This is fundamental philosophy stuff that has been discussed through the history of philosophy. The reason it is relevant that I am a Wittgensteinian is that W believes that language gets its meaning from a specific context.
The context for your undefended assertion of these statements is a logical system which began with the ancients, as represented by Aquinas, and which no one any longer takes seriously.
Since I had never heard of a major objection to the Cosmological Argument, I dropped by Wikipedia for a start. Seems the folks there (who love to correct and add to controversial issues and philosophical arguments) don’t seem to think that the argument has been “disproven” or even objected to by a majority.
The objections given there seem rather weak to me. I could get into them if you wish.
What seems more relevant is that we have an additional (name removed by moderator)ut to consider in our argument: Sacred Scripture. The Creation accounts, as well as the very nature of God (I Am Who Am) themselves seem to point much more strongly to a First Cause and Necessary Being scenario than any other I have ever seen. Given the evidence of Scripture, then, why would you easily discard the Cosmological Argument?
Is time a thing? Or is change itself time? That is, how is time different from change itself? That is, could we measure time in a way that is different from how we measure “change”? If there is no way to measure a difference between the way we measure change and the way we measure time, there is no difference between time and change itself. And I think that that is the case.
There are many ways that “change” and “time” are different, but they depend on how we define terms.
Rate of change, as measured in many media and scientific subjects, is measured separately (though dependently) on time. Thus change can be measured apart from time. If the experience of time is changed through a different velocity (say, approaching the speed of light), I’m pretty sure particle accelerators have observed rates of change increase even as time decreases. In the theoretical scenario of experiencing time at the speed of light, the passage of time seems to cease, even though time flows on for other objects around the subject. Meanwhile, light, which is not experiencing the passage of time,
changes its intensity and its location in space. Thus change, for light, is independent of time.
Then we have immaterial change, such as the “change” you posit if God responds to prayers. Taking humans rather than God, thought exists in an undetermined dimension. How do you quantify thought (and emotion, for that matter) and it’s degree of change? Is that change bound by time, or can it occur instantaneously, or just independently of time?
As for how this matters to God, I’m not sure it does. I wouldn’t limit God by any of His creations, for one thing, but for another, even if God is somehow bound by time, there exist (as far as we know) constants. Such constants “respond” by their very existence to events in time, providing “feedback.” These constants do not change. So God could be a constant, and not be changed.
What things do not change? I do not know of any things which do not change. They are made of electrons protons and neutrons which are in constant state of flux. All things are always changing, so what is this strange “ability to change”?
I got ahead of myself. Constants don’t change. Mathematical laws by which, so far, the universe abides. Only being a hobbyist physicist, I can’t list them all for you. I believe the force of gravity is a measurable constant. Various equational relationships seem to be as well. You seem to have observed this, implicit in your later statements (though I had not read them until just now–seems like we’re thinking along the same lines!)
Do the propositions of mathmatics exist in time? Are they created by humans? Are they immutable principles of the universe which do not change? But if the universe is constantly changing, how can it generate principles which do not change?
Do the principles of mathmatics exist outside of time? If so, are they co-eternal with God or did he create them?
What kind of things exist atemporally? You postulate that God does- but does he? Does it make sense (as I have asked before) to speak of a time “before” time? Can it even be conceived by the human mind?
In order of the question marks, as I see them, based on some of the things I’ve already said: No, otherwise they would change (I do think that over time, anything bound inside time must change). No, otherwise we’d be able to change them. As for the frame of reference within the physical universe, yes, they do not change. The universe need not have “generated” mathematical principles.
Yes, otherwise we could not measure time, and we clearly can. They need not be co-eternal; if God is defined as author and creator, then to be God He must have either created mathematical principles, or mathematical principles are an inherent part of God–which leads to another interesting possibility: if these principles are a part of God, then He can’t change or violate them without changing Himself and becoming changeable. Thus, I think God created mathematical principles, using the principle from the Scriptures of His necessary immutability.
Simply repeating a fallacy over and over won’t make it true.
