Freethought & Rationalism Archive

quip · 05-10-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Theist

For the past year or so a certain user has been asserting that he has 'disproved God'. This disproof comes in the form of a paradox called 'Draygomb's Paradox' (and if you didn't see that coming, please sit down and have a labotomy).

Despite claiming it as a proof against God, Draygomb's Paradox suffers several limitations. To spot them, one needs to know what the paradox states, ergo,

Draygombs paradox

Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.

Draygomb makes several implicit assumptions,

The proof applies to any notion of God that 'matters' (better term lacking)
Change cannot precede time
God must make a conscious decision to create time itself
God thinks, as a temporal being thinks (ie using a thought process)

With the information presented, the objections can now begin

Why spend so much time and brainpower on this crap?

Draygomb simply doesn't believe in the transcendental concept of God. He makes this claim obvious by constructing a "paradox" which selectively uses some characteristics of the T-God yet denies others. For example:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.

But then T-God's transcendent qualities become suspiciously absent. God becomes thoroughly subjected to and constrained by Draygomb's declinated, and limiited (non-transcendental) definition of consciousness and action/decision making. For example:

Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.....

For all his ego-stroking, Draygomb is simply stating "I am an atheist, and I don't believe the god concept is possible." ...Quite the stunning revelation!

Stephen T-B · 05-11-2006, 08:01 AM

There are no constraints on magic - except those imposed by the limitations of the human imagination.

The Creator God exists in the realm of magic, and for that reason can be said to be anything, do anything, be anywhere.

But at some point, magic comes up against reality.
Draycomb's paradox brings it to this collision, and when he investigates the result, he finds that reality is undamaged, and that there's nothing left of the magic.

He is, though, mistaken.
The magic simply melted back into its realm of the human imagination, where it is indestructible.

quip · 05-11-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

There are no constraints on magic - except those imposed by the limitations of the human imagination.

The Creator God exists in the realm of magic, and for that reason can be said to be anything, do anything, be anywhere.

But at some point, magic comes up against reality.
Draycomb's paradox brings it to this collision, and when he investigates the result, he finds that reality is undamaged, and that there's nothing left of the magic.

He is, though, mistaken.
The magic simply melted back into its realm of the human imagination, where it is indestructible.

Collision......good word!

There is no paradox to be had...simply a creative collision of ideals.

MxM111 · 05-12-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quip

Why spend so much time and brainpower on this crap?

Draygomb simply doesn't believe in the transcendental concept of God. He makes this claim obvious by constructing a "paradox" which selectively uses some characteristics of the T-God yet denies others. For example:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.

But then T-God's transcendent qualities become suspiciously absent.

"Transcendent" qualities has nothing to do with this paradox. The problem is with understanding of how we describe God (independent whether God exists or not). What Draygomb was trying to show (so far as I consider unsuccessfully, but still) is that God as TFC can not exist. If he were managed to demonstrate that, then that would have meant either
1) God (as TFC) does not exist
or
2) God is not TFC
or
3) The standard definition of TFC term could not be used with respect to God

If you believe in God, you can consider this exercise as to see if #2 or #3 is true.

But again, as far as I can see, right now the paradox can be resolved.

PS.
It is advisable on these boards not to call somebody else opinion "crap". You do not achieve anything by that. Try to show respect to other points of view.

Stephen T-B · 05-13-2006, 07:30 AM

If you can believe in God, you can believe in anything, including a special "God-realm" outside the universe which has the physical attributes of space-time.
As has been mentioned by Oxymoron and others, the next question is: "where did this God-realm" come from? Who created that?
And if it is pysical, where could it possibly be if not within the Universe, since the universe contains all that physically exists?

The only answer to that question is that it doesn't: that more stuff phsyically exists than is in the universe.
But since we are restricted to exploring what is in the universe, this "God-realm" is unknowable.
You can say anything you like about it. In other words, the only constraints upon it are those imposed by human imagination.
Which is the same as magic.
So we might as well be talking about magic - which is neither useful nor sensible. It certainly cannot provide a useful or sensible explanation for how our universe began.

aa5874 · 05-13-2006, 11:01 AM

Magic and the 'actions' of Gods are not similar in any way. Magic is real explainable actions by Magicians. The 'actions' of Gods are mythological, deceptive and are fabricated to create fear.

Magicians do not condemn people to Hell, if they do not believe in the Magicians, they simply perform tricks for a living. Magicians do not attempt to raise the dead or heal the sick unlike the theist.

God does not exist because the Christian Bible says so.

Stephen T-B · 05-13-2006, 01:01 PM

(I didn't mean "magic" as performed by magicians. I meant "magic" as performed by fairy godmothers, witches, demons, angels, gods; I meant the sort of magic which is supernatural).

quip · 05-13-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MxM111

"Transcendent" qualities has nothing to do with this paradox. The problem is with understanding of how we describe God (independent whether God exists or not).

We are to understand God as being outside and the creator of time/existence as we know it....... that is, God is envisioned as THE creator, transcendent of time and every physical existent. Transcendence has everything to do with it!

MxM111 · 05-13-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quip

We are to understand God as being outside and the creator of time/existence as we know it....... that is, God is envisioned as THE creator, transcendent of time and every physical existent. Transcendence has everything to do with it!

Can God, being omnipotent create a square circle? Would you argue that because God is transcendent He can create it? Of case not! There is a logical contradiction in the word omnipotent itself, if you assume that it is really being able to do everything. It just does not matter if God is transcendent or not, there are no square circles and thus nobody can create them.

The same thing is discussed here. Can God be TFC? The suggested paradox, if hold, would mean that no, God could not be TFC, because of the properties of TFC itself. And it would not mater if God is transcendent or not.

But again, so far I do not think that paradox holds.

MxM111 · 05-13-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

If you can believe in God, you can believe in anything, including a special "God-realm" outside the universe which has the physical attributes of space-time.

I did not think that we were discussing here "beliefs". We discuss here a logical paradox, or absence of it. It has nothing to do with beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

As has been mentioned by Oxymoron and others, the next question is: "where did this God-realm" come from? Who created that?

For the sake of this paradox, it does not matter. God may existed always by himself, or he appeared as a result of vacuum fluctuation, or was created by space rabbit, who in turn was created by space turtle who in turn was created by space elephant and so on; if this is the case then just call all that zoo as a whole "god" and that's it. It just does not matter here. The paradox either holds or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

And if it is physical, where could it possibly be if not within the Universe, since the universe contains all that physically exists?

It is just not our physical universe. There could be other universes with other physical laws, but they would not belong to our universe. So the god may be that other universe. It is all the questions of definitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

The only answer to that question is that it doesn't: that more stuff physically exists than is in the universe.
But since we are restricted to exploring what is in the universe, this "God-realm" is unknowable.

The universe is what exist "now". "Now" means that there is only one time axis. In case of multiple times the term "universe" needs to be more defined. Depending how you expand the definition of the universe, god may become part of it, or be outside of it, and be physical or not. Did I mention that it is all question of definitions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

You can say anything you like about it. In other words, the only constraints upon it are those imposed by human imagination.
Which is the same as magic.
So we might as well be talking about magic - which is neither useful nor sensible. It certainly cannot provide a useful or sensible explanation for how our universe began.

And I am completely agree with you here. I am not trying making conclusion that because the paradox can be logically broken, hence God exists. You are trying to bash an open door here...
I am collecting paradoxes about God's definition. I want those paradoxes being true paradoxes, and this one, as far as I can see is false.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2006, 08:01 AM	#112
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	There are no constraints on magic - except those imposed by the limitations of the human imagination. The Creator God exists in the realm of magic, and for that reason can be said to be anything, do anything, be anywhere. But at some point, magic comes up against reality. Draycomb's paradox brings it to this collision, and when he investigates the result, he finds that reality is undamaged, and that there's nothing left of the magic. He is, though, mistaken. The magic simply melted back into its realm of the human imagination, where it is indestructible.

05-13-2006, 07:30 AM	#115
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	If you can believe in God, you can believe in anything, including a special "God-realm" outside the universe which has the physical attributes of space-time. As has been mentioned by Oxymoron and others, the next question is: "where did this God-realm" come from? Who created that? And if it is pysical, where could it possibly be if not within the Universe, since the universe contains all that physically exists? The only answer to that question is that it doesn't: that more stuff phsyically exists than is in the universe. But since we are restricted to exploring what is in the universe, this "God-realm" is unknowable. You can say anything you like about it. In other words, the only constraints upon it are those imposed by human imagination. Which is the same as magic. So we might as well be talking about magic - which is neither useful nor sensible. It certainly cannot provide a useful or sensible explanation for how our universe began.

05-13-2006, 11:01 AM	#116
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Magic and the 'actions' of Gods are not similar in any way. Magic is real explainable actions by Magicians. The 'actions' of Gods are mythological, deceptive and are fabricated to create fear. Magicians do not condemn people to Hell, if they do not believe in the Magicians, they simply perform tricks for a living. Magicians do not attempt to raise the dead or heal the sick unlike the theist. God does not exist because the Christian Bible says so.

05-13-2006, 01:01 PM	#117
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	(I didn't mean "magic" as performed by magicians. I meant "magic" as performed by fairy godmothers, witches, demons, angels, gods; I meant the sort of magic which is supernatural).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.