Is God a "square circle"?

[ateista]

This post was inspired by the thread about the possible proof for God’s existence, but it does not fall into the discussion there, so I thought I start a new one.

The non-faith, non-revelation types of arguments all state that the physical universe is insufficient for its own existence in one aspect or another. There are several ways to put this, be it a need for first cause, first mover, etc… They all result in the assumption of an outside source, which they name “god”. This god may not be the God of Christianity, but a supernatural entity, nontheless.

Let’s suppose - for the sake of discussion - that they are correct, and there is such an entity.

What can we say about this being?

Obviously, it cannot be a material entity. It cannot be just a concept, since concepts are “passive” things, they are unable to act.

This being is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. That already brings up a serious problem. How can an immaterial entity interface with a material one? Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. Action without effectors is not something we are familiar with, we cannot even imagine anything like that.

For theists that is no problem; they simply chalk it up as a “mystery”.

This being is obviously cannot be constrained by space and time, since space and time are not independent of matter and energy. We are not familiar with such existence. But we can say that a timeless existence can only be one thing: “total stasis”. Without “time” there is only an unchanging existence.

Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. What kind of existence is that? We cannot imagine.

For the theists this is not a problem, either. It is just another “mystery”.

So far, so good.

Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

Existence outside space and time is a “mystery”. Action without effectors is a “mystery”.

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

 

[peso73]

…hmm, I don’t see how that stuff disproves anything, as whatever God’s attributes are, being God, it is impossible for Him to be limited by laws of the physical universe He made, unless He choose to be limited in such a way…besides we, being human beings with our insanely complex minds and all, still cannot concieve of the possibility of being able to wrap our little noodles around God to understand and prove or disprove His existance either way, really…Might God exist outside of space and time as we know it, the spiritual realm of inconcieveable eternity and from there, do whatever He will, being God and all…

 

[jkarp]

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

Your post is really nothing more than a rehashing of Zeno’s paradoxes. According to your own logic, nothing can happen because each action presupposes a previous action or change, etc. If that is true, then motion is nothing but an illusion (which we know is not true).

Your argument is also know as *reductio ad absurdum *or proof by contradiction. Basically, one assumes a claim (as you did) which leads to an absurd outcome (which yours does) and then concludes that original assumption is wrong since it led to an absurd result (which yours does, i.e. a contradiction). Your argument’s fatal flaw is that a fallacy exists in your arrival at the contradiction, i.e. Zeno’s paradox, thus, your argument is invalid.

 

[freesoulhope]

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

This is a very good qeustion, and one that is bound to be met with mystery since you are looking at it, with a limmited capacity to comprehend, from a finite position in time.

God

What is God? He is pure Mind and perfect Will—God is immaterial and so cannot be caused or effected by nature and time; God is Pure Actuality. How did God cause the universe? He eternally willed the universe into existence. Why, because it was his “eternal pefect will” to do so; hence the term “unmoved-mover”. We cannot know how that is, or why that is. We can only suspect that in principle, a thing should have an Ultimate Foundation which suffiently explains its existence. Such a foundation is unlikely to be natural, since nature has finite structure. There needs be an explanation for why nature is nature, or why natural law is natural law in first place. It seems reasonable that the ultimate cause of all reality would be much greater then its effect in order to provide a greater explanation for its nature of being. God fits the bill. Natural causes do not.

And your right, God is a mystery, and therefore any attempts to comprehend how God does something is going to be met with a blank. We don’t know. But we can know that if the universe began to exist, including space and time, then one can concieve that timelessness is a “necessary” conditon of there being no universe. We can also know that it necessarily follows, that any possible cause, under the condition of there being no time space or matter, would have to be both “unmoved” and “mover” at the same time. The universe being caused and God cuasing it, would be a simultaneous event.

The question is not comprehensibility, its about what makes the most sense. Its a matter of Necessity. No universe, no natural cause. Without God, by your logic and sciece, the universe blindly poping into existence by itself from a timeless static state(as you say, is an “oxymoron”), is most definetly impossible. Like you say, a blind natural causes needs the lubricant of time to act. But God causing the universe, no-matter how hard or incomprehensible it is to invisage, the universe has some kind of a chance to exist; some kind of a good reason for being which doesn’t involve believing in magic. A mystery, does not amount to disproof.

On top of that you have blind objects being shaped by blind forces becoming personal rational beings with will and desire, who can love, create art, and understand right and wrong and can feel guilty when they do harm. They have joy and sadness and all kinds of creative abilitys; and they have come up with the most amazing concept, that a loving God has created them to spend an eternity of joy and perfection with him in heaven; and that this God is the cuase of all being. God is ultimate reality.

A blind universe poping into existence with all these unexplained laws of behavior which causes a chain of effects which eventually causes the universe, in part, to become self aware with emotions and desires, through the medium of humanity, is not reasonable. On the other hand, an Inteligent Source or Foundation, nomatter how much of a mystery it may be, is more reasonable to believe.

Peace.

 

[ateista]

…hmm, I don’t see how that stuff disproves anything, as whatever God’s attributes are, being God, it is impossible for Him to be limited by laws of the physical universe He made, unless He choose to be limited in such a way…besides we, being human beings with our insanely complex minds and all, still cannot concieve of the possibility of being able to wrap our little noodles around God to understand and prove or disprove His existance either way, really…Might God exist outside of space and time as we know it, the spiritual realm of inconcieveable eternity and from there, do whatever He will, being God and all…

I do not argue that it is physical impossibility, it is a logical one. And just like God cannot create a “square circle” he cannot act and not have time. Any action, no matter how “unimaginable” the effectors are: is a change. And any change presupposes a “time”.

 

[dmar198]

[God] is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. …[But] Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. … This being is obviously cannot be constrained by space and time, since space and time are not independent of matter and energy. We are not familiar with such existence. But we can say that a timeless existence can only be one thing: “total stasis”. Without “time” there is only an unchanging existence.

Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. … [So] How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action). …the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

Great post! You seem to be making the argument from timeless causality. But your assumption is that the Christian faith holds that at one point the universe did not exist, and thereafter it did exist when God so desired. You betray this assumption in saying, “[God] is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world.” That is not Christianity.
Sure, semantics dictates that when speaking of God in layman’s terms it is appropriate to say that He “acts” or “creates”, which you accurately note implies the existence of time. But that is just that: semantics; anthropomorphisms intended solely to relay the supernatural point into natural terms for the layman’s understanding.
As an attribute of the timelessness of the supernatural, God does not act in the sense of causality. The assumption that the universe did not exist at some point and at some later point came into existence betrays a contradiction in thinking that time existed before the universe, a component of which is time itself.

In other words, the phrase “before time” is a contradiction. You would have there be some point “before the universe”. But as time is a dimension of the universe, in so saying you have made a contradictory assumption. That is what lead to your contradictory conclusion.

So if “before time” is a contradiction, as is evident by its very language, then it must be that time always was. There cannot have been a time when time was not. Time is therefore everlasting. Then, you can have the system we commonly think of as “the universe” come into being within that everlasting time dimension. God, existing outside of and independent of the time dimension, is still plausible; because His existence has the attribute by nature of existing at every possible instant in that time dimension. And so at any given instant the divine static will of God - which exists outside of the time dimension - can come into action on the time dimension, and so the principle of causality still stands.

God’s existence is thus not prohibited by the thought that He “acts” while remaining static in essence, for when properly understood those attributes are non-contradictory.

 

[ateista]

Your post is really nothing more than a rehashing of Zeno’s paradoxes. According to your own logic, nothing can happen because each action presupposes a previous action or change, etc. If that is true, then motion is nothing but an illusion (which we know is not true).

Your argument is also know as *reductio ad absurdum *or proof by contradiction. Basically, one assumes a claim (as you did) which leads to an absurd outcome (which yours does) and then concludes that original assumption is wrong since it led to an absurd result (which yours does, i.e. a contradiction). Your argument’s fatal flaw is that a fallacy exists in your arrival at the contradiction, i.e. Zeno’s paradox, thus, your argument is invalid.

Zeno’s paradox was totally different, and it is not even a paradox. The ancient Greeks could not comprehend that the addition of an infinite series of numbers can result in a finite result, in other words they had no knowledge of convergent and divergent series. The argument holds.

 

[ateista]

Great post! You seem to be making the argument from timeless causality. But your assumption is that the Christian faith holds that at one point the universe did not exist, and thereafter it did exist when God so desired.

No, I am not arguing the Christian aspect. In many posts there were arguments that the universe cannot have “always” existed, and that requires an external causative agent.

This causative agent (usually called god) is nonmaterial, exists outside of time, and created the physical universe. I am not even arguing against the “nonmaterial” part. I just say that “outside” of time (which I consider nonsensical, but accept for the argument’s sake) and any “activity” are contradictory terms.

In other words, the phrase “before time” is a contradiction. You would have there be some point “before the universe”. But as time is a dimension of the universe, in so saying you have made a contradictory assumption. That is what lead to your contradictory conclusion.

I agree that “before time” as related to our “space-time-matter” universe is nonsensical. But god is supposed to be outside of this realm. Time and again (excuse the pun) it has been argued that god is not bound by space and time. And that leads to the contradiction. I do not argue that god is bound by our time. But if god “acts”, then action (no matter how incomprensible that is) presupposes change, and that presupposes some kind of “time”.

And if one accepts that there is “time” in the realm where god dwells, then the very same arguments that are brought up against our “time” - namely infinite past - can be brought up against it.

Static existence and action are contradictory, no matter how you want to view it.

 

[ateista]

How did God cause the universe? He eternally willed the universe into existence.

I am sorry my friend, I cannot comprehend what that means.

I am willing to contemplate immaterial effectors, and existence outside our time - no matter how esoteric these concepts may be. But “eternal will” escapes me - it has absolutely no meaning.

My basic premise is still the same: any kind of action presupposes a change, and any change presupposes a time. The words: “action”, “change” and “time” are all very well defined. The contradiction follows from these words.

 

[dmar198]

[God] is nonmaterial, exists outside of time, and created the physical universe. I am not even arguing against the “nonmaterial” part. I just say that “outside” of time (which I consider nonsensical, but accept for the argument’s sake) and any “activity” are contradictory terms.

You would be correct, if the word “activity” was used in its usual context; i.e. time-constrainted change from one condition to another. But that is not what is meant when the word “activity” is applied to God. We maintain that He is the source of the universe’s existence, whether it be an infinite or finite existence; in order to explain that to Layman, words such as “activity” and “creation” have been used. But they are not meant in the time-constrainted context. God does not cause one condition to stop being and another to be outside of time. All condition-changes of which God is the source involve time.

He cannot cause any condition to change to another independent of time; that would be a contradiction. You are correct about that.

But you make it seem as though we believe that God does cause one condition to change to another independent of time (namely, that God causes the universe to exist where it first did not). We do not hold such an idea.

For the universe’s existence to be “caused” in the above sense by God, you would have God at one point existing as a Being Who has not caused the universe to exist, and then afterward as a Being Who has caused the universe to exist. That would contradict His immutable nature.

So what I’m trying to say is that God always has existed as the Being Who has caused the universe to exist. It is just that the effects of this event - here meaning the matter which became this world -, even though created in eternity-past, came into their being at a specific point on the same everlasting time-dimension.

So we can still say that the same God Who exists outside of time caused the universe to exist in time. When it is properly understood in that context, there is no contradiction.

 

[zemi]

This post was inspired by the thread about the possible proof for God’s existence, but it does not fall into the discussion there, so I thought I start a new one.

The non-faith, non-revelation types of arguments all state that the physical universe is insufficient for its own existence in one aspect or another. There are several ways to put this, be it a need for first cause, first mover, etc… They all result in the assumption of an outside source, which they name “god”. This god may not be the God of Christianity, but a supernatural entity, nontheless.

Let’s suppose - for the sake of discussion - that they are correct, and there is such an entity.

What can we say about this being?

Obviously, it cannot be a material entity. It cannot be just a concept, since concepts are “passive” things, they are unable to act.

This being is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. That already brings up a serious problem. How can an immaterial entity interface with a material one? Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. Action without effectors is not something we are familiar with, we cannot even imagine anything like that.

For theists that is no problem; they simply chalk it up as a “mystery”.

This being is obviously cannot be constrained by space and time, since space and time are not independent of matter and energy. We are not familiar with such existence. But we can say that a timeless existence can only be one thing: “total stasis”. Without “time” there is only an unchanging existence.

Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. What kind of existence is that? We cannot imagine.

For the theists this is not a problem, either. It is just another “mystery”.

So far, so good.

Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

Existence outside space and time is a “mystery”. Action without effectors is a “mystery”.

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

1. These are “mysteries” also for science. Science operates only in cause-and-effect relations in time using only natural causes for the explation of various phenomena. It is not therefore a physical question but a metaphysical one.
2. To say that something is a “mystery” and therefore coudln’t happen in some way is very far fetched (origin of life and universe itself came to being though it is a mystery how)
3. That one cannot freely act outside of time is only a scientific assertion. We do not know how things work in a “realm where there’s no time” (or at least - as we know it here). If God and the angels can freely act outside of time (they could before the creation of the world) then it perhaps is somehow possible.

To sum up: I would be willing to say that from the point of scientific method, God’s acting outside of time is a (scientific) contradition. But remember, science doesn’t use God in its equations. It couldn’t - even if we knew 100% that God exists. Science works only w/ natural causes not supernatural ones.

PS: maybe you could read Paul Davies’ The Mind of God: The Scientific basis for a Rational World. I have it at home. He deals with your dillemas there

 

[freesoulhope]

Static existence and action are contradictory, no matter how you want to view it.

The problem is that, it follows neccesarily from your logic, that the Universe shouldn’t exist either. So maybe your missing something, and maybe one day you be humble enough to accept that.

God is the cuase, in the sense that God is the ultimate Foundation of the universe from which time extends. So it would not matter if the universe had always existed; its foundation for existing can still be a timeless agent. It is still dependent. God wouldn’t be before time in an act of cuasing, but would be the simultaneous eternal cause to its existence.

What ever the case may be, Its simply the case that by the universe begining to exist, it has to, by neccesity, extend from a timeless foundation. You can’t get out of that. You seem to forget that, time is an aspect of matter and space, and is not a separate entity; God is immaterial, so, i don’t see how this law of act applys to God if his will is not a physical object. We don’t know how an immaterial act applys to a natural act in time, and whether or not the same rules apply; so how can we conclude that it is impossible for God to act, when time corresponds to physical objects? There can be no natural cause, that is for certain, but God can be both mover and unmoved in his very nature of being since he is not a material being.

Your arguement only disproves a Physical Unmoved Cause to the Universe.

 

[jkarp]

Zeno’s paradox was totally different, and it is not even a paradox.

A paradox is a “self-contradictory and false proposition.” This is precisely what Zeno’s paradoxes are: self-contradictory and false. They are also essentially the exact same as the argument you are trying to make; just because you perceive it to be different doesn’t make it so. You are attempting to divide time into a series of instances and then claim that because each is dependant upon the previous, it is a contradiction, “timeless” and “active” using your words. Zeno’s first paradox attempts to divide space into a series of points and then claim that because crossing each requires crossing the previous, it is a contradiction.

The ancient Greeks could not comprehend that the addition of an infinite series of numbers can result in a finite result, in other words they had no knowledge of convergent and divergent series.

This only helps to prove that Zeno’s is indeed a paradox, that is, false by definition.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

This being is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. That already brings up a serious problem. How can an immaterial entity interface with a material one? Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. Action without effectors is not something we are familiar with, we cannot even imagine anything like that.

For theists that is no problem; they simply chalk it up as a “mystery”.

I don’t know about this claim. God doesn’t “act” in time much less “act on the material world”. Do you have a statement from a theist which claims the contrary? Yes, according to Aristotelianism/Thomism, God is “pure act”, but that doesn’t mean the same thing. That is describing what God is, not what He does. Yes, God has a will, but that means He acts outside of time, not in it.

And God doesn’t “interface” with the material world. He has willed what will happen in the material world from all eternity. Therefore, He has set up the world in such a way that it will come to pass.

Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. What kind of existence is that? We cannot imagine.

That’s true; it might be better put as “God doesn’t change”.

Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

An entity outside time doesn’t act in time, but outside of time. Outside of time, your paradox disappears. There is no “before” or “after” the action. And there is action, but not change; God’s will is set from eternity.

Existence outside space and time is a “mystery”. Action without effectors is a “mystery”.

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

Again, God doesn’t act in time, but outside of it.

 

[freesoulhope]

Any action, no matter how “unimaginable” the effectors are: is a change. And any change presupposes a “time”.

Change and time, is a measure of physical objects.

 

[freesoulhope]

And there is action, but not change; God’s will is set from eternity.

Thank you. Are you still on the unmoved mover thread?

 

[freesoulhope]

I am sorry my friend, I cannot comprehend what that means.

I am willing to contemplate immaterial effectors, and existence outside our time - no matter how esoteric these concepts may be. But “eternal will” escapes me - it has absolutely no meaning.

My basic premise is still the same: any kind of action presupposes a change.

God doesn’t change; he is pure actuality, in the sense that he has always been in a state of act from all eternity. There is no beginning to God. That is what it means for God to be unchanging and out side of time. Time is a measure of change. Time cannot measure an eternal act, therefore by definition God is trancendent. If God was in one state, and then changed to another; then you would have a great arguement which would push God outside the realm of logic; but would not disprove his existence. It would just mean that God can in fact do the logically imposible, and therefore God existence would not be logical.

But, apart from that, my main arguement is that God is pure eternal actuality. His “will” never changess; and never had a beginning.

 

[Steve40]

Existence outside space and time is a “mystery”. Action without effectors is a “mystery”.

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

Logic does not disprove God because logic itself is a part of creation. Mathematics and logic had to be created. They have order and are a language. Any language only has meaning within the creative mind.

Since logic and mathematics, the language with which our minds reason, is a part of creation, it is logical that the Creator would not be bound by logic.

This statement is a reasonable understanding of a God that Is Three and One in the same existence. It is also a reasonable understanding of why God in His Timelessnes and Active Existence could be a logical contradiction.

The short answer is, you language of thought, logic is a part of creation and does not have the vocabulary to describe the Creator.

 

[BlaineTog]

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

Sentences like this always make me laugh a little inside.

 

[Hrvoje]

Sentences like this always make me laugh a little inside.

Hahahahaha!

I’m sorry, I just had to!

Thank you for making my day a bit more joyful.

God bless.