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

Any Sort of God

I remember a while back, I asked Draygomb if his proof refutes every sort of God to which he sardonically quipped,

Still, I have remained unconvinced that his proof is generalisable to all types of God. Consider his definition

This presupposes that time had a beginning - that it was created - but there are a number of theists, such as Swinburne, who contend time to be infinite. That being the case, it is not necessarily true that God created time.

But, comes the riposte, if time has always existed, and time exists with space, then if time has always existed, then space has always existed, but then matter and energy have always existed and God has nothing left to create.

There are two responses to this.

1. God may be one who gives order to being, rather than creates ex nihilo

In the Bible, we see in Genesis a God who fashions the earth, yet we are given no account of the creation of time and space (because the authors didn't know about such things at the time!!!!) because they already existed. God created, according to the Bible (for one) the cosmos, not the Universe*

But ignoring the Bible (since I am not a Christian, neither are most people here) is there any sort of God that may order being, rather than create it? Of course, and not just some ill-founded trivial god. God may be one who bestows upon the universe the laws of nature, which then continue to do His job for Him as the Universe progresses. These laws create the stars and the planets, give atmosphere to earth, keep us on the ground, evolve creatures and do a host of other things.

This God, rather than being a God of anthropomorphism and tribal ethics, is a God of science and philosophy. It may not be the God that actually exists, but recall that we are not looking to define the actual God, but present possible, preferably plausible, accounts of God to which Draygomb's Paradox does not apply.

And now we come to the second response

2. Draygomb is using a non-sequitor

Draygomb assumes that with time and space already in existence, there is nothing left for God to create. It is unclear what his motives are here, and I can only imagine that he is jumping back and forth between a definition of time as 'substance' and a definition of time as 'relation'.

If time is substance, then God, if He created it, would need to create it independently of space. It is not obviously modally necessary, however, that time is substance. For a start, it is, by the best of my knowledge of Physics, a fact of the cosmos that time and space are inseparable. If time is substance, Draygomb is burdened to explain how it is that time and space are actually inseparable. This is a burden that he, so far, fails to meet.

If time is a relation, then it is the relation between spatial events, specifically through change. Draygomb defines time simply as 'the measure of change', which strongly implies that time is a relation, rather than a substance. Since time is a relation, then whether it is taken to be concrete or abstract (whatever that disjunction could entail) it is not necessary that God create time directly. As I have said a few times before, if time is simply the measure of change, then time can be created accidentally by invoking change.

Hence, either time is substance, and Draygomb is required to meet a burden and revise his definition of time, or time is a relation and Draygomb is required to revise his assertion that God created time (RAA Assumption) purposely and directly.

Which brings us to objection 2.

God didn't need to create time

Prima facie, one may believe I have in mind the concept of infinite time, as proposed by people like Swinburne. Slightly off topic, Aquinas's Cosmological Argument is consistent both with finite and with infinite notions of time. Hence, even if we only reference that sort of God, Draygomb's Paradox does not necessarily apply.

But it is not the finite-infinite distinction that I have in mind with this objection. What I have in mind is the relation aspect of time that Draygomb's Paradox seemingly adheres to (if we are being consistent with his definition, and the implicit assumption that time and space are, necessarily, inseparable).

If time is a relation between spatial events, and is defined as the measure of change, then it is quite conceivable that God create time indirectly, or accidentally, by invoking change.

Consider that God is essentially omniscient. He is omniscient in all possible worlds, which means that, unlike omniscience simpliciter He does not come to know something as the object of His knowledge comes to be, He knows it omnitemporally. This requires that one adopt the notion of propositions as being eternally or omnitemporally true, but that is of little consequence here (since propositions typically are defined as abtract entities anyway). God knows, given the truth of certain premises in Draygomb's Paradox, that He cannot create time directly. Without time, He doesn't have time to decide to create time. He can, however, create change. He can do this simply by changing some property, intrinsic or extrinsic to Himself. And so He changes something, and time is created. Being omniscient, He creates time accidentally, but does so deliberately. This isn't serendipity, this is a deliberate accident.

But, comes the riposte, God cannot even invoke change without time, since time is required for change. That's the whole point of the paradox!

Very well, I'll concede that for the purpose of my next objection,

Without time, there's no time for time to exist

If God cannot, even through invoking change, create time, then time cannot exist. Draygomb seems to implicitly deny that time has no beginning, so he cannot appeal to that notion of time (and if he does, he affords the theist a massive escape from his paradox). According to Draygomb, God cannot create time. Why not? I believe I have already refuted this, but as an alternative, lets apply the paradox to time itself, rather than God. Let's, as they say, turn this thing on its head.

Time is the measure of change, but to get change, one requires time. Here is the aforementioned jump between relation and substance, but ignore that for now. Time does not begin until something changes, but nothing changes until time exists. Draygomb has presented an argument against the existence of time that ought to attract attention from McTaggert, at least! Draygomb can object that time is a relation, but then He must concede that God can create time per my account, above. Or Draygomb may claim that the divine process of creating time is distinct from the atheistic process. How, in any sense that matters, is it? The divine process involves, if we are to believe Draygomb, an intermediary process of decision. But so what? The theist has an additional process of change, but under either account there is still some form of change occurring ontologically prior to time.

Finally,

Draygomb does not distinguish between temporal and ontological priority

Draygomb assumes that time requires change (actually, if anything, it involves change) and ignores the fact that the A-theoretic uni-dimensional substance-relation account of time he presents is not modally necessary (nor is it the most plausible notion of time) from here he argues that time must exist temporally prior to change (as in before change) but I contend time to be ontologically prior to change - time does not come before change, and change does not come before time, but where there is change, there is time. Time and change therefore co-exist (though not necessarily - it is conceivable that there be time without change, as I may end up explaining if someone makes a comment on this point) and it is not necessary for God to decide to create time, nor is it necessary that God have time to invoke change. By invoking change, God creates time.

So, Draygomb's paradox is not as sound as he claims. I leave it to the readers to discuss this issue further. Meantime, I have to go eat.


*The Universe I take as 'being' while the cosmos is defined as the contingent entities within the universe

Agnostic Theist

40 users have nothing to say about this?

I'd have thought there'd be at least one person who had an objection or something to make?

Draygomb

Just need some Time.

Agnostic Theist

Ah, good

MxM111

Or in other words "let's define the God into existence". The paradox is that the first cause can not exist. Traditionally we call that first cause a god.

Hedshaker

Well said :thumbs:

If someones shows evidence against God then simply reinvent him to avoid the issues. What the hell does theism have to do with reason and logic anway :huh:

Agnostic Theist

Doesn't bother you to define God out of existence, though does it. I'm aware of what the first cause is supposed to be, thank you very much.

If all you're going to do is make a snide remark about one point in my post, don't bother.

Since Draygomb is offering a 'proof' it needs to be watertight, and since he offers it against all types of God that 'matter' I have very good reason to consider different plausible notions of God.

Agnostic Theist

Sorry, I didn't know we had a universally acknowledged account of God. Show me the scientific journal article where this is achieved and I'll retract my entire OP(!)

MxM111

I did not intend it to be a snide remark. There is nothing wrong to define a god into existence. And I am not trying to explain you what the first cause is supposed to be either. I think you misunderstood my post. Let me try again.

Draygomb DEFINES god as a first cause. His paradox is only about the fist cause. If you change the definition, it is not Draygomb paradox anymore.

In short his conclusion is "god, defined as the first cause can not exist". Do you agree with this conclusion? It looks to me like you are, and what you trying to say is "but god, defined as something else can exist". On which I just would like to point that it is not in the contradiction to the paradox.

PS. And I actually do not think that there is a paradox, but I posted about it in the original paradox thread.

Hedshaker

We don't. Isn't that the point? D's paradox, as far as I am aware disproves the xian God, Omnicience, Omnipotence, creator off everything, etc

Maybe you should give your scientific journal article of what God is first :huh: