CodeMason

Dark matter doesn't fit my criteria for non-physical. It exists within the boundaries of our universe, it can be perceived by its gravitational effects on surrounding matter, and it is certainly within the scope of science.

Theli

Ooops, sorry about that ego-boost. Your an idiot!!
There... that should set things straight.

To keep my incoherent babling about the subject...
If god is not eternal he must himself be apart of the creation, and then there's no reason to call him god, is there?

It's quite amazing what alittle reason can accomplish.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

Ok, but if it has the ability to change it should have a "time of it's own".

CodeMason

I don't understand - please elaborate.

rainbow walking

Theophage: Okay, I know "first cause" and "big bang" arguments have been done to death in here, but I am (hopefully) going to put a slightly different view on the situation. I used to be a proponent of an atheistic first cause (veterans will remember my stand on this) but I have since moved even beyond the need for such a thing.
So here it is. Please bear with me, I will be brief.

The first part of my argument goes like this:

P1) In order for something to have a cause, there must be a point in time beforehand for the cause to operate.

P2) There was no point in time before the Universe existed.

C1) Therefore the Universe cannot have a cause.

Note that this argument depends upon the assumption (in P2) that time cannot exist outside (or rather "before") the universe. This, I think, is a reasonable assumption due to that fact that time is gnerally considered part of the universe.

It also depends (in P1) on a certain notion of causality that requires temporal succession. I have heard it said that there is such a thing as "simultaneous causality", but I think I can defend my argument from that. [/quote]

Rw: Hi Theophage,
I’m not sure your argument makes it to the second stage. Concerning (P1) I think that (P1) is your weakest link. (P1) assumes that the cause must reflect the attributes of the effect (the universe), especially in relation to time.

If you are going to postulate a FIRST Cause then the concept of FIRST cannot allow a precedent else it loses its distinction as FIRST. I agree that this is a mathematical designation implying something less than infinity.
I would counter argue the following:

(G1)If there was a FIRST CAUSE to account for the existence of THIS UNIVERSE and this universe displays specific attributes, not the least of which is time, then we must allow that all of these attributes existed in general form prior to FIRST CAUSE whose EFFECT was to begin the process of combining them into the SPECIFICS of this UNIVERSE. Hence we have our most cogent definition of FIRST in this argument as it is attributed to this UNIVERSE.

(G2) In allowing a FIRST CAUSE we are declaring that all the general and specific, known and un-known attributes that comprise this universe came into existence at a specific point prior to which no such UNIVERSE, along with its general and specific, known and un-known attributes existed.

(G3) In as much as none of the before mentioned general and specific, known and un-known attributes of this universe could have existed in the SPECIFIC combination that has resulted in this UNIVERSE prior to the FIRST CAUSE we have no rational grounds to invoke a regulation of FIRST CAUSE by any single or conglomeration of these general or specific, known or un-known ATTRIBUTES of this UNIVERSE.

(G4) Everything in this universe is dependent upon ENERGY for existence and all ENERGY requires a SOURCE.

CONCLUSION: What we call FIRST CAUSE was not the ENERGY or the SOURCE but ACCESS to the ENERGY that will eventually reveal the SOURCE.

Imagine a bubble the size of a baseball containing the potentiality to become anything, dropped into an ocean of energy whose source is capable of actualizing everything, with only a thin veil separating the actual from the potential. As the bubble becomes saturated in energy it begins to sink towards the bottom. The further it sinks the greater the pressure exerted until suddenly a quadrillion pinholes the size of helium atoms appear in the fabric. As the bubble fills with energy it expands and begins to float towards the surface adrift in the currents. The power of actualization combines with the potentiality within, exploding into frequencies of light, radiation, time, and magnetism, later coalescing into matter and life. Eventually the veil disappears and the potential rushes outward in every direction to become a reality. And the UNIVERSE comes of age.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
You ask:


If that ambiguous phrase helps you think about this, then yes. But you must realize that only finite things have states. For example, water can be liquid, gas, or solid because the perimeters of each of those states are something unlike those states. Thus, those states are bound and it makes sense to refer to them as a state. Infinite God is not like that. So long as you understand this, you can speak of God forever being cast in a Universal Creator state.

But no, casting God in His Universal Creator state role does not undermine His performance in the other roles you mention because, unlike us, who are finite and linear, God is infinite and eternal. What that means is that all things are being experienced by Him simultaneously. So He can do, nay, He MUST do all things.

You ask:


Yes! The instant of the Big Bang and every Fenton since then exists forever. Really exists, not in terms of memory or effect, by really existentially exists. It is only us, in our temporal railroad car of linearity, that has lost access to it. Even you, the Code Mason, that existed just a second ago, still does exist. You (and, thank God, everyone else) have simply lost access to it.

You ask an excellent question:


We know this is a logical (and Biblical) impossibility. It means that Creation's existence was not always concurrent with God's existence. It means that Creation is not concomitant with its Creator. It means that Creation is expressively not essentially the Triune Being of God. In the same way that your visage is not effected by nor depend upon its reflection in a mirror, God’s being is not dependent upon nor effected by, (tho It is intimately related to) His creation. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Theli,
You argue circularly:


You equivocate free will with change, when actually, change is only a potential byproduct of free will. For example, a child uses its free will to love its mother. At various times during the terrible twos and teenage years that child may use its free will to hate its mother. But the saintly child may at no time ever hate its mother.

Both the normal child and the saintly child used their free will throughout their lifetimes in reference to their love of their mother. Only the normal child, at various times CHANGED its will towards its mother, used its free will to hate its mother. Point being, a change of will is not what makes our free will free. Rather, the potential to change our will is what makes our free will free.

Applying this understanding of free will to God, since He is perfect and non-temporal, no change is possible. Ergo, His free will never constitutes a change in His will. Rather, like the saintly child, He always wills one and the same thing with infinite variations, perfectly. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Theli

That might have been a bad choice of argument. If something exists outside our universe's boundaries. Could it exist in different spacetime dimension than our own? Seems unlikely to me, but not impossible.

CodeMason

Albert: If God does not have any states, then he is constantly bound to one particular event, such as creating the universe. The problem with this is, as I have outlined, to our frame of reference, God would be eternal (eternality is meaningless without time, however). This would mean that his creation of the universe, to us, started infinitely long ago. That would make the universe eternal. Obviously, it is not.

Creation is to bring into being. You assert God eternally creates the universe, which is very strange as it is not continually being brought into being. Perhaps you meant God maintains the universe eternally. But this conflicts with single-state God. The events of creating the universe, and of maintaining it (it has still not been established WHY the universe needs to be maintained, outside of scripture interpretation, and of course we heathens don't accept the bible as a priori truth ) would involve seperate states. Thus, either God is eternally stuck in the event of creation or maintaining. The latter is impossible, because for something to be maintained, it must first be there, and thus would require a previous state of creation. And creation cannot proceed infinitely, because that would just be an eternal Big Bang, with no actual universe ever coming into being.

You also claim God doesn't require time in which to act upon things, because his being is infinite, and contains all events. Fair enough, but to our frame of reference, this would still mean all things God can do, he has, and continues to do, stretching back to infinity. This would mean God both creates and destroys (if you hold the doctrine that the universe will eventually be destroyed) the universe in the same instant, all through eternity. This is, obviously, false. Unless you allow for God to change states. And you can't, because God is timeless.

Datheron

Theophage,

Hey, I've made that argument before, and various variations of it. One, as a matter of fact, is still in discussion <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000026" target="_blank">here</a>...well...kinda in discussion.

Anyway, the crux of the matter is showing what causality entails and where it is in effect. You here outrightly deny the existence of causality outside a temporal context, whereas my argument merely throws an uncertainty into the otherwise-unchallenged-assumption that causality must exist everywhere, including outside the Universe. From my point of view, however, any argument that hinges on an unknown probability (whether causality actually exists in a realm where no observation is possible) is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ignorance.