quip

A.T. alludes to this. Here is the relevant section of the OP:

Lycius

Inasmuch as it's a made-up time axis with parameters you alone define, yes it does.

All I have to do is point out that you made it up without any evidence in support of it, and it's broken.

The obvious contradiction I see, is that something made-up, doesn't correspond with what isn't.

Thus all mathematics is disproved. Way to go.

I can point to where is says FC. First is first is first. Saying first isn't first, is escapism. As to it being "quite useless" if it is only FC, that's the whole idea. It demonstrates the uselessness of Aquinas' prime mover argument.

Doubt all you like. Aquinas made his argument long before concepts of timelines, string theory, or even relativity. But then, pretty much every concept of deity emerged from early human superstitions.

"God's time," being a made-up entity, is just as much a cartoon personage as Eric Cartman, because they both have grounding in human imagination.

Admitting that Gandalf the Gray could perform magic in Middle Earth does not defeat an argument that Middle Earth had magic in it. This doesn't make Middle Earth anything other than a fictional realm though.

As you made it up, it most certainly is a fantasy. I don't call the possibility of life on other planets an impossibility, no. But I do call defining a necessary property of their existence sans any presentable observation fantasy.

Unless a key piece of breaking the paradox was something like, "A Bandersnatch would've eaten the Easter Bunny before he made his first rounds, which would've made him the Easter Bunny." Defeating a paradox with an imaginary being or time axis is, as I said, a fantasy.

Breaking the paradox with an imaginary time axis only breaks it in the imaginary universe where this imaginary time axis exists.

You made up a time axis, "God's time" to defeat a paradox where this time axis didn't exist prior to your making it up.

Bottom line is, you're attempting to break a paradox with an imaginary scenario. Anyone can break any paradox ever presented with something like that. Big deal.

Lycius

Eh? You're the one who proposed the "uber" uselessness, not me. If the whole idea of a deity existing is "uber" useless to you, why are you even in this thread?

Of shooting down an imaginary timeline with another? Sure. Do you have an argument against the paradox either supporting or expanding on Mx's fairytale "God's time" thingamawhat? Or are you just here to make commentary?

Then so are gods in relation to time.

Is this something you're struggling with?

quip

Yes I did. Why? For specifically demonstrating your useless dodging tactics. I'm glad to see we have come to an agreement and hopefully an end to the useless "sci-fi-fantasy-scenario" rubbish of yours.



Do i have an argument against the paradox?!
My argument has apparently eluded your powers of observation....intentionally or not, is a question only you can answer!

Me: the reality of this "paradox" is worthless rhetoric.

You: Then so are gods in relation to time.

Me: BINGO!!!! ALAS!.....DRAYGOMB'S MACHINATIONED GOD IS RHETORICAL CRAP !!!



Yes! the Bullshit you're slapping around with in this thread.

Wads4

Don't have to,--you assert it , you prove it.

Wads4

You may be trying to equivocate here;- I can only assume that you have intended to make a certain proposition, which I have tried to interprete accurately.Yes but then are we to teach our children that assumptions based on logic are not necessarily logically true?

MxM111

It looks like the single and only objection to all my multiple considerations is your statement that another time axis somehow contradicts to our observations.

First, I would like to point that from our point of view the other time is not distinguishable from the other space dimension. We have perception of only our time axis, and we can't have perception of that other time axis as time, even though for god, that time axis would be time. We can only understand that other time trough mathematics and physics, and it will be just an axis, similar or even identical to spacial dimensions.

Also our time and space are connected to each other and can be partially converted to each other through Lorentz transformation in relativistic mechanics. All this together shows that we can talk about just about extra dimensions. (Consciousness requires change, but change can be in any dimension, not only the one that we call our time).

The modern physics does suggests that we have yet unknown number of additional extra dimensions in our universe. So if anything our knowledge suggests that there could be those extra dimensions, or at least I do not see anything in our physics contradicting to it (and I have Ph.D. in physics). And sure, it is "made-up" scenario, but so was the black hole, when it was originally described, or atoms, when they were suggested by ancient Greeks.

So please, instead of just saying that it is a made-up scenario that contradicts our knowledge, please provide some proof for that. As far as I see it, the possible existence of the extra dimensions, one of those could be treated as "God-time", is as good hypothesis as many others, like intelligent life outside of the solar system and so on. In short, stop just saying it, give me a proof that this contradicts our observations.

Actually this way of disproving paradoxes is quite standard in mathematics. If there is a theorem and somebody finds a "made-up" example that does not contradict theorem conditions and math itself, but not consistent with theorem conclusion, then the theorem is broken and considered false.

I am not saying that he is not, I am saying it could be FC and something else in addition. This is what people mean when they say that God is FC. God is FC, but not only FC, it also have something else inside it, and also may do other things in addition to being FC. How difficult to understand that?:huh:

I have clearly said that I doubt that god has been considered just as FC by Aquinas, but instead he was probably considered as something that contains other things. As long as it is not just FC, we can speculate what else can be in the god. Or did Aquinas made a statement that he knows exactly how God operates?

This is because "Admitting that Gandalf the Gray could perform magic in Middle Earth" is supporting example, similar to your examples.

But as opposing example, it would defeat the statement (if anyone would stated) that "ME does not have magic in it". Just one example all it takes. And it would not matter if someone else produced multiple supporting examples.


Really? Please break the paradox (withing the logic, by condition):
"This sentence is false"
--------------------------
In any case there is another even stronger objection to this paradox - time can not be created or caused, similar as size can not be created, because time is just property of the matter, and it is creation of matter what god could have done, if he existed.
And for the god to be conscious, he has to have time as a property of whatever god is consistent from, which does not prevent him from being FC to everything else but himself.

MxM111

Yep, this is it, or very close. Time is property, not a substance to be created.

Lycius

What dodging tactics are you referring to? I haven't dodged anything. A paradox is presented, someone imagines up a fantasy "what-if" scenario of an imaginary timeline to defeat it, which is a "sci-fi-fantasy-scenario" by definition. Yeah, the whole "god's time" thing is rubbish, and I countered it with equal rubbish. That's been my point from the get-go. Garbage in, garbage out.

I can only guess. You haven't presented anything coherent so far. I can only suppose that what you have next to say has something to do with your argument, if that's what it actually is.

You're arguing against neither Draygomb nor I here. You're arguing against time. Positioning a deity against its very vehicle for accomplishment.

How does that work out, exactly?

Lycius

No, not just that. If there truly are all these other time axes, what prevents them from intersecting all willy-nilly? And what then allowed the one you're proposing to do so where the others did not?

To restate in simpler terms, "We can't perceive this other dimension or how it works, but why not imagine up a being that could?"

Could you clarify this somewhat? It's pretty disjointed. You say change can be in any dimension, but don't qualify it in any way. Are dimensions beyond the 4th henceforth exempt from it? Or built on and above it? Or can you explain how they yet contain it while providing the change required for consciousness? You have me curious.

That's not license to just plug superstition "x" into embryonic science "y". That's on par with that "What the *bleep* do we know" series (is it a series now?).

But you state right there that it is made-up. As far as I see it, the possible existence of the extra dimensions, one of those could be treated as "God-time", Yeah, but which one, and why would you pick that one out of so many? Because it's appealing on a cultural level?

This isn't just mathematics, this is solid time and matter we're talking about. By the method you mention, it could never be discovered why bees can fly.

Not difficult at all, except that the paradox doesn't say FC and more than FC. You're adding to it, and so not arguing against it. You aren't breaking the paradox, you're breaking your own. How difficult is it to understand and admit to that?

His argument was that there had to be a prime mover, a beginning of everything, and that that is what the Christian god was. If I'm wrong in this, anyone can feel free to correct me, but that was what I got from his Prime Mover scenario.


Yet here we sit, with no examples. Just claims, wrought from imagination. You haven't provided example, you've provided an *imagined scenario*. How is this providence over the paradox?

Okiedoke, following your example:

"This sentence is false"

'This' doesn't actually refer to sentence which follows. It refers to something else entirely. Remove the word 'sentence' from the phrase entirely for now (it's in another time axis), so "This - is false" is a true statement, and "This sentence is," is a true statement.

Voila! Just broke the paradox using the same way you broke Draygomb's. Pretty neat trick.


Yet prevents him from being caused, hence he can't cause anything. Natch.