No ID = A Paradox

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] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------yes, according to theology. but why the hell should i trust theology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not telling you to. Believe whatever you want. [quote] If i can believe whatever i want, does that mean if i'm not a christian then i don't go to hell?

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?

Yes, I do know the answerThere 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!

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?

Satcomm writes:

quote:

---

Implying that you have evidence that he exists "within a timeline"? Or that he doesn't exist at all?

---

No. I have no evidence of god at all. However, claiming that god exists and that this god somehow exists "outside of time" requires evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

Matt made a claim (I am intelligent therefore my creator must be intelligent), I countered by pointing out that this reasoning results in an endless regression. You suggest that a god who is outside of time is not subject to our laws of nature. Fine, but I'm not going to accept this explanation without evidence. You don't have any.

quote:

---

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.

---

A being outside of time goes against all we know about how the universe works. If you want it to be seriously considered as a solution you need to provide evidence and very convincing evidence at that.

quote:

---

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.

---

Proof of what or whom? The gallactic goat? Zeus?
What the bible says is irrelevant. The universe shows no signs of being created. Ad-hoc explanations as to why this is so and why we would need to be created and god not need evidence.

quote:

---

I don't know, nor do I care.

---

You believe regardless what the evidence or logic has to say? [QUOTE] [B]
Wrong. I find it fascinating, however, that you think your senses have evolved to the point of telepathy. Nice character debate. [/QUOTE]Wrong. You make fantastic claims and then state that you aren't going to prove them. I just condenced your post into one sentence.
I can make up any story I want but I don't want to have to defend it.

quote:

---

1) Because I can, and...
2) Because I enjoy critical thinking.

---

Critical thinking requires you to hold your ideas up for examination. See if they hold up against the evidence. Are they logically consistant?If you are not willing to critically defend your ideas and provide evidence supporting them then you are not thinking critically.------------------
compmage

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

Fine, the topic is called 'Are some world views as valid as others?'[This message has been edited by Gzus, 02-05-2003]

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 don't believe in one God but you believe in the Big Bang? Who/what created the matter before the big bang?

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

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