No ID = A Paradox

This doesn't make sense.-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
-which means that objects which exist outside of time can be created
- which begs the question what need is there to posit a God?
-alternatively, it opens up the suggestions that God himself could have been designed.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 )PE

My fault for not being clear enough.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.Its 2. that I take issue with.There are three possibilities which need mentioning to begin with:i) The universe does not require a Creator
ii) The universe requires a Creator, who is God
iii) The universe requires a Creator who himself requires a Creator(s) etc...The original design argument goes something along the lines of:we observe, by analogy, (i) to be false therefore (ii) is true.which is challenged with:ah, but if you apply the same logic (design) to (ii)- one god, you get (iii) - many godsand then your comment was along the lines of:you cannot apply design to (ii)- one god, as creation must involve time, and onegod exists out of timea comment "designed" to collapse the possibilites of (ii) and (iii) being correct into (ii) - onegod alone.This is what doesn't make sense to me - since, as I've argued, this comment leaves the possibilities of (i) and (iii) intact, so doesn't advance the argument.Here's why I think this:Let's look a little deeper into what you might mean in 2. Stripped of the flowery bits it is an assertion that:"Objects which exist outside of time need not be created"Question: does the universe exist outside of time?Time is certainly a property of the universe - 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 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.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.You briefly mention a completely different argument entirely:(we posit a God)...

quote:

---

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

---

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.(And using the same analogy, this (probably unfairly) suggests we should also posit "invisible friends", and have them exist outside of time. But I don't think you were arguing for the existence of God on these two points alone )Hope this is clearer - I think you need to argue the point about whether the universe exists outside of time or not if you want to continue to run with "OneGod outside of time means anything goes" line of reasoning, or argue ineffability (OneGod can be anything we want him to be and defy all logic and understanding. We are miniscule humans who cannot even begin to comprehend etc..).Trouble is, once you've argued ineffability, thats the end of the road for you as well as me. You can no more say anything credible about OneGod than I can, for OneGod is mysterious, powerful, outside the bounds of logic and time and well, ineffable. God could well have created the universe and then destroyed himself to remove all trace that he ever existed, or could ever have existed, and we'd never know the difference. Ineffability = idle speculation.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".Apologies if I've overelaborated here PE

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not sure I did, since my argumenet would still hold even if 2 were appended with "if" and "then". My argument being that saying God exists outside of time is no answer to the question of who created God.Now whether or not God exists, and exists outside of time is actually irrelevant to what I'm saying, so I'm not attacking what you were saying on a factual basis - just saying that what you offered in defence of the "who designed the designer" question was not relevant.Note: I'm not saying that "IF God exists outside of time THEN he need not be created" is untrue, just that you can't say that and say that the universe had to be created by a designer in the same breath, without providing more information.And yes, it does hinge on this notion of the universe itself existing outside of time which I'll explain shortly...

quote:

---

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

---

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?Having said that, we don't even need to agree with the modern view of how spacetime arose to support my argument...Lets suppose the universe exists in some sort of "meta-time" - and in meta-time we had nothing, then a universe, then the eventual end of the universe (however that may come about).This was what I was explaining in my last two posts....we can imagine what a being for whom even meta-time held no sway could see when he looked at the universe we inhabit.He'd see every single instant of the universe "simultaneously", time appearing a dimension, much like "width". Everything from "creation" to "heat death".So what is it the being is seeing exactly? Its the universe as a 4-d object, an object existing in meta-time, but also existing as an object in the same timeless space the being is in. This is what the being is seeing - a time-controlled 4d object embedded in a higher dimensional space.The universe in this sense, in any sense at all where it can be viewed from a higher dimensional space must exist as an object embedded within that space.So given that this universe must exist outside of time as well, it stands to reason that it need not have been created, using the same logic as God. Or it was created, but that God himself could also have been created etc.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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Agreed. Its the problem with words, we've never properly had the need to evolve language to deal with tenses where time has no meaning. "created" was sloppy use of language by me and yes I will be adminstering myself with a sound thrashing. 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?Everything else in your post, I'm pretty much ok with.PE

quote:

---

i) The universe does not require a Creator
ii) The universe requires a Creator, which is the Big Bang
iii) The universe requires a Creator which itself requires a Creator(s) etc...

---

You've taken what I wrote and substituted "Big Bang" for "God". Was there any thought behind this?

quote:

---

You don't believe in one God but you believe in the Big Bang?

---

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

quote:

---

Who/what created the matter before the big bang?

---

who? Loaded term. who is the colour of the sky?
before? Loaded term. what lies 10 miles north of the North pole?PE

quote:

---

I was also under the impression that the universe, not just properties of the universe, exploded into being at one given moment.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

That even the universe, itself, is subjected to time according to big bang.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, from a vantage point inside the universe. If you were outside the universe looking in, from a vantage point of outside time, you'd see the universe as an object - a geometric shape, if you like.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't see the contradiction. If you are inside the universe you are subject to time. If you are outside you're not. To a being outside of time, you can see the universe as an "outside of time" object, but you can't do that from inside the universe.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.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".Its at this point that you're probably thinking about appeals to the incomprehensibility of God, but then how am I supposed to accept the existence of something, for which I've never seen any evidence and whose very definition can be moulded to suit the times, or indeed the very explanation?

quote:

---

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.

---

Science makes observations, forms theories to fit the obsevations and then modifies, or even throws out those theories if later observations contradict the extant theories. Its nothing more than applied common sense. Religious dogma is set in stone on Day One, interpreted by priests / shamans according to the time and are unchangeable (or changeable with great effort) - for example, a great many muslims do not believe man ever landed on the moon because they interpret the Koran as saying it is impossible for man to reach the moon. I need hardly remind you of Galileo and the Christian church either.I think there is a fundamental difference between religion and science - I don't hold that science is just another religion.

quote:

---

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"?

---

See above (and my prev two posts), I'm talking from the perspective of an observer sitting outside the universe and observing it.PEedit: added comments in italics[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

We disagree on this. It depends partly on what you mean by evidence, I suppose.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.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.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).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 etcWhich is no evidence at all.PE

quote:

---

As much thought was given as your original post. You fail to see your hypocrisy.

---

You need to look at the context my possibilities were in - you had no context and nor did your possibilities make sense.

quote:

---

What proof?!? It is a freaking theory, nothing more. You have faith in a theory just as Satcomm has faith in God. Do not construe popular theory for fact.

​

A bunch of men within the recent past unlocked the complex secrets of the Universe, however, the cure to simple cancer eludes them.

---

There is evidence for a Big Bang event at the beginning of the universe. You may choose to ignore it, but its there. This is not a matter of faith, as faith is believing in something in spite of the evidence.It is only your supposition that figuring out how the universe began is a more dificult task than curing cancer. There's no basis for this.

quote:

---

The earth has a beginning and an end. The universe (to our knowledge) does not. The analogy is irrelevant.

---

Where is the beginning of the Earth?PEedit: typos as usual[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

quote:

---

...or "lack of evidence," wouldn't you agree?

---

No. I meant in spite of the evidence.(edited to add: on further thinking, i agree with you now - faith is belief in spite of, or sometimes because of lack of evidence)

quote:

---

We finally have an evolutionist admitting his faith in abiogenesis.

---

Who's "we"?If you can define for me what life is, I'll tell you if its plausible that it arose from "non-life". My current favourite is Kaufman's "self-replicator which performs at least one thermodynamic work cycle" whcih can be shown to arise through chemical precursors. Give me a laboratory the size of the Earth and 1000 million years and I'll show you how life came about - or failing that we'd have to model the conditions inside a computer.I don't rule out panspermia either - best keep an open mind, but my hunch is that life began on Earth independently.There are several plausible mechanisms for how the first replicators on Earth came about.Also - point to note - evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis - but you knew that anyway right

quote:

---

Primordial Egg is quite the conundrum, especially since such an event never happened. I do admire your faith, however.

---

It never happened because you weren't there??? What do you find implausible about chemical replicators competing for resources in a primordial soup?PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

I don't follow your reasoning for much of your post - partly because we have such different views I suspect, and partly because I'm being dense.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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". 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).

quote:

---

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.

---

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 not sure what behavioural traits have to do it. How is this circular reasoning?PE*this may be the first time ever I've used the term "ad hominem" correctly!

quote:

---

Circumstantial evidence does indeed exist. Proof the big bang actually happen does not. It is a theory. Nothing more.

---

In the interests of substance, what do you think the circumstantial evidence for the Big Bang is?PE

OK - another thread, another topic, another time maybe?PE

He wants to stop. He wants to carry on. he wants to stop. He wants to carry on....We're still speaking at cross purposes you realise...

quote:

---

I'm not posting in this thread in an effort to provide proof.

---

Me neither - just pointing out the insufficiency of stating that God exists outside of time so doesn't require a designer. Objects which exist outside of time can require a designer. So the choice, as they say, is yours:1. Things outside of time were created.
2. Things outside of time were not created.According to you, the universe is case (1) and God is case (2). Without further info, this is an artificial distinction.

quote:

---

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?

---

Up to you. As long as you apply the same standards to anything which exists outside of time. Or give reasons.But like you say, this has been done to death. Lets just stop this.

quote:

---

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.

---

The ultimate skeptic believes nothing at all. I'm not the ultimate skeptic. I don't believe in things for which I have no evidence. All your skeptic allegations can equally be levelled at somebody who doesn't believe in fairies.

quote:

---

Modern science does not always apply common sense.

---

This would be a great topic for you to elaborate upon. Another thread perhaps?

quote:

---

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

---

IIRC, I was illustrating how dogma can get in the way of solid evidence. People are indeed people and my example of the Church and Galileo is still apt.

quote:

---

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?

---

Again, up to you. As long as you're consistent about it.PE

quote:

---

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.

---

I haven't seen any historical, archaeological evidence etc for God either (I'd have classed it scientific, but at least we now know what one another mean). And I don't know what theological evidence is.

quote:

---

Saying that there is no evidence for God whatsoever is incorrect, IMO. Otherwise, how do you know of God?

---

Just because I know "of" something, it doesn't mean it exists, surely? I know "of" the tooth fairy.Unless (again) you mean something quite diferent by knowing "of" God. Perhaps you're talking about a personal and intimate relationship with God? Even so, this is not evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, if a gigantic 3d Michaelangelo arm of God came out of the sky, parting the clouds as it did so, finger pointed at me and told me what I was going to have for breakfast in 2027, then I'd pretty much call that magic. After I'd wet myself, at any rate. Note the word "sufficiently" - we can be as extragavant as you like - go wild! - a huge smiley face on the Sun, the galaxies suddenly realigning to spell the word "ubiquitous" in the sky. A "sufficiently" advanced intelligence could do this and much much more that we would consider impossible.And, like God, we have no evidence that an SAI doesn't exist (note I'm not saying I believe in SAIs either - just illustrating that it is impossible to draw any distinction between an SAI and God).

quote:

---

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.

---

No need to apologise to me! I was referring to your ad hominem on Arthur C Clarke - you know - dissing what he had to say because he happens to also write science fiction. It doesn't matter who he was or what he did, I was talking about the idea. Forget he wrote it. I only mentioned it to avoid charges of plagiarism. Think of it as though I were saying it!(Aside: Incidentally, are you aware that Asimov's Laws of Robotics have been adopted by the cybernetic community? Interesting, huh?)

quote:

---

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.

---

The premise is not based on science fiction. Just because Arthur C Clarke came up with the idea, it doesn't automatically follow that the idea itself is science fiction, or that every thing he did was science fiction. For example, would the cashier at the grocery store have had an existentialist crisis every time ACC asked him how much it all came to? And even if it was...I still don't see why its circular. I extend the premise, but I don't use the extension to prove the premise itself. My "proof" comes from the fact that I can use the word "sufficiently" arbitrarily.Note: I just wat to make something clear here. I'm not suggesting that there is an SAI out there, playing pranks on us. I'm saying that any evidence that you could put forward for the existence of some sort of deity, could also be explainable by an SAI.The way I see it, you can either agree this or provide me with a situation where a miracle, or any evidence for God whatsoever, could only be unmistakeably from God, and not an SAI. I can't see how you can do this, almost by definition.Hence I conclude that there is no unique evidence for God.PEPS Btw ACC was also, amogst other things, past Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, a member of the International Academy of Astronautics, the Royal Astronomical Society and many other scientific organizations. It doesn't change the essential power of his idea (called Clarke's 3rd Law) one iota.