea at all, really.

---

Interesting.So... I should think about cargo cults whose ideology is based on that particular science fiction, because they are real world organizations? That doesn't make sense.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

I'm not sure what evidence being scientific has to do with my original assertion that there was no evidence for God - are you saying that there is unscientific evidence for God? If so, you need to explain to me the distinction between the two variants of evidence and what you think the unscientific evidence for God actually is.

​

...if I've understood you correctly.

---

Evidence does not need to be scientific to point to or prove something. I.E. there is historical evidence, theological evidence, archeological evidence, etc. I accept the fact that not everything needs to be proven or explained scientifically. Then, again, I'm no scientist and that's probably why.Saying that there is no evidence for God whatsoever is incorrect, IMO. Otherwise, how do you know of God?

quote:

---

This is an uncharacteristically weak argument - I was merely attributing the idea to its originator. The technology of an SAI would be indistinguishable from magic to us - its all there in the word "sufficiently".

---

I thought the argument about SAI was weak. Even from a perspective like yours, humanity has "evolved" their thought patterns sufficiently enough to know the distinction. Many scientists would see the "magic" and classify it as "superior technology". Hence you recognizing that there could be technology that we will not understand because it's so advanced.

quote:

---

If you disagree with this, you need to do better than an ad hominem on ACC* for being a science fiction writer. He could be a dustman and the idea, the idea, would still be pertinent. (No offence to any dustmen reading).

---

I didn't intend for it to be an ad hominem, but I guess it was under that context. I apologize, as I didn't post it to criticize you, but to criticize the idea.

quote:

---

I don't dispute this. But if aliens from the planet Zarg came and visited us tomorrow with their' mind-rays and ability to turn water into wine, heal the sick, and make Saturn change direction it'd be something our technology couldn't possibly conceive of. If they did it invisibly, then yes, its pretty apparent to me that this would be indistinguishable from magic.

---

I'm sure you and others would be intelligent enough to simply say "it's merely highly sophisticated technology".

quote:

---

I'm not sure what behavioural traits have to do it.

---

Not much. I was just pointing out an example of a trait in the human race that hasn't changed much.

quote:

---

PE: Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).

​

Satcomm: Yes, it's easy to fall into circular reasoning, isn't it?

​

PE: How is this circular reasoning?

---

It is circular because you are using the premise based on science fiction to conclude that SAI is indistinguishable of the actions from God (based on history), which then in turn proves the original premise of SAI to be true.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

He wants to stop. He wants to carry on. he wants to stop. He wants to carry on....

---

LOL, I'm sorry man. Ok, I'm done.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Did you even look up cargo cult? They are not based on science-fiction of any kind, but they are real examples of the idea. Clark put a name to the idea that stuck. That's all.

---

No, I didn't. My fault. Ok, so I just researched what you were talking about and still don't agree with the idea.Most first-world countries would recognize technology for what it is. SAI or not, there would be debate. Not everyone, especially scientists, would accept it as "magic" or "divinity"; especially coming from an alien origin. This is, of course, assuming that there is technology out there in the universe that is superior to our own.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?