Agnostic Theist

No, if sound it disproves an atemporal God that requires time to exist.

Agnostic Theist

My apologies for misinterpreting you.

However, if you reread my OP, you'll find a quote from Draygomb that betrays why I consider it worthwhile to consider different notions of God (hint, it's to do with food).

And I saw your reply in the other thread. It has interesting implications.

Hedshaker

Funnily enough I agree in one sense. Not that a god exists, but that time was created or had a beginning.

MxM111

Apology accepted. However, I also see that bacause I tried to make the post brief, it did not became exactly what I wanted.

I see that you trying to rebuff something else that Draygomb said, it is just the topic name (and quote) suggest that you criticise the Draygomb original proof directly. It looks like you are criticizing the definition of the god instead.

Agnostic Theist

I am criticising his view that the sort of time he defines is modally necessary, or even that it is necessarily the sort of time that exists in our universe. I am also criticising his view that it disproves all definitions of God that 'matter'. Additionally, I am attacking Draygomb's original proof - I am taking issue with the assumptions which he makes, but does not support.

quip

Prior to change?!! er............Sorry! :devil3:

Agnostic Theist

How much more time? Make like an atemporal God and make time :Cheeky:

aguy2

I would say that Draygombs might be right in that 'decisions' seem to be time dependent, but I don't see where he shows that 'consciousness' is time dependent.

Physically and psychologically I am not exactly the same person I was 40 years ago. It could even be said that I am not the same as I was 40 minutes ago (eg. I wasn't hungry then), and physically I am not exactly the same thing I was even 40 milli-seconds ago, but nonetheless I had and have a certain sense of 'me-ness' that can be called 'consciousness', that seems to be transcendent to temporal change.

If the 'consciousness' of a conditional, mortal biological organism can display a certain degree of 'timelessness', how much more so might be the 'timeless consciousness' of a hypothetical Creator of the Universe?
aguy2

Wads4

It may well be that our present consciousness is timeless, but we create the illusion of time-dependency by constructing a memory -based narrative of a sequence of our past timeless conscious states. If the narrative consists of present freeze-frames all strung together, is that not the same as the passage of time? (See Daniel Dennett for more on this.)
Similarly, God would have to exist in a sequence of present states which sum together as his "past" time. Therefore he needs this past time in order to create a Universe at some summed sequence of his present time-states tending towards this future event.

aguy2

I would agree that much of our sense of time is based on internal illusions, but nonetheless these illusions are our interpertations of a very real passage of time, even though science seems to be telling us that this passage of time is totally dependent upon local conditions of velocity and gravitation.
I would think you might be making a 'fallacy of composition' in extrapolating our internal states to the hypothetical "Creator of the Universe", although admittedly there are real problems in reconciling 'timelessness' with being a 'dynamic' creator.
aguy2