Before God??

[James_S_Saint]

Outside of time and space these categories are irrelevant.

What does “outside time and space” mean??

You are talking about some reality that has neither time nor space to it. But you claim it exists, “in reality”.

So what part of reality is the part that has neither time nor space? How would you know it existed? If it affects time or space, then you can know, but also then it would be a part of time or space.

 

[Areopagite]

What does “outside time and space” mean??

You are talking about some reality that has neither time nor space to it. But you claim it exists, “in reality”.

So what part of reality is the part that has neither time nor space? How would you know it existed? If it affects time or space, then you can know, but also then it would be a part of time or space.

“Outside time” is a term that can be predicated of anything that does not undergo change. “Outside space” is a term that can be predicated of anything that is immaterial.

Just because a thing affects something doesn’t mean that thing is part of that something. I can hit a baseball, but just because I affect the ball, I am not part of the ball. I can send e-mails or cruise missiles into another country, and thus affect the country, but that certainly doesn’t make me part of the country.

So, technically, God or angels are not “in space” because they do not have bodies to be in space with. However, we can use the term “in space” and similar phrases analogously when God or an angel affects something in space. Thus, where they are acting in space, you could say they are “present there” but not in the same and full sense that we can be present in space. This is, at least, what Aquinas says about all this.

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Outside time” is a term that can be predicated of anything that does not undergo change. “Outside space” is a term that can be predicated of anything that is immaterial.

Can you give an example of something that is not so arguably a fantasy?

Just because a thing affects something doesn’t mean that thing is part of that something. I can hit a baseball, but just because I affect the ball, I am not part of the ball. I can send e-mails or cruise missiles into another country, and thus affect the country, but that certainly doesn’t make me part of the country.

All of your examples are physical/material things that affect material things. If something is not physical at all, then it cannot be observed or detected at all. But doesn’t that also require that it not actually have effect?

Existence == that which has effect.

 

[johngh]

I’m not so sure that being outside of time and taking 0 time to do something are the same thing. Frankly the human mind cannot get around the idea of being outside of time since time is one of the key elements of our existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not so sure that being outside of time and taking 0 time to do something are the same thing. Frankly the human mind cannot get around the idea of being outside of time since time is one of the key elements of our existence.

The human mind “getting around it” or not, no time means no time as in zero time. No matter what might be happening, it cannot take time for it to happen.

Thus from the instant God is on the scene, whenever that might have been, God had to immediately create the universe.

 

[Areopagite]

Can you give an example of something that is not so arguably a fantasy?

Anything is arguably a fantasy, depending on which philosopher you talk to. Solipsists would say everything is a fantasy except themselves … even physical things. If you have made up your mind to reject anything “outside of time and space” I can’t help you. All the examples I have are God and angels (and demons). Sorry.

All of your examples are physical/material things that affect material things. If something is not physical at all, then it cannot be observed or detected at all. But doesn’t that also require that it not actually have effect?

I was merely disproving your implied premise of “If A affects B, A is part of B.” Because you were saying that a thing outside of space cannot affect space, because then it would be part of the space and thus not be outside of space. But this, of course, is clearly wrong, as I will hope you will agree. Perhaps there is some better premise that can suit your purposes, but it sure isn’t this one. It just so happens you can use physical examples to disprove the abstract reasoning you have here. Right?

So, you want me to prove that there are non-physical/material things by only using examples of physical/material things? Not sure what you’re getting at. That’s like saying “prove to me that there is something outside the box, but you can’t do anything that relates to anything outside the box.” Sorry, can’t do it. You win.

Once again, God and angels (I’ll just say “spirits”) are not in space insofar as they don’t have bodies (they are not physical in their being). However, they can cause physical changes by their actions. Now, these changes can be detected (depending what actions they are … and they are usually hard to come by) and so we see the effect of the spirit’s actions but we cannot see the spirit itself, for it does not have a physical component to its being.

Existence == that which has effect.

Not sure if I agree with this. I would say that perhaps a consequence of existing would be to have an effect (and some other things … like being effected, etc.) But, once again, angels and God can have effects on things, even though some may not be able to see them. But, of course, many do see them … at least that’s what they claim.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Anything is arguably a fantasy, depending on which philosopher you talk to. Solipsists would say everything is a fantasy except themselves … even physical things. If you have made up your mind to reject anything “outside of time and space” I can’t help you. All the examples I have are God and angels (and demons). Sorry.

Sok, I was just looking for anything that might help the unbelievers.

I was merely disproving your implied premise of “If A affects B, A is part of B.”

That was not my claim. I didn’t say that if A affects B, then A is a part of B. I said that If it affects time or space… then it would be a part of time or space. This is how we know that something is a part of time and space, because it affects time or space. It is a matter of definition.

It just so happens you can use physical examples to disprove the abstract reasoning you have here. Right?

How so??

So, you want me to prove that there are non-physical/material things by only using examples of physical/material things? Not sure what you’re getting at. That’s like saying “prove to me that there is something outside the box, but you can’t do anything that relates to anything outside the box.” Sorry, can’t do it. You win.

No you are exaggerating what I said. I did not say that you cannot use anything outside the box. I ask if you could give an example of anything that an atheist might have trouble denying. And I know an atheist can deny anything and is likely to, but you can try.

Not sure if I agree with this. I would say that perhaps a consequence of existing would be to have an effect (and some other things … like being effected, etc.)

I can prove that definition is rational for all concerned, but that is a little off topic. I would highly recommend learning it though. It resolves many otherwise confusing issues.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How about the principle or law of gravity as an example? It, as a law, is not actually a part of the universe itself, but rather a principle by which the universe has been seen to be governed. The law doesn’t exist as a “thing”. It cannot be touched, or directly seen. It must be observed by watching its “footprints” or its after effects. (If that is not a clue, I can’t image one )

Of course, I am not talking about the written or verbal documentation of the law, nor the thought of the law, but the actual principle.

Ignorance of that law does not prevent it from acting. It does not require human existence or thought.

It also, as far as we know, is independent of time in that it is always the same and changeless (assuming it is the real and correct principle, not a mistaken idea of the principle). This does not mean that gravity is not affected by other things. It means that the real law already includes any affect that other things have as a part of the principle.

 

[MindOverMatter]

How about the principle or law of gravity as an example? It, as a law, is not actually a part of the universe itself, but rather a principle by which the universe has been seen to be governed. The law doesn’t exist as a “thing”. It cannot be touched, or directly seen. It must be observed by watching its “footprints” or its after effects.

I agree. Thats why i am not an atheist, since inorder for something to have a principle of behavior, it must either be given that principle of behavior, or have the reason for its existence and nature within in itself. Anything which begins to exist is given a principle of behavior in accordance with its actuality, and thus the principles themselves cannot originate in anything that begins or changes from one potential state to another, since you cannot account for its origins in that which does not explain its own actuality and thus its nature. If it was not real at some point, then it cannot be the cause of principles or actuality. The principle itself is not an entity like a physical being as you quite rightly pointed out, and thus the rules that govern physical reality cannot originate from physical beings or nothing; it must be caused by something that is timeless and infinite/transcendent of physical limitations and dimensions, and is the giver of principles and natures. This is the eternal nature that is existence/God.

Let me illustrate this further by drawing your attention to the behavior of intelligent people. One can understand why a person might follow a command, but it makes absolutely no sense at all that the universe as a whole behaves in any particular manner or according to a law, without a commander. Thats why there is such a thing as a “teleological” arguement; because our experiences points to a universe that reflects the work of an intelligent being, similar to an architect.

By the way. Its not me against them. My war is with ignorance, willful or otherwise.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But doesn’t that also require that it not actually have effect?

Why?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why?

Because we detect the existence of things and their behavior by effects. If anything has an effect, we declare that thing to exist.

The mind uses relevance to determine what to declare. The ability to affect determines relevance.

My war is with ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Suicide?? Isn’t that against the rules?

…{{snicker}}

 

[a_priori]

What does “outside time and space” mean??

What conditions existed “before” the Big Bang? What is it that space expands “into” as the universe expands? These are “outside” S/T.

You are talking about some reality that has neither time nor space to it. But you claim it exists, “in reality”.

There can be no reality unless there is time and space? Was there reality before the Big Bang? Before the BB you have to start with nothing, not even T/S. But that doesn’t mean no reality. Insisting that all reality presupposes time and space is convenient perhaps for rhetorical reasons but tantamount to fish insisting that all reality involves water.

 

[Betterave]

There is no outside space and time. ‘Outside’ is a term correlative to the framework of space and time. Space and time are limiting principles, principles of finitude. God’s being infinite is a matter of *transcending *all particular instantiations of finitude (all finite affects), not of being outside them.

 

[a_priori]

There is no outside space and time. ‘Outside’ is a term correlative to the framework of space and time. Space and time are limiting principles, principles of finitude. God’s being infinite is a matter of *transcending *all particular instantiations of finitude (all finite affects), not of being outside them.

This is why “outside” requires quotes. Human language doesn’t give us a way to name it…but we know what we mean.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There can be no reality unless there is time and space? Was there reality before the Big Bang? Before the BB you have to start with nothing, not even T/S. But that doesn’t mean no reality. Insisting that all reality presupposes time and space is convenient perhaps for rhetorical reasons but tantamount to fish insisting that all reality involves water.

The point is that within such a reality “before the Big Bang”, everything must occur in zero time - instantly.

That inherently means that the instant God came to be, the universe God created had to also begin.

Thus if you believe that “time” began at the Big Bang, then you must also believe that God began at that same moment.

Is that what you believe?

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is why “outside” requires quotes. Human language doesn’t give us a way to name it…but we know what we mean.

Agreed. It is merely an issue of semantics.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That inherently means that the instant God came to be, the universe God created had to also begin.
Thus if you believe that “time” began at the Big Bang, then you must also believe that God began at that same moment.

Do you believe that God began to exist?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Do you believe that God began to exist?

As I said, I personally think these arguments are all silly.

I don’t just “think” that God has always existed. I know truly beyond all rational questioning of it.

But then I have never supported the idea that the universe “began” at a Big Bang. That thought is embarrassing naive for any scientist to have made. And most certainly not from a “singularity”. I was one of many confronting the elite educators with the non-sense of such a belief.

 

[Areopagite]

Sok, I was just looking for anything that might help the unbelievers.

…

No you are exaggerating what I said. I did not say that you cannot use anything outside the box. I ask if you could give an example of anything that an atheist might have trouble denying. And I know an atheist can deny anything and is likely to, but you can try.

Fair enough, fair enough. It’s a good question and a good point. Well, examples of immaterial things that an atheist might acknowledge would be abstract concepts. Concepts do not occupy space. Though the brain assists in intellectual activity by providing mental images that we relate abstractions to, the abstraction itself (which is in the immaterial intellect … so says Aristotle at least) is something not in the brain. Abstractions are not tied to particular individual things, because can apply generally to many individual things. This generalization is not physical. Since it’s not physical, it does not occupy space. Perhaps you could say that concepts do not change … unless you mean that you get rid of a concept and put a new one in its place that may have similarities to the original one.

Well, that’s the very brief and probably unsatisfying example of something immaterial that an atheist might accept.

There’s some others, and probably different ones might work for different atheists.

That was not my claim. I didn’t say that if A affects B, then A is a part of B. I said that If it affects time or space… then it would be a part of time or space. This is how we know that something is a part of time and space, because it affects time or space. It is a matter of definition.

When you say “if it affects time or space, then it would be a part of time or space” seems like you are implying the premise “If A affects B, then A is a part of B.” But maybe I’m totally jumping to an unfair conclusion about what you’re saying. I would be curious though, if you have an rationale for saying “If it affects time or space, then it would be a part of time or space.” It seems like its just a unfair assertion.

But once again, when talking about spiritual intervention, spirits are said to be “present” in a space (in an analogous sense) if they are causing an effect in that space. However, spirits do not have to cause any effect in any space, and thus are not present anywhere in space. Physical creatures must always be present in space because that is the nature of their physical existence. But since spirits are not physical, their existence is not tied to space … which is not to say they can’t affect things in space.

Since spirits do not need to affect things in space, it can be said that they are not in space. Reasonable enough? Or no?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Concepts do not occupy space.

Exactly. Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers, still not recognized for some of his true understanding.

When you say “if it affects time or space, then it would be a part of time or space” seems like you are implying the premise “If A affects B, then A is a part of B.” But maybe I’m totally jumping to an unfair conclusion about what you’re saying. I would be curious though, if you have an rationale for saying “If it affects time or space, then it would be a part of time or space.” It seems like its just a unfair assertion.

But once again, when talking about spiritual intervention, spirits are said to be “present” in a space (in an analogous sense) if they are causing an effect in that space. However, spirits do not have to cause any effect in any space, and thus are not present anywhere in space. Physical creatures must always be present in space because that is the nature of their physical existence. But since spirits are not physical, their existence is not tied to space … which is not to say they can’t affect things in space.

Since spirits do not need to affect things in space, it can be said that they are not in space. Reasonable enough? Or no?

This is where that definition of “existence” comes into play.

If something can be said to exist, yet not have any effect, then how does it have relevance? Why would anyone care if it existed since it can have no consequence upon that which does exist?

If angels (for example) have no effect on physical existence, how have they ever done anything at all? The story of Sodom would imply quite differently than what you are saying.

Btw, the word “spirit” is more properly used to refer to physical realities, specifically those of motion or energy. The divine is different than “spirit”. That word really only means “energy or motion within”. Angels and concepts are not actually spirit, but of a divine make of “principle”, not energy. They do not actually move, but are ever present although not necessarily interacting with the physical.

The word “spirit” has been used in many texts erroneously when the author really intended to refer to principles rather than motion or energy.