Stephen T-B

My view is that there are parameters within which the paradox works.
Those parameters exclude any dimension outside the physical universe which lacks the properties of space-time.

I argue that there can be no dimension outside the physical universe with these properties.
But for someone who believes anything is possible, such a "dimension" is not an impossibility. Which is why I bring in belief.

quip

First, there is no logical contradiction in stating that God created time. Second this is beside the point. Draygomb was not constructing an reductio ad absurdum argument here, he was attempting a paradox. His premise, that God is purported to be TFC ("That which caused Time") , implies God's transcedent nature. This implied transcendent nature is missing in his later premises, thus commiting a form of special pleading....or at the very least Draygombs being inconsistent with God's catergorization.

All he is asserting is that a non-transcendent God cannot be TFC; no paradox is produced.

MxM111

Why do you say that? Do you dismiss the possibility that advanced civilization may be able to create some kind of universe with it's own time? Time creation is not transcendent by itself. We just do not know currently how to do it. Being TFC is also not necessary transcendent. It is just unknown. (Of cause if you use definition transcendent = unknown, then it is transcendent).

To know or not to know how to create time is different from whether that time creation is TFC.

quip

Why do I say that? Because it is the existence of God who Draygomb is attempting to disprove. If Draygomb indeed believes that advanced civilizations have the ability to create some kind of universe, thus making the a point that our universe could have been created by a non-God-like entity,then Draygomb needs to introduce this into his paradox. The point is, Draygomb makes an unjustified leap from an inferred omnimax, transcendent God to an anthro-God. In other words, Draygomb needs to support how P1 through C1 relates to or limits God before his premises P5 through C2 can become sound premises w/ a sound conclusion. Until then C3 is useless.

P1 Time is required for Change.
P2 A Decision is a Change.
P3 Decisions require Time.
P4 Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
C1 Consciousness requires Time.

P5 God is Conscious.
P6 God requires Time.
C2 God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.

P7 God isn't the cause of Time.
P8 God isn't The First Cause.
P9 If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
C3 God doesn't exist.

MxM111

But P5 IS that answer that you are asking. P5 is how God relates to P1 through C1. Unless you want to say that God is not conscious, or extend the definition of consciousness that does not require decision or time, I see his logic quite sound here and do not have any problems with this part.

quip

Draygomb states the latter for us. One of his earlier premise is that God was/is the conscious creator of time, then later asserts conscouisness requires time. How and where does God go from "conscious creator of time" to requiring time to be conscious?

God either exist or not. If not, no paradox; if so, end of paradox.

post tenebras lux

Hi quip: can you think (be conscious) without time (passing)?

quip

Hi.

The relevant question would be: Can God act/think/be conscious without time passing?

This question is not dealt with in any way in this paradox.

It is simply the atheist's presumption that God's (in)ability to act/think/be conscious without time, is on par with that of the atheist's.

Pragmatically speaking, this question cannot be answered, thus the paradox becomes moot. This "paradox" is simply an assertion that some (atheistic defined) God did not have the time to create time, thus cannot be TFC.

Oxymoron

"God moves in mysterious ways" - the theist's Get Out of Jail Free card

quip

Ahhhh......resorting to insufferable wit! By God, they must be catching on! :wave: