God in time?

[geekborj]

Not necessily in “space”, but necessarily in some kind of “time”. If there is an action (of creation), then there is some kind of a change which presupposes some kind of a time. It can be incomprehenisble to us, but its existence id derived from the concept of action.

This assumption of another kind of “time” would again presuppose that this god must be created by another and so on. The argument would be infinite. I think this is not logical anymore if so. Thus, it is just right to believe that our God does not need any of human concept of space nor time just to exist. Because the God of Christians is HE IS. No need of any other cause.

Have you tried reading Thomas Aquinas’ arguments about this? What about CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity?”

I’ll try looking for your threads. Thanks.

 

[geekborj]

I did in the thread about the illogical aspects of Christianity. Please read it there.

I have browsed your threads on the “illogical aspects” of the Christian faith. I think the main obstacle is that the idea that:

1. God can be understood by pure reason and logic; and
2. God can be described exactly in human terms.
   But Christians very well know the limitation of the human mind. That is why these are illogical on the basis that:
3. God is infinite.
4. God choses to reveal Himself.
   Thus, the Christian idea of a God is based on the revelation by the same God and that still human mind can never completely or never perfectly understand or describe God. God is in fact still a “mystery” for us and will always be so while He choses to be so.

If someone would understand Him, that someone can be equated to God. Thus, contradicts the very idea of a god being better than anyone or anything.

As Thomas Aquinas puts it: trying to comprehend God is like putting the entire ocean waters into a glass.

 

[ateista]

I have browsed your threads on the “illogical aspects” of the Christian faith. I think the main obstacle is that the idea that:

1. God can be understood by pure reason and logic; and
2. God can be described exactly in human terms.
   But Christians very well know the limitation of the human mind. That is why these are illogical on the basis that:
3. God is infinite.
4. God choses to reveal Himself.
   Thus, the Christian idea of a God is based on the revelation by the same God and that still human mind can never completely or never perfectly understand or describe God. God is in fact still a “mystery” for us and will always be so while He choses to be so.

If someone would understand Him, that someone can be equated to God. Thus, contradicts the very idea of a god being better than anyone or anything.

As Thomas Aquinas puts it: trying to comprehend God is like putting the entire ocean waters into a glass.

I have no quarrel with that - in principle. The point is that I am not trying to “figure out” who and what God might be. I am “picking a fight” with what the believers say about God.

Even if one needs faith to accept God’s existence, the very least requirement is that this concept should be without internal contradictions and it should not contradict our actual knowledge of the existing world. That is where all the apologists fail. And that is what I am questioning.

 

[ateista]

This assumption of another kind of “time” would again presuppose that this god must be created by another and so on. The argument would be infinite. I think this is not logical anymore if so. Thus, it is just right to believe that our God does not need any of human concept of space nor time just to exist. Because the God of Christians is HE IS. No need of any other cause.

But if an assumption leads to nonsense (infinite regress) or another nonsense (acting without change and consequently time) then the whole concept is useless. You cannot just declare “magic” and hope for acceptance, can you?

 

[geekborj]

I have no quarrel with that - in principle. The point is that I am not trying to “figure out” who and what God might be. I am “picking a fight” with what the believers say about God.

Even if one needs faith to accept God’s existence, the very least requirement is that this concept should be without internal contradictions and it should not contradict our actual knowledge of the existing world. That is where all the apologists fail. And that is what I am questioning.

Truly that you are “picking (up) a fight” with the believers about God. The problem however with your lines of argument is that it is based ONLY on human reason as you have REQUIRED that arguments should be “without internal contradictions.” This is the very flaw of you seeing the apologists’ arguments.

Internal contradictions might be there just because of human’s weakness in the complete understanding of God. Note that apologists can only rely on the truths about God as REVEALED to them. Apologists can never CREATE their own descriptions of God. Apologists can only do it in the best approximation as the human mind can. Thus, a one God in three Persons may sound weird but that is how God revealed Himself to the human race.

Remember that a person’s perspective about the one true God is never complete (even the entire human race who ever lived and will ever live). This is very much like the blind men who tries to describe what an elephant is like.

Now, if you would kindly look on the deposit of faith (and thus description of God) in His one true Church, you will find some kind of “consistencies” that you might be looking for. I believe that this Church’s position is the best that we can find and ever have. Try reading the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the CCC. vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

Based on my experience as a previous agnostic, I suggest you first look at the validity of the Idea not on the person of one presenting the same Idea. I can see from your lines of argument that you are after the Idea anyway. This is a good sign that you are really thirsty of finding the truth about God. Search and you shall find, but never ignore the signposts set to guide us all. Believe that this same God chose to reveal Himself not chose to be “found” by the humankind. It is God who reaches out because our human condition is not good enough to be equal to Him. We can never be like gods by our own (Genesis) but by the grace of the Creator.

Belief without faith must base itself from human senses and reason which are limited by design. There is always something within each human heart that craves to be expressed and followed. The problem is that the same heart tries to suppress that craving using reasoning and logic, thus hardening our own heart.

As St. Aquinas says it: Credo ut intelligam.

 

[geekborj]

[The idea about God] should not contradict our actual knowledge of the existing world.

Are you saying that the very foundation of our ACTUAL knowledge about the existing world SELF-CONSISTENT? Or do we also base it on our FAITH on the validity and truth of the AXIOMS or PRINCIPLES?

Don’t you have doubts about the Conservation Principles? What about the Principle of Symmetry? What about the truth about light being both a particle and a wave (much to say about three persons of one God). Can’t you see how “our actual knowledge of the existing world” admits it will never fully realize what happened at t = 0 and never be assure of what happens next after (choose from three obvious possibilities: infinite expansion, dynamic or static equilibrium, OR re-contraction)?

The human arguments can only be taken as far as the validity and truthfulness of its axioms and prepositions. The same is true with our knowledge of God. St. Thomas Aquinas did one of the greatest attempt to do that at least systematically. The Church has been doing the same for almost 2,000 years. I say, take it from her experience. I have placed my faith on her on this matter. Credo ut intelligam.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I would not get too wrapped up in thinking there is a new kind of “God Time” simply because we can logically infer that God seems to use a sequence of creative “acts” to manifest His will or to invoke change. Perceptions of sequence are probably more a consequence of the physiology and human observation being sensory in nature. When assimilating information we have a tendency to raster scan (read left to right, top to bottom etc.) and order information in ways that we can organize our thoughts. But in fact we can see all at once in parallel - we just can’t focus and assemilate on it all in one instant. In essence we can assume that our nature of processing information is imperfect and injects artifacts that differ from a God’s eye perspective of absolute truth. After-all we are imperfect humans and not God.

From God’s perspective everything in Creation is in Him and simply exists by reason of it being His Will. From our perspective we can assume that relative to God everything has allready happened and everything will happen and everything is happening - as paradoxical as that sounds to us. From God’s perspective everything (and its opposite) is simply an expression or assertion of God for God experiencing Himself as “I Am” - and there is much more than just our mere Creation to God since He is wholly unfathomable by human reason.

All of Creation’s existence is in some mystical and mysterious way a timeless relational expression of God’s nature with Himself - both to and from each of His Three Persons. What is profound though is that in that divine relationship God has apparently chosen to relate to His created beings and show us a way to relate to Him. That is, He has taken some delight in His Creation to relate to it in a similar (but not identical) way that He relates to Himself. Note: God can not permit Himself to relate to us fully as in the manner God relates to Himself since a created human soul has finite capacity and can not contain anywhere near that much grace; it would obliterate our immortal and finite souls - impossible. This is why it is important to grow in grace since unlike the created in place angels we humans can actually use this time on earth to increase the capacity of our souls as we grow spiritually.

Time comes into play here since the creative act itself implies time since no aspect of Creation is Divine like God is - though we as created beings, if found worthy, are to be co-joined to God’s divinity in some mysterious and paradoxical way through the Love and Merits of His 2nd person - Jesus.

Consider the bible as one whole single polysyllabic long word of God. The story or message exists simultaneously at the beginning (alpha) and in its completion (omega) of speaking that word before any of us read it or hear it. Because of our physical limitations we must read and hear by the convention that it is written and read top to bottom, left to right, and front to back. We “raster” scan the written word in the same manner it was written (by fellow humans) rather than look at it and see it all holistically as if we can see all the pages, words, sentences and structures simultaneously. That is OUR nature - it is not God’s nature. God simply used humans as the font, the ink, the quill, the fingers and the mechanical tools to express His Truth. He gave us a thing that we can hold in our hand and see and read. But the bible and all of us really were conceived by God (as if a twinkle in God’s eye) before Creation even was born or existed. Birth is simply a creative act of instantiating His will in the physical domain.

Consider instead that time exists only for our convenience - God does not need time. If Creation could be visualized from God’s eye it would probably be seen in the metaphor of a sparkling diamond with an infinite number of reflective rays. The sparkle exists only to the observer and it dances around as the diamond is turned and looked at. God can see and comprehend each of those infinite combinations of rays and facets without the need to rotate it (time) in His light to reveal the sparkle. He knows precisely the nature of the diamond just like He knows His own nature.

The only way we humans can escape time and enter heaven is through our prayer. Our voices and thoughts when joined to prayer are timeless and perpetual. Long after we leave this planet and existence our prayers will be still dancing around as melodies, or incense, or flowers or some other heavenly form in heaven. I imagine those gaining heaven will be able to smile when they see or hear their own prayers and smile. We can assert our prayers to God at any time - so its possible to pray to God to ask for mercy for a person who has even already died since if was ask God He will hear those prayers through His omniscience at the time before the person died.

Escape the limits of time and let your voices enter into heaven. Pray. Pray for loved ones and enemies!

James

 

[ateista]

Truly that you are “picking (up) a fight” with the believers about God. The problem however with your lines of argument is that it is based ONLY on human reason as you have REQUIRED that arguments should be “without internal contradictions.” This is the very flaw of you seeing the apologists’ arguments.

Well, the truth is that I am conducting the same conversation in the thread about the illogical aspects of Christinaity. Please look up my last posts on the subject over there for the details.

In a nutshell, I am saying that the supposed “revelation” is not sufficient. A revelation must be absolutely unmistakable, precise and without the slightest possibility of misinterpretation. Any other kind only speaks of contempt and disdain toward the people it is aimed at. God did not “deem” us worthy to be given a “revelation” which is clear and scientifically shows his existence along with the precise enumeration of our expected behavior.

That is unacceptable. If this revelation is supposed to be our guiding line to tell us how we should “behave” to avoid the eternal damnation which is the “reward” of falling short, then nothing imprecise will do.

Mind you, such a revelation would not deprive us our freedom to disregard it. We would be totally free to accept or reject God as we choose. It would merely remove the uncertainty from the decision process. To require full responsibility of us and not giving us the full information on which we must base our decisions is cruel and contemptious.

 

[ateista]

Are you saying that the very foundation of our ACTUAL knowledge about the existing world SELF-CONSISTENT? Or do we also base it on our FAITH on the validity and truth of the AXIOMS or PRINCIPLES?

My friend, your usage of the word “faith” is inapplicable. We need no faith in accepting axioms. Axioms are the basic building blocks of everything, they cannot be “proven” by deducting them from even more “basic” concepts - because there are none.

The word “faith” is usually used to accept something that cannot be fully proven. But that does not apply to axioms, only the derivatives of axioms.

The **principles **we use in the natural sciences are similar, though not identical. They cannot be fully proven either, but they are always subject to modification if they are found incorrect. Still, they seem to be self-evident, and will only be modified if some very strong evidence comes along that there is a problem with them. Millions and billions of experiments seem to support them, but that is still not “proof” in the stricktest sense of the word.

I require similar certainty of the claims of the supernatural. Not more, but not less either. Let’s use the same measuring sticks. Not a big or unreasonable requirement, is it?

 

[geekborj]

… your usage of the word “faith” is inapplicable. Axioms are the basic building blocks of everything, they cannot be “proven” by deducting them from even more “basic” concepts - because there are none.

The word “faith” is usually used to accept something that cannot be fully proven. But that does not apply to axioms, only the derivatives of axioms.

Everything is from God’s Words. He created by saying so. “Let there be…” This includes the creation of the Laws of Nature that we are yet to discover and marvel. There is nothing more “basic” than this. God is what HE IS (He said it himself “I AM WHO AM”) – nothing more basic, none.

Read again. Sounds like the same to me. Only that the word “faith” doesn’t appeal much to most people (would “trust”, “belief”, “confidence”, “conviction”, “optimism”, “hopefulness”, etc. be familiar and better but the same?). So how would we accept the idea that “axioms are basic building blocks of everything” and “there are none.” Aren’t these assumptions that are taken/accepted to be true without any further question (“confidence”, “trust”, “belief”)? That is exactly the meaning of “faith.”

The **principles **we use in the natural sciences are similar, though not identical. They cannot be fully proven either, but they are always subject to modification if they are found incorrect. Still, they seem to be self-evident, and will only be modified if some very strong evidence comes along that there is a problem with them. Millions and billions of experiments seem to support them, but that is still not “proof” in the stricktest sense of the word.

Rightly. However, in the Catholic Faith, truths are revealed then expounded not discovered. Truths revealed in the Faith is not subject to modification because they are not of human origin. Human imagination only expounds these Truths as long as these expositions (details) are within the revealed Truths. There lies the difference. Science claims “[principles] seem to be self-evident” as a “proof” of high probability (not certainty) of being part of the Truth (about Nature). According to the Catholic Faith, we believe on something “as revealed.” Surprisingly, these “revealed Things” are not of this Nature so as not in negation, but enhancing, “discoveries” of Nature as a created “world”.

I require similar certainty of the claims of the supernatural. Not more, but not less either. Let’s use the same measuring sticks. Not a big or unreasonable requirement, is it?

This is exactly our claim here. Isn’t it obvious that we are being bias against the Faith when “axioms” are held true without requirement of proof while requiring even “harder” proofs for the “axioms” of the Faith? Aren’t “fields,” “energy,” and many others but mental conceptions of their “consequences” as observed? Don’t these in any way “supernatural” in a way that they are equally creations of the human imaginations based on experience (or accounts thereof)?

As for the Catholic Faith, the existence of God were not just argued using Reason (St. Augustine + St. Aquinas + other Church Doctors) but also accounted by the experiences of our fellow human beings (Abraham, Moses, the Jewish race, the Apostles of Christ, the early Christians, and so on) stretched over two thousand years? What proof do we still need/require? What “similar certainty” do we still need?

For Science, the existence of first principles and axioms are proven using the objective observations (as accounted by our fellow human beings labeled “scientists” and “researchers”) and the so-far “consistent” deductive arguments* about them. Not to mention to be stretched a little less than 500 years**. Why are we not using “the same measuring sticks” by granting an almost certain probability value to the claims of Science?

Both Science (“natural sciences”) and Faith (the Catholic Faith) are therefore along two separate roads leading towards the same Aim: full understanding of this Universe. Faith starts from the Ultimate Principle (revealed Truth) towards the details based on Reason (and Science); Science observes the details and by trial-and-error “hopes” to find the “self-consistent” principles (and eventually to the same Ultimate Principle) based on Reason.

However, Science has not yet realized that he is just approximating the very the same thing that Faith claims to be true (great “whys” of the Universe). Note that Faith does not argue against the great “hows” currently “approximated” by Science. As a person of Science, i am greatly saddened by the fact that it seems Science tries to escape from a reality that he is limited by the human Intelligence that can never ever fully imagine (only “approximate”) the true God. Note that the Catholic Church never claimed to have fully understood God*** and will never do so. For her (the Church) current revelations are the best (and needed) understanding of God necessary to move towards Man’s ultimate end/purpose.

A meaningful Eastertide to you my friend!

footnotes:

• Being consistent here is actually expected because of the consistent first principles. Quite not a “proof” to me. Mathematical truths rely on the consistency of axioms as exemplified by differences in truths of Euclidian and Reimann geometries.
  **I’m assuming the start of Scientific revolution around 1500s when observations started to become an important part of Science’s development (Galileo as the “father” of Experimental Science).
  ***To illustrate: The concept of Trinity is still and will ever be called a “mystery.”

 

[geekborj]

Well, the truth is that I am conducting the same conversation in the thread about the illogical aspects of Christinaity. Please look up my last posts on the subject over there for the details.

As for the details, i still have to look for them. If many, why not start with the one that seems most illogical and invite me in your conquest? Or at least point me to one so i can point them out to you too. I can examine them with you. I’m just human and has limitations as to my bodily energy and time. With this, i present you my apology of not really going into ALL the details as you gladly would want me to.

In a nutshell, I am saying that the supposed “revelation” is not sufficient. A revelation must be absolutely unmistakable, precise and without the slightest possibility of misinterpretation. Any other kind only speaks of contempt and disdain toward the people it is aimed at. God did not “deem” us worthy to be given a “revelation” which is clear and scientifically shows his existence along with the precise enumeration of our expected behavior.

That is unacceptable.

In the right time, my friend. In the right time. He said, “there are many other things that i would like to tell you but you cannot bear it for now.” Keep your patience. Just as in Science, let us for now trust the accounts of those who came before us in handling those “revelations.”

As for “precise and without the slightest possibility of misinterpretation”: isn’t this what the Catholic Church claims about her Teachings? Do not be bias against these Teachings because the teachings of Science do not enjoy the same privilege of certainty. The only misinterpretation of the Teachings are in the details (numerous as many as non-Catholic Christians “denominations” are) as proposed by those who do not want to compare it with the Revealed Primary Basic Truths.

If this revelation is supposed to be our guiding line to tell us how we should “behave” to avoid the eternal damnation which is the “reward” of falling short, then nothing imprecise will do.

“To avoid the eternal damnation” is only the consequence of accepting the Truth. The Truth says that the same God love us and thus want us to be able to “live a full life” (therefore necessitates granting of Free Will). By free-will, humans chose to be “falling short,” by denying the Source of perfection, and thus needs to be “fixed.” Now, He can’t “fix” us unless we want to.

Mind you, such a revelation would not deprive us our freedom to disregard it. We would be totally free to accept or reject God as we choose. It would merely remove the uncertainty from the decision process.

Indeed! The Teachings of the Faith totally agrees with this. This is the very idea of Free Will*. This same “freedom” teaches you that you can modify this very same belief and accept the better “wager”, if you will – God does not and will never force it, He only hints .

To require full responsibility of us and not giving us the full information on which we must base our decisions is cruel** and contemptious. [footnote added]

Again, this is a consequence of two truths about humans by design:
(1) Human Free-Will.
(2) Our intelligence can only grasp something that is finite.

Would we think God is cruel when he has given us this freedom to decide if we want the Truth or not? (I know, I want the Truth!) The Man started the problem: his pride on trying to find the Truth by ignoring God’s guidance/directive/rule/mandate/law (the Fall of Man).

It is the result of being the Good Himself that He that leads us slowly out of the cave of our innocence. He doesn’t appear to push us into reality by shoving Everything in our frail minds in one stroke. God very well knows our limitations (He made us) and is even “un-cruel” by revealing the Truth bit by bit over the stretch of thousand years (Start measuring time from Abraham’s). You can’t eat one family-size pizza without cutting them into bite-sizes and eating them one at a time.

Imagine if the whole Truth were “revealed fully” to one man. How do you think would his fellows say about the Things he speaks? (Allegory of the Cave) Even those who have first “discovered” (but still partial) truths about the Laws of Nature are believed to be “insane” by their contemporaries by having such “giant leaps” on conclusions. We are blinded by our first sight of Light that we never saw in its full Intensity.

• will = the very reason or purpose of one’s action, decision, or reason.
  **Additional note: Even the idea of “cruelty” is revealed to the human race. Others “discovered” it in their hearts. The very definitions of “cruelty” and “contemptious-ity” started as the anti-thesis to Gods goodness and generous-ity (labeled as “grace” by the Church using human terms). If one argues that their meaning can be “derived” by human deduction, two possible problems arise: (1) relativity – “for him it resulted to that but for the other’s an entirely different one” and (2) authority – “who says your assumptions are true/correct”.

 

[geekborj]

……

Because of our physical limitations we must read and hear by the convention that it is written and read top to bottom, left to right, and front to back. We “raster” scan the written word in the same manner it was written (by fellow humans) rather than look at it and see it all holistically as if we can see all the pages, words, sentences and structures simultaneously. That is OUR nature - it is not God’s nature. God simply used humans as the font, the ink, the quill, the fingers and the mechanical tools to express His Truth. He gave us a thing that we can hold in our hand and see and read. But the bible and all of us really were conceived by God (as if a twinkle in God’s eye) before Creation even was born or existed. Birth is simply a creative act of instantiating His will in the physical domain.

Truly, God knows how human we are!

Consider instead that time exists only for our convenience - God does not need time. If Creation could be visualized from God’s eye it would probably be seen in the metaphor of a sparkling diamond with an infinite number of reflective rays. The sparkle exists only to the observer and it dances around as the diamond is turned and looked at. God can see and comprehend each of those infinite combinations of rays and facets without the need to rotate it (time) in His light to reveal the sparkle. He knows precisely the nature of the diamond just like He knows His own nature.

God is truly good for giving us Time to be able to act out our love and desire for the Truth.

The only way we humans can escape time and enter heaven is through our prayer. Our voices and thoughts when joined to prayer are timeless and perpetual. Long after we leave this planet and existence our prayers will be still dancing around as melodies, or incense, or flowers or some other heavenly form in heaven. I imagine those gaining heaven will be able to smile when they see or hear their own prayers and smile. We can assert our prayers to God at any time - so its possible to pray to God to ask for mercy for a person who has even already died since if was ask God He will hear those prayers through His omniscience at the time before the person died.

Truly, we shall be ever dependent on the one true God, “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever will be.”

Escape the limits of time and let your voices enter into heaven. Pray. Pray for loved ones and enemies!

and ourselves as well that we may persevere in this Quest.

Happy Easter to you.

 

[CentralFLJames]

To require full responsibility of us and not giving us the full information on which we must base our decisions is cruel and contemptious.

Consider that you are responding to this conjectured condition in a subjective way. To me your response reveals elements of fear and frustration. Both elements are to me good since the prior implies true wisdom (fear of God - even if you don’t know it) and the second implies a willingness to search. This implies sincerity - and hence why I am responding here to see if I can help re-align your compass slightly. Some of us can also see that your search in this area is indicative that God has his hook in your nose and you are not the one in control - God is. So get ready for a life adventure. Actually what you need to know is that its God’s courting ritual.

So you need to come at this from a perspective of love and awe not fear. Trust that there is more to be learned.

This is what I want to tell you. It appears to many of us religious that God likes to “hint” and even tease (as somone previously mentioned). What I think you will eventually discover if you stay on this path of searching is that God will dupe you with progressive hints and entrap you in a way that you can never turn your back on Him. God is in this for eternity and wants us to be too. So in your search, as you look at one plausible thing to consider possibilities be ready for another insight to suddenly take shape as God leverages human curiosity to build on the prior possibility. What I am saying here is that God “veils” himself as if in a courtship. He seems to take delight in revealing Himself slowly in incremental steps.

So consider that there may be both an instructive motive for God as well as a divine nature that demands we demonstrate that we can trust Him before He reveals more about Himself. I conjecture that it could also be justice related as well. God may not want to expose too much truth that we are not yet mature enough to grasp (consider that we are spiritual children). It may be that as we learn more there is a greater consequence in turning our back or falling away as we learn to walk with Him. So it may be that He does this progressive revelation to protect us from our selves. We can only conjecture here until we know more.

Many of us have finally come to personally realize that God is in love with us and wants us to fall in love with Him too. But God does not want to overwhelm us with too much - more than we can take in. My own theory too is that if we saw too much of His greatness too soon we would feel completely unworthy and never be able to reciprocate a full love to the limits of our natural being. We would tend to judge ourselves into despair as never being worthy enough and self-elect to seperate ourselves from God permanently (and gravely). My own opinion too is that every aspect of life (relationships, marriage, gestation/birth/life/death, love commitments, growth/maturation/decay, illness/health etc.) is some kind of metaphor or prefiguring of some aspect of our relationship with God and God’s relationship with humanity; both now and in the hereafter. The Church too is important to God for some mysterious reason.

God pretty quickly steers us to “faith” just like science steers us to have faith in the methodologies of science (even though they often fail us and need revision and are never creative like God is and can only imperfectly emulate limited dimensions of what exists fully in nature).

Consider that our thirst for answers and information is forthcoming in direct proportion to our need, our perseverance, our trust and in our relationship with God. Missing information is perhaps God’s best means to compel us by our human nature to come find Him. He seems to be dropping bread crumb hints all over the Universe and the planet. He seems to want us to get us out of our own preoccupation with self, off the planet and to come find Him.

James