A universe exists therefore G-d exists

[ateista]

What? Details please? Are you really going to argue that if I star in my senior play (or movie or whatever) I will lose control of my body?

As far as the play goes, you do. You are required to utter the specific words, in a specific order. You are not allowed to improvise. But, one more time, this is not the point.

If you are a spectator of a movie, of which nothing has been previously released, you can make guesses, you can surmise the ending, but you cannot know it, until it happens, despite the fact that you are outside the time constraints of the movie. Just like you cannot know the ending of a book, until you actually read it. For the reader or the spectator the “future” of the movie or the ending of the book does not exist, until it actually happens.

This is just you telling me facts, without a direct argument to support them.

Facts should be sufficient.

I’m not saying that that two buildings can both exist and not exist at the same time, but rather they can inside time and outside time. Obviously, such spatial restrictions are different if there is no time for one of the observers. I don’t think I can argue in direct support of timeless existence, but I can argue for its coherency and reasonableness as a legitimate possibility. We cannot resolve such questions completely, because it is so far removed from anything we have experience or can examine.

The point is again that “timeless” existence is just an assumption. Any and all of “existence” is connected to some kind of a “time”. Without time there is no action, there are no thoughts, there is a “frozen” existence where nothing ever changes, which is indistinguishable from nonexistence. The phrase “God exists outside or time” is a functional equivalent of “God does not exist”.

Of course, believers and Catholics do not assert that. They assert that God became a human (requires time and change), that God “created” the Universe out of nothing (requires action), that God provides “miracles” (action again)… When these problems are posited the answer is that “God eternally willed” these, which is another meaningless proposition.

 

[Sarpedon]

As far as the play goes, you do. You are required to utter the specific words, in a specific order. You are not allowed to improvise. But, one more time, this is not the point.

No, I choose to follow the script. Physically, I can do anything I want.

If you are a spectator of a movie, of which nothing has been previously released, you can make guesses, you can surmise the ending, but you cannot know it, until it happens, despite the fact that you are outside the time constraints of the movie. Just like you cannot know the ending of a book, until you actually read it. For the reader or the spectator the “future” of the movie or the ending of the book does not exist, until it actually happens.

So you are saying that being outside of time does not necessarily mean that you can know the ending?

I agree with that. the difference is that God is both outside of time and omniscient. Being outside of time makes the knowledge of the “future” possible, while God’s omniscience means that He actually does know it.

In your analogy, God is viewing all of the frames simultaneously and simultaneously reading the mind of the director.

Facts should be sufficient.

I will not accept your assertations if you have nothing to back them up except your own assurance of accuracy.

The point is again that “timeless” existence is just an assumption. Any and all of “existence” is connected to some kind of a “time”. Without time there is no action, there are no thoughts, there is a “frozen” existence where nothing ever changes, which is indistinguishable from nonexistence. The phrase “God exists outside or time” is a functional equivalent of “God does not exist”.

Again, you are just saying this. You assert that all existence is tied to time. You assert that there can be no concious existence outside of time. How do you support these statements? I know what you believe, but I want to know why.

Of course, believers and Catholics do not assert that. They assert that God became a human (requires time and change), that God “created” the Universe out of nothing (requires action), that God provides “miracles” (action again)… When these problems are posited the answer is that “God eternally willed” these, which is another meaningless proposition.

Again, you just say it is “meaningless” without any support whatsoever. Why is it meaningless? How do you know it? What evidence can you provide for your assertation? Unless you can provide some support, you are practically in the same boat as someone who just says “Jesus is Lord” without any further explanation.

 

[ateista]

So you are saying that being outside of time does not necessarily mean that you can know the ending?

Exactly.

I agree with that. the difference is that God is both outside of time and omniscient.

But “omniscient” is just a word without correctly specifying what it means.

Just like “omnipotent” does not mean that God is able to do “anything”, and it is also asserted that God not being unable to create a square circle (or any other logically contradictory item) does not diminish “omnipotence”, we must understand that “omniscience” cannot mean that God can know “anything”. God cannot know what does not exist. To know something means that one can have information about the thing to be known. No one can have information about a nonexistent object. How could one?

To say that God can know about nonexistent objects is true nonsense. God cannot know the contents of a book which was never written, because a nonexistent book has no contents. Two nonexistent books written by two nonexistent authors cannot be told apart. Nonexistent objects have no attributes, therefore no “knowledge” could be obtained about them.

Being outside of time makes the knowledge of the “future” possible, while God’s omniscience means that He actually does know it.

Up in your post you agreed that being outside time does not mean that one can know the “future”. Now you say otherwise… which one will it be?

In your analogy, God is viewing all of the frames simultaneously and simultaneously reading the mind of the director.

You mean, God is “cheating”? Using outside information, like a spoiler? That was not the scenario I posted. At the beginning I said that I only present an analogy. As with all analogies, it is not prefect.

Either God “shapes” the future, and in that case he can know how it will unfold, or not. If he shapes the future, he can only do it at the expense of our freedom to act. If he does not interfere and “generate” the future, he cannot know what the future will be, just like he cannot know the contents of non-written, non-existent books.

Again, you are just saying this. You assert that all existence is tied to time. You assert that there can be no concious existence outside of time. How do you support these statements? I know what you believe, but I want to know why.

No that is not what I said. I said that the concept of “existence” that we know about is tied to space and time. You assert otherwise, you talk about a fundamentally different type of “existence”. Therefore it is your responsibility to give a coherent definition of such “existence” and some supporting arguments for it.

Again, you just say it is “meaningless” without any support whatsoever.

The support is simple: we do not “know” about such “existence”. You believe that there is such existence. To me it is meaningless, just like the proposition: “God is abeqoute”.

The problem is that God is not presented as an inert being, rather an active one. In the Bible there are innumerable instances when God “acts”, when he “talks” to humans, when he takes a walk the Garden of Eden. These are all physical activities, which all include space and time. Therefore God is assumed to have physical characteristics, unless you want to declare that all verses of the Bible which refer to God and Jesus are allegorical, and have nothing to do with actual, physical reality.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that God is both non-physical and that he can do physical activities. That is a contradiction and not a “mystery” - the usual get-out-of-jail-card what the believers love to invoke when confronted with a clear logical contradiction. A logical contradiction cannot simply be declared a “mystery” and expect to get away with such double-talk.

 

[Fran65]

Then why didn’t he make us perfect? He could have, yet he didn’t.

I actually said if God could have then He would have made us perfect. It may also be the case that, as I said in my original post that natural evil is the result of living in the physical universe and that God has created the best possible - not the best imaginable by us.

In addition, although living in difficult circumstances, *I *would still rather be alive than not - although I do struggle at times. Despite all, I’m still glad that God created us and this world that can be a beautiful place in which love and hope can be experienced.

As for the fall; well, yes, it is a mystery - but one that we are still trying to understand in psychological, theological and physical terms.

 

[Sarpedon]

But “omniscient” is just a word without correctly specifying what it means.

To say that God can know about nonexistent objects is true nonsense. God cannot know the contents of a book which was never written, because a nonexistent book has no contents. Two nonexistent books written by two nonexistent authors cannot be told apart. Nonexistent objects have no attributes, therefore no “knowledge” could be obtained about them.

The question of whether God can know nonexistent things is irrelevant. Since God is outside of time, He can view all “frames” of time simultaneously. Therefore, they exist for Him. Therefore, whether God can know non-existent things is irrelevant in this case.

Being outside of time makes knowledge of time in totality possible (without specifying whether anyone knows actually knows it). Since God is omniscient (we can define this as knowing the existent, if you want), He actually does know the existent totality of time.

This does not mean that the future is determined, because God can know our free actions timelessly. A decent example is a movie of a football game, where the players make the content but God views all the frames at once.

Up in your post you agreed that being outside time does not mean that one can know the “future”. Now you say otherwise… which one will it be?

I am not sure what you are referring to, but I only remember saying that being outside of time makes knowledge of the totality of time possible. Just because something is possible does not mean that it is real, but in this case it is real because of omniscience.

You mean, God is “cheating”? Using outside information, like a spoiler? That was not the scenario I posted. At the beginning I said that I only present an analogy. As with all analogies, it is not prefect.

Sure, I suppose you could say that He is “cheating”, but is it really cheating if you keep it to yourself?

Either God “shapes” the future, and in that case he can know how it will unfold, or not. If he shapes the future, he can only do it at the expense of our freedom to act. If he does not interfere and “generate” the future, he cannot know what the future will be, just like he cannot know the contents of non-written, non-existent books.

Non-existent books are nothing. The future is something. This is a critical difference. The future is inherently knowable because we know it will exist in some form (but to God, timelessly existent), but a non-existent book may never exist. These two examples are completely different, and by your own definition of omniscience (nothing more), God’s knowledge of the future is not ruled out.

It seems intuitively obvious to me that all of time can draw its existence of God (and thus He is aware of it), but at the same time draw that existence in a way determined by us within time. Our different positions on this issue may just be a result of different spatial abilities in our brains (I’m not saying who has more).

No that is not what I said. I said that the concept of “existence” that we know about is tied to space and time. You assert otherwise, you talk about a fundamentally different type of “existence”. Therefore it is your responsibility to give a coherent definition of such “existence” and some supporting arguments for it.

No, because I do not propose any positive evidence outside of theology. At the same time, I see no evidence that renders it impossible. I view such existence as a possibility, and since no evidence is available either way, it cannot play a significant part in the God question. You can’t disprove God by it because there is no evidence that it does not exist, but I cannot prove God’s existence by this because there is no evidence that it does exist (as far as I am aware of).

The support is simple: we do not “know” about such “existence”. You believe that there is such existence. To me it is meaningless, just like the proposition: “God is abeqoute”.

I see no evidence either way. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn either way.

The problem is that God is not presented as an inert being, rather an active one. In the Bible there are innumerable instances when God “acts”, when he “talks” to humans, when he takes a walk the Garden of Eden. These are all physical activities, which all include space and time. Therefore God is assumed to have physical characteristics, unless you want to declare that all verses of the Bible which refer to God and Jesus are allegorical, and have nothing to do with actual, physical reality.

Obviously, God can choose to take on a human, physical nature (equally with His divine nature). God is not contradicting His nature, because He is not being diminished in any way (as He would be if He only took on a human nature).

While God in His nature is spiritual and unchanging, this reality appears to us as actions and change. This is not contradictory. The Bible is written from the perspective of humans observing God, not the other way around. Although God’s actions are timelessly manifested in His Divine will, this will appears to us within time in the form of actions. It is simply a matter of observation.

 

[Dameedna]

A logical contradiction cannot simply be declared a “mystery” and expect to get away with such double-talk.

I have a real problem with this as well. The entire “it’s a mystery” is too often used to defend ideas that are contradictory, or just plain dreadful.

I can accept somethings as mysterious, and perhaps we can never explain them(though I think we should try).

More often than not, it’s a get out of jail free card, for religion and I don’t think it should be, or at least I don’t allow it to be.

 

[Sarpedon]

I have a real problem with this as well. The entire “it’s a mystery” is too often used to defend ideas that are contradictory, or just plain dreadful.

I can accept somethings as mysterious, and perhaps we can never explain them(though I think we should try).

More often than not, it’s a get out of jail free card, for religion and I don’t think it should be, or at least I don’t allow it to be.

I think the proper attitude lies somewhere in the middle. To say that we can’t know anything is fairly pointless, but to say that the human mind is so powerful it can comprehend everything in reality is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Dameedna]

As for the fall; well, yes, it is a mystery - but one that we are still trying to understand in psychological, theological and physical terms.

Is there any point in time, where you might actually question the concept of the Fall?

We wandered out of Africa 100K years ago(give or take). We had no idea, absolutely no idea about the nature of reality. Is it so difficult to believe, that humans would have seen this life with all it’s pain and sorrows as a punishment and as a Test? It fits with how we usually “raise” our young, we must punish/discipline them so they can learn, and we do test our youth to see if they are ready for the responsibilities of life. Is the Fall, a mere projection of what we already knew or understood about our lives?

Could they have been wrong? Maybe the reason the fall is so much a mystery that we cannot understand, is because it isn’t actually true. We didn’t fall from a state of perfection at all, but we evolved into self-aware creatures, through no fault of our own, but through a mechanism called natural selection?

The problem with the “fall” being wrong, is that if we didn’t fall, we do not require a saviour and not only were the Jew’s wrong in their prophecies, but the christians are wrong in their interpretations of their religion entirely.

Perhaps it is just 'safer" to conclude that we fell, than to question the entire religion itself.

A universe may exist, and We may have evolved and there may be a purpose and point behind it. I have no doubt however, that assumptions made thousands of years ago are probably inaccurate, which is why they don’t actually make sense rather than they are simply a mystery.

 

[Dameedna]

I think the proper attitude lies somewhere in the middle. To say that we can’t know anything is fairly pointless, but to say that the human mind is so powerful it can comprehend everything in reality is a bit of a stretch.

I think this it true. We probably cannot know or understand everything. But that is not an excuse to never challenge something just because it is declared a mystery.

Otherwise, you leave the world open to dreadful and shocking beliefs and ideals. If anything terrible is declared as loving “It’s a mystery and we must accept it’s mystery”. then what kind of nonsense will humans actually accept and believe and at what cost?

I do not consider Jihad a loving gesture despite claims that it is loving and that God’s love is a mystery therefore I need to accept it.

Sorry, but I won’t.

 

[ateista]

The question of whether God can know nonexistent things is irrelevant. Since God is outside of time, He can view all “frames” of time simultaneously. Therefore, they exist for Him. Therefore, whether God can know non-existent things is irrelevant in this case.

Oh, but it is the crux of the matter.

What is the future? Is it set in stone? Or is it merely a possibility, which will be “played out” as we make our decisions?

This is where the movie analogy becomes important and this is why it is “faulty”. When the movie is finished, shot, cut and stored, it is really a static “thing”. The first and the last “frames” both exist (really, physically exist) simultameously. They are all stored on the tape and they can be viewed simultaneously by the external observer. That is why the cheating observer can know the ending.

Being outside of time makes knowledge of time in totality possible (without specifying whether anyone knows actually knows it). Since God is omniscient (we can define this as knowing the existent, if you want), He actually does know the existent totality of time.

This does not mean that the future is determined, because God can know our free actions timelessly. A decent example is a movie of a football game, where the players make the content but God views all the frames at once.

What “frames”? For simplicity’s sake let’s talk about a binary decision. Suppose there are only two choices for breakfast. One of the choices (unbeknownst to me) is contaminated and if I choose that, I will die. The other one is ok.

Obviously I can make a free choice. There are two outcomes: I either live of die.

Which one does God see, before I make my selection? Both? That is not what omniscience means. I know that tossing a coin will either result in"heads" or “tails” - there are the possibilities - but I cannoy know which one will actually turn out. Omniscience means not only to know the possible outcomes, but also the actual one.

If the future is really like a movie, where the “last” frame already exists, then God can know not only my possible choice, but also my actual one. But in this case on what grounds can we say that my choice was “free”? I can make only one choice, and it is retroactively determined by the existing outcome.

Non-existent books are nothing. The future is something. This is a critical difference.

Something? What “something”? Is it set in stone? Or is it only a possibility?

The future is inherently knowable because we know it will exist in some form (but to God, timelessly existent), but a non-existent book may never exist. These two examples are completely different, and by your own definition of omniscience (nothing more), God’s knowledge of the future is not ruled out.

What is the difference between a non-existent book, which was never written, and the one which has** not been written yet**? Think about it. Neither of them exists. And there is only one type of non-existence.

No, because I do not propose any positive evidence outside of theology.

Isn’t this supposed to be a secular question? Where we contemplate if the existence of the Universe infers the existence of God?

Obviously, God can choose to take on a human, physical nature (equally with His divine nature). God is not contradicting His nature, because He is not being diminished in any way (as He would be if He only took on a human nature).

If so, then God is affected by space, time and causality. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either God is non-physical, timeless and spaceless, or not. He can’t be both.

 

[Sarpedon]

What “frames”? For simplicity’s sake let’s talk about a binary decision. Suppose there are only two choices for breakfast. One of the choices (unbeknownst to me) is contaminated and if I choose that, I will die. The other one is ok.

Obviously I can make a free choice. There are two outcomes: I either live of die.

Which one does God see, before I make my selection?

Your last sentence is not a real question. God is outside of time, so there is no before or after to Him. His knowledge is in totality.

To ask your question would be like asking “what is north of the north pole?”

All of time forms a static whole, in the same way that the past we observe is static. Things only happen a certain way, and God knows this. Just because things end up happening a specific way does not mean that such things are determined. We determine the content of the fixed cosmic movie, which can only be viewed in timelessness. In the same way that the fixed, static frames of the 2008 superbowl depict free actions, God knows our actions without determining them. We do not determine the winner of a football game on tape by watching it, and neither does God determine our future by watching it.

But in this case on what grounds can we say that my choice was “free”? I can make only one choice, and it is retroactively determined by the existing outcome.

“Retroactively” is a term that describes time. Since the movie is viewed timelessly, it does not apply.

Again, this may be just a difference in the spatial abilities of our brains (I am not saying who is right).

What is the difference between a non-existent book, which was never written, and the one which has** not been written yet**? Think about it. Neither of them exists. And there is only one type of non-existence.

Will the future exist?

Will my book exist?

Isn’t this supposed to be a secular question? Where we contemplate if the existence of the Universe infers the existence of God?

I see no physical evidence for this type of existence, but I also see no evidence that renders it impossible. From a secular standpoint, no position can be reached on the matter, so nothing can be inferred in a secular sense from this question. We need to turn to other things.

If so, then God is affected by space, time and causality. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either God is non-physical, timeless and spaceless, or not. He can’t be both.

You frequently create false dialectic situations. God in His nature is not constrained by space, time and causality. At the same time, He can freely choose to enter into such restrictions, although He is not obligated to and can supercede them at any time.

I am not constrained by the law. At the same time, I can enter a cell if I want to. Surely you do not disagree?

 

[ateista]

Your last sentence is not a real question. God is outside of time, so there is no before or after to Him. His knowledge is in totality.

It is a real question. There is before and after for us. If God would come down and I asked him which food will I choose, he could answer either: the one that is poisoned or the one which is not - without revealing which food is which.

There is only one possible answer, if God sees our future. But in that case there is no actual freedom to “choose” the other food, only an illusionary one.

A good sleight-of-hand magician can ask you to choose “freely” from a presented deck of cards, but this freedom is only an illusion, you will invariably “choose” the card that he wants you to choose.

All of time forms a static whole, in the same way that the past we observe is static.

Is it? There is no freedom to change the past, and the past is indeed static. If the future is also static, then there is no freedom to choose. If the future is merely a set of possibilities, then there is freedom to choose, but there is no “knowledge” of it.

You frequently create false dialectic situations. God in His nature is not constrained by space, time and causality. At the same time, He can freely choose to enter into such restrictions, although He is not obligated to and can supercede them at any time.

I am not constrained by the law. At the same time, I can enter a cell if I want to. Surely you do not disagree?

You cannot be both in the cell and out of it at the same time. By the same token, God cannot be both physical and not physical. If he would choose a physical form, then he would be affected by the physical environment, space and time.

 

[Sarpedon]

It is a real question. There is before and after for us. If God would come down and I asked him which food will I choose, he could answer either: the one that is poisoned or the one which is not - without revealing which food is which.

There is only one possible answer, if God sees our future. But in that case there is no actual freedom to “choose” the other food, only an illusionary one.

God could reveal what you would choose. You will choose one, and God knows which one. The key word is “choose”- God knows which one you will eat, but only because you freely chose it. God’s knowledge of this matter is contingent upon our choices, rather than the other way around.

I know this is very complicated and hard to visualize. What do you think of my comment that maybe our minds just have different spatial abilities? (of course, I am not saying who is right)

Is it? There is no freedom to change the past, and the past is indeed static. If the future is also static, then there is no freedom to choose. If the future is merely a set of possibilities, then there is freedom to choose, but there is no “knowledge” of it.

I have addressed this throughout all of my posts. For us, we have the freedom to determine the way the future is statically recorded. Since God views all of time at once, He knows how we choose to record it.

Its like a film of a football game- it is static, but the static content is determined by free choices.

You cannot be both in the cell and out of it at the same time. By the same token, God cannot be both physical and not physical. If he would choose a physical form, then he would be affected by the physical environment, space and time.

When God became man, he assumed a human nature. This nature is bound by physicality, but His Divine nature is not. These two natures are not contradictory.

Suppose I decide to enlist in the military. If I do so, I am bound by the rules of the military. At the same time, I retain my profession as a writer. Is my writing nature confined by the military? Can I simultaneously have these two natures?