Something an atheist said which made me think

[Pugsly]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

The Bible gives you the answer with the idea that God was “at rest”. When God is “at rest” He is completely beyond time…but…when God chose to Act with the great restraint of creation…then God is partially (for want of a better term) within time. Thus Jesus was available to all of creation in some form or other…“I saw Satan fall like lightning from the heavens”.

 

[tonyrey]

True, but unfortunately, very few apologists today are of that calibre.

They may not be so saintly - and their calibre is a matter of opinion - but the fact remains that Jesus Himself gave reasons for accepting His teaching.

 

[Pugsly]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

Have you considered that God is NOT outside of time? Why is it important to say that God is outside of time?

What is time?..a measure of CHANGE…and God is IMMUTABLE (unchanging right?). But is it an accurate statement to say that God is UNCHANGING in His essence but free to act?

 

[DrTaffy]

No… ‘knowledge’ does not necessarily imply ‘determinism’. God foreknows but does not direct the actions of humans.

I think we have a problem of terminology.

To me ‘free will’ means that my actions are determined solely by me and my inherent nature, not imposed from some outside source, even if those actions are 100% predictable, while ‘determinism’ means that my actions are predetermined, and so can be predicted.

So if God (or anyone) knows what will happen tomorrow, that implies determinism. If God decides that I am going to have a Latte tomorrow and causes me to do so, that would violate free will.

The notion of “no matter how many times I watch the film” doesn’t fit well into this construction, any way. Time isn’t a series of dice rolls which may be repeated: things happen – and, to the best of our knowledge, only once – and therefore, to a being outside of time, definite knowledge of acts happening inside of the space/time construct does not imply determinism of these actions.

Likewise Frodo only throws the One Ring (with a little help from the creepy frog guy) into the the volcano thingy once in the film, no matter how often I watch it. You are, I think, confusing the two timelike dimensions.

 

[Gorgias]

I think we have a problem of terminology.

Perhaps, but I’m not convinced that you’re using your terminology in a consistant way, either…

To me ‘free will’ means that my actions are determined solely by me and my inherent nature, not imposed from some outside source, even if those actions are 100% predictable, while ‘determinism’ means that my actions are predetermined, and so can be predicted.

Two problems here: first, how does one distinguish between “100% predictable” but “not imposed from some outside source” from “[able to] be predicted” because “my actions are predetermined”? This seems to be a distinction without a difference: in both cases, there is prediction; yet, in one case you assert ‘free will’ and in the other ‘determinism’. Worse yet, you assert them freely, without any clues that would help us understand the distinction, let alone support that would justify the distinction.

Second, your use of the term prediction works only in the context of the framework of time. If I’m bound up in time, and I say to everyone in this thread “DrTaffy is going to have a latte tomorrow at noon”, then I’ve made a prediction. However, a statement about an event within a time framework – that itself is made from outside the framework – is not a prediction, per se, but merely a statement of fact.

If you and a friend are watching Lord of the Rings (having watched it before, so that this isn’t newly discovered information) and you turn to your friend and say, “I predict that Sauron will be defeated”, is this really a prediction? Of course not! This is merely a statement of fact, based on your pre-existing knowledge of the events in that time framework! More to the point: your statement about Sauron’s defeat does not cause it to happen! So, to say that God predicts something is a mis-use of the term, and a misunderstanding of the concept, and therefore, does not imply determinism in the way that you desire to say that it does.

So if God (or anyone) knows what will happen tomorrow, that implies determinism. If God decides that I am going to have a Latte tomorrow and causes me to do so, that would violate free will.

Not at all: if God knows what will my drink choice will be tomorrow, that implies knowledge; it does not imply that God either causes my choice or violates my free will in that choice.

 

[zro_x]

I think we have a problem of terminology.

To me ‘free will’ means that my actions are determined solely by me and my inherent nature, not imposed from some outside source, even if those actions are 100% predictable, while ‘determinism’ means that my actions are predetermined, and so can be predicted.

So if God (or anyone) knows what will happen tomorrow, that implies determinism. If God decides that I am going to have a Latte tomorrow and causes me to do so, that would violate free will.

Usually, determinism means that every event in the universe is determined by some previous cause, usually physical, and that every event, given enough data, is entirely predictable. This is in direct opposition with the idea of free will. The way you describe determinism is similar, but not exactly identical, to this definition.

Likewise Frodo only throws the One Ring (with a little help from the creepy frog guy) into the the volcano thingy once in the film, no matter how often I watch it. You are, I think, confusing the two timelike dimensions.

I get the impression that you are the one confusing them. when I compared the history of the universe to a movie reel, I did not intend to imply that God actually watches our history like a movie, being able to fast forward, pause, rewind, and rewatch the movie however he wants. I meant that god takes the metaphorical movie reel out of the projector, lays it out on the floor, and sees all of human history in freeze-frame at once. our actions are not predetermind and predictable; God knows what we will do because he is actually watching our future actions right now.

Pugsly, this is the very reason (or one of the reasons) why we speculate that God is outside our time. First, it just makes sense, since God created the universe and so therefore would likely be above the timestream in he universe he created. More importantly, though, it allows God to watch our actions as we do them, so God doesn’t need to have knowledge of the future, which would imply determinism, in order to see what we’re doing.

 

[zro_x]

Not at all: if God knows what will my drink choice will be tomorrow, that implies knowledge; it does not imply that God either causes my choice or violates my free will in that choice.

hmm. good point. It appears that even if you do make a linear movie analogy, God’s foreknowledge of the future does not necessarily imply that the future is deterministic. Scratch what I said earlier, pugsly. It appears that it isn’t necessary for God be out of time in order to know our future actions after all! It still makes sense to talk about God being immutable and eternal, though, because those are exactly the qualities we would expect to see in a creator and a necessary being.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As a former atheist, I can tell you there is no theological puzzle an atheist can pose that comes anywhere near so baffling as the theological puzzles Christians confront every day of their lives.

The problem of evil, the Trinity, and Transubstantiation alone dwarf any any objection an atheist can raise.

The atheist wants every religious tenet to be rational or it is therefore useless. But there are many principles of science that are not even rational!

 

[Pugsly]

Pugsly, this is the very reason (or one of the reasons) why we speculate that God is outside our time. First, it just makes sense, since God created the universe and so therefore would likely be above the timestream in he universe he created. More importantly, though, it allows God to watch our actions as we do them, so God doesn’t need to have knowledge of the future, which would imply determinism, in order to see what we’re doing.

Interesting that you mention that God is outside of “our timestream”…because that fits with the famous analogy of the Man (God) on the Bridge…who can look downstream and be present to all the past and can look up stream and be present to all the future. Yet, the Man on the bridge can indeed move about…and He is free and therefore has His own kind of time…“a thousand years are as a day to God”.

God was at rest…God Acts…therefore there is change available to God…the word “time” represents a measure of change. God merely has different kinds of measurements than us.

 

[sjh331]

C.S. Lewis saw time as a line drawn on a page. We move forwards on the line, but God isn’t part of the paper at all. He’s seeing from the outside.

Lewis then pointed out that it doesn’t make the universe deterministic for God to know what we did yesterday. But because it’s all points on a line to Him, why do we then consider it odd that He knows what we will do tomorrow?

Our brains evolved in a time-bound universe, and it’s very difficult for us to reason with our usual logical tools about what it means to be outside time. Our reasoning, like a mathematical theorem, tends to make errors when applied outside its domain.

That’s how I think about it, anyway.

 

[fred_conty]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

uestion:

If God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time.​

Answer:

He could not make a decision for the very reason given, i.e., God is outside of time.

Explaination:

A decision is a thought which of itself has an existence of its own apart from the decision maker. And a decision takes time and is made in time. But God is outside of time, therefore God cannot make decisions.

Next idea:

If God cannot make a decision to create the world, and the world exists, then the world came into being without God. Ergo God does not exist.

Answer:

Before the universe existed, there was no time because there was nothing except God.
Space did not exist. Time did not exist. Movement did not exist. Light did not exist.
Clouds did not exist. Nothing of anything, even a speck of dust, did not exist. Even a vacuum did not exist. Can we imagine nothing, including darkness which did not exist.
We can’t.

Neither can we imagine God who is pure act and yet is motionless.
As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, “A man has got to know his limitations.”

 

[zro_x]

The atheist wants every religious tenet to be rational or it is therefore useless. But there are many principles of science that are not even rational!

such as?

 

[Pugsly]

uestion:

If God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time.​

Answer:

He could not make a decision for the very reason given, i.e., God is outside of time.

Explaination:

A decision is a thought which of itself has an existence of its own apart from the decision maker. And a decision takes time and is made in time. But God is outside of time, therefore God cannot make decisions.

Next idea:

If God cannot make a decision to create the world, and the world exists, then the world came into being without God. Ergo God does not exist.

Answer:

Before the universe existed, there was no time because there was nothing except God.
Space did not exist. Time did not exist. Movement did not exist. Light did not exist.
Clouds did not exist. Nothing of anything, even a speck of dust, did not exist. Even a vacuum did not exist. Can we imagine nothing, including darkness which did not exist.
We can’t.

Neither can we imagine God who is pure act and yet is motionless.
As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, “A man has got to know his limitations.”

The Spirit of God moved over the waters…before God said “Let there be Light”. The perfection of Prudence is to consider Wisdom…isn’t God perfectly prudent? Then ofcourse He would consider BEFORE acting.

All of this movement…and consideration…(and the Bible states God played with Wisdom before ever a thing was made)…points to a change from God at “rest”. Time is a measure of change. I believe God is immutable in His Essence (as the Church teaches) but operates in His own kind of time as the Bible implies.

 

[Gorgias]

The perfection of Prudence is to consider Wisdom…isn’t God perfectly prudent? Then ofcourse He would consider BEFORE acting.

No… God isn’t ‘prudent’, He is Wisdom itself! He does not need to consider, in order to discern whether He is being prudent; He embodies prudence, and so all that He does is prudent! Important distinction…

a change from God at “rest”. Time is a measure of change. I believe God is immutable in His Essence (as the Church teaches) but operates in His own kind of time as the Bible implies.

I don’t think so. From outside the framework of time, God is pure actuality: he is, and so is always action and never potential. However, from within the framework of time, we perceive things as happening at specific times, and other things as not happening at specific times. From within this framework, then, God appeared to be ‘acting’ in the creation of the world, and ‘resting’ upon its creation. This doesn’t mean that the appearance of our framework is the reality of God’s existence…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

zro

such as?

The origin of the universe itself, for starters.
.

 

[DrTaffy]

I think discussing ‘free will’ is a mistake here, as people seem to mean too many different things by it and it is not (as far as I can see) central to the point.

Two problems here: first, how does one distinguish between “100% predictable” but “not imposed from some outside source” from “[able to] be predicted” because “my actions are predetermined”? This seems to be a distinction without a difference: in both cases, there is prediction; yet, in one case you assert ‘free will’ and in the other ‘determinism’.

No in both cases that are predictable, I assert determinism. In the one case I assert what I call free will to show that the two qualities are orthogonal - you can have any combination of free will (yes/no) or determinism (yes/no).

If future events are determined (i.e. must happen a certain way) then we have determinism.

Second, your use of the term prediction works only in the context of the framework of time. If I’m bound up in time, and I say to everyone in this thread “DrTaffy is going to have a latte tomorrow at noon”, then I’ve made a prediction. However, a statement about an event within a time framework – that itself is made from outside the framework – is not a prediction, per se, but merely a statement of fact.

If God is able to interact with humans, then he must be at least partly within time. There is a causal link from him to us, which establishes a time-like presence. More to the point, if he knows whether I am going to have a latte tomorrow and is able to communicate that to me today, then we have at least a potential prediction.

Or another way - if a being ‘outside of time’ can look at the timeline and see only one possible narrative, like the film reel, then that means that only that one narrative is possible and we have determinism (‘future events’, as seen by me, are determined). If he/she/it sees a branching tree of possible timelines, like the adventure game book, we have a non-deterministic universe.

If there is one knowable answer to the question “Is Taffy going to have a latte tomorrow?” that directly implies that that answer is already determined. (Smart aleck answers like ‘maybe’ should be punished by deportation to Merthyr Tydfil)

 

[Gorgias]

I think discussing ‘free will’ is a mistake here, as people seem to mean too many different things by it and it is not (as far as I can see) central to the point.

LOL… perhaps!

the two qualities are orthogonal - you can have any combination of free will (yes/no) or determinism (yes/no).

If future events are determined (i.e. must happen a certain way) then we have determinism.

Hmm… so, you’re saying that there can be both free will and determinism? That seems odd. (Unless, of course, by ‘determinism’, you mean that God can see all possibilities, yet not know which one will be chosen. Your comments below, though, seem to say that this is not what you’re saying. If that is the case, how can there be both ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’, then?)

If God is able to interact with humans, then he must be at least partly within time.

I would suggest that while this means that God can interact within the framework of time, it doesn’t place God within time, partly or otherwise. You can interact with your child as he takes a bath, handing him his rubber ducky or reminding him to wash behind his ears, but that doesn’t mean that you’re (even partly) within the bath.

There is a causal link from him to us, which establishes a time-like presence.

From our point of view? Perhaps. From God’s? Not at all.

Or another way - if a being ‘outside of time’ can look at the timeline and see only one possible narrative, like the film reel, then that means that only that one narrative is possible and we have determinism

Not at all: many narratives are possible – but only one occurs. God doesn’t determine the choice, but God perceives it, outside of the framework of time. This, then, means that God doesn’t cause it… just observes it.

If he/she/it sees a branching tree of possible timelines, like the adventure game book, we have a non-deterministic universe.

Yet, if that is all that God sees, then God is not omniscient. You can’t change the definition of God arbitrarily in order to make your theory consistant, can you?

If there is one knowable answer to the question “Is Taffy going to have a latte tomorrow?” that directly implies that that answer is already determined.

Terms like ‘already’ imply a context within the framework of time. Outside of that framework, they have no meaning. Likewise with ‘determined’. I’m asserting that, if you want to talk about ‘determinism’, you have to do so within a time framework; once you step outside that framework, you can no longer use language that implies temporality within the framework. (This, perhaps, is why I reject your claims of ‘determinism’, since I perceive them to be bound up within the context of a framework of time.)

(Smart aleck answers like ‘maybe’ should be punished by deportation to Merthyr Tydfil)

I’m guessing, for those of us on this side of the pond, that this is something like Cleveland?

 

[empther]

From post 1

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time.

If God can’t make a decision about what time to begin the universe,
how does that atheist explain how the universe decided what time to start itself? :bigyikes:

Or does he claim the universe has always existed through an infinite past? No. He can’t claim that. He’d have to be insane.

This is the technique atheists use. They raise a question you can’t answer and then leave you there hanging. They don’t consider everything, like how the universe could decide what time to create itself, or something else like that…

We believers consider everything. We see the complete picture. We have the truth.

 

[Gorgias]

Or does he claim the universe has always existed through an infinite past? No. He can’t claim that. He’d have to be insane.

That’s the claim that Aristotle made. In fact, Aquinas also deferred to the possibility that it was true…

 

[zro_x]

zro

such as?

The origin of the universe itself, for starters.
.

In the first place, science has no “principle” about the origins of the universe, only a few speculations. And it seems to me that these speculations are rational anyway.