Not Prince Hamlet

There are basically two theistic arguments that I've seen time and time again:

1. Blind Assertion ("God does X, Y, and Z because I say so.")

2. 'Cause My Bible Tells Me So.

However, 2) can be generalized to mean simple word-of-mouth, which encompasses your idea.

Very true. However, the difference there is that those that do investigate further find that it has basis in observable data and predictability.


I agree it'd be good, but frankly, it's all I can do just to keep three or four threads active. I can't read all the other debates.


Precisely. In fact, I have to admit to wondering why you brought it up in the first place.


I don't get that at all from the definition you've quoted here. (source?) In fact, judging by your definition above, the entire passage in the Bible doesn't seem to make any sense:

?

True enough. God could have inspired the Bible and lied. For simplicity's sake, I was assuming that God told the truth. I didn't want to diffuse my argument by opening up two lines of attack at the same time.


This is where the Bible breaks down. Adherents love to use every single piece of the Bible that's convenient for them to "prove" what they want to prove, yet deliberately ignore any piece that disproves it.

There are three possibilties:

1. The Bible is completely wrong.
2. The Bible is completely right.
3. The Bible is partially wrong, and partially right.

Personally, I think that 1 and 3 are equivalent in terms of utility. If parts are wrong and parts are right, but you don't know which ones, then they might as well all be wrong for the good it will do you.

Therefore, I choose to concentrated on only 1 and 2 for my arguments. 3 can be reduced to either or both of them if necessary.


Given the context, I'm not sure any other term even makes sense. For the definitions you proposed to work, the entire sentence would have to be badly translated.

And the translation errors in the Bible are that bad, isn't anybody who's reading such a translation simply wasting his time?


You got me. It's been a while since I read the Bible. I just happen to see that particular quote in another thread.

Personally, I think the Bible's bunk. However, it's often useful to use the Bible to demonstrate inconsistencies and contradictions.

Not to mention Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


Either God exists, or he does not.

If he exists, either God is timeless or he is not.

If he is timeless, then either that entire chunk you quoted and discussed from Hawkings is false, or God can not affect us in any way, and is irrelevent.

If he is not timeless, then either we do not have free will or he is not omniscient.

If he does not exist, the entire argument is irrelevent.

Jeff

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

HRG

Perhaps because it is logically inconsistent - given our concepts of "existence" and "time" ?
Once "square" and "circle" have been defined, I cannot envision a square circle either - no matter how hard I try.

HRG.

E_muse

Certainly many people will hold to certain beliefs for these reasons.

But most people will believe in it on authority .. the reason why most people believe things that they cannot investigate directly.

I know exactly what you mean

I stated it to point out that a belief in God as a timeless being might not necessarily start in the Bible or have to do with the omniscience/free-will paradox.

If any cause for the universe exists (leaving the arguement open) based upon the metaphysical assertion that from nothing, nothing comes, then we can conclude that it:

1. Exists outside of time as we know it.
2. Is invisible.
3. Caused the universe in a way that seems to transcend the known laws of science.
4. Is separate from the physical universe and not a cause in the sense that we usually understand it.

It just so happens that God is also described in this way.

The source is Strong's and as with any other Hebrew word can mean a number of different things depending upon the context.

The essense of the word is to visit with a view to do good or harm. Therefore many translations render this term, "I will punish..." rather than "remember".

Or he can inspire and we misunderstand him or any truth that is being imparted becomes confused with our own ignorance.

Again, I'm sure that many people do this, and I find it as frustrating as you.

I'm not so sure the Bible breaks down though. Paul seems to say that, although people have been divinely inspired, errors creep in - our view is not perfect and neither is our understanding.

I believe that 1 and 2 are both unlikely as I would say that neither is true with regard to life in general.

If someone has a tendency to lie then this does not mean that they are incapable of truth and vice versa.

Lastly, is every aspect of the Bible totally untestable? I would say not.

But I don't think 1 and 2 are true of life in general.

You're suggesting that if something contains inaccuracies, everything it says should be rejected. Simply, as a principle in life, I don't think this would work and simply doesn't relate to what life is really like.

The common alternative is 'punish' rather than remember.

It requires some effort .. but then doesn't anything?

The trouble is, inconsistencies can be created.

Is Paul's claim to divine inspiration for scripture and his claim that we know in part and prophecy in part contradictory? I don't think they are. For one, prophecy can be tested.

Indeed.

Anything that existed prior to the big bang singularity must have existed outside of time as we know it (this is how I understand timeless). This includes any possible cause.

If God is that cause then he must exist outside of time as we know it (but then this must be true of any cause).

This is the order and way in which I think of it.

As a cause of the universe, God would have to exist outside of time as we know it .. before time=0.

Firstly, I think that your claim that any cause that exists prior to the universe cannot affect us in any way is an overstatement. It would be fairer to say that it cannot affect us in any way that can be understood by the scientific method.

That's why Hawking says, "As far as we are concerned events before the universe can have no consequence". He is writing with regard to physical cause and effect and as a scientist constrained by the scientitic method.

Again, I'll outline my thinking:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

Again .. please feel free to critique this .. I am not stating it as absolute truth. My main wish is to stimulate debate.

We can go on.

4. Anything that caused the universe caused the big bang singularity.
5. The cause must have existed independently to the big bang singularity.

However, Hawking suggests that anything before the big bang could have had no consequences on the universe! But the cause, to be a cause, must have existed independently to it!

Therefore, if such a cause exists it is not constrained by the laws of science (it caused them) and did not cause the universe in any way known to man or knowable by man.

If God exists then he must be timeless or beyond time as we know it. Not because I say so but because this is true of anything that may have caused the universe. That existed beyond time=0.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Although a possibility, I think there is a difference between 'square circle' and 'timeless existence'.

'Square' and 'Circle' refer to two space-time objects that are incompatible with each other and it is therefore logically inconsistent and essentially an empty statement using the terms in conjunction with one another.

However, 'existence' and 'time' are two aspects of our universe that are both compatible (and we feel dependent) upon one another.

When we try and conceptualize timeless existence, we attempt to battle with the idea that one could exist without the other - namely, existence without time.

The other major difference is that 'square' and 'circle' both refer to objects. However, whilst existence is self evident, time is another phenomena all together - and largely subjective and to therefore refer to it as a conceputal problem seems fair enough.

Timeless existence is not a problem simply presented by belief in God. With our universe, I only see a few possible options:

1. The universe began to exist.
2. The universe has always existed.

If we pursue 2, then we are faced with the fact that, within general relativity, at some point time=0. There was a beginning to time. For the universe to have always existed, it must have therefore existed, at some point, independently of time as well as in time as we experience it now. However, this would suggest that existence independently of time is a possibility.

Lastly on this point, whatever pre-existed time (according to the singularity theorem under general relativity), did not cause the universe. Because all the known scientific laws break down at the big bang singularity nothing prior to the singularity could have been responsible for the universe as it is now, even if that was our universe in some pre-time form.

The only other option is 1. The universe began to exist. If we pursue this line of enquiry, we have two more options - it was caused, or it was not.

If it was not caused and it began to exist then we are saying that it simply popped into being, out of nothing. I think this presents us with some major problems.

Firsly, it goes against out instinctive sense that, whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Once we argue that the universe can pop up out of nothing, we lose any rational basis for rejecting similar claims made about other objects.

Secondly, it seems unlikely that any enquiry, whether thesitic, scientific or whatever, could be birthed out of such a belief. Once we believe that something can just pop out of nothing, we have no real basis for pursuing the cause of anything.

This leaves us with the idea that the universe may have been caused. This is obviously strongly linked to the eternal universe idea because either the universe is an extension of how it was before time, or it was caused by something outside of itself.

The first option is ruled out on the basis that nothing prior to the singularity could have caused what happened after it. The laws of cause and effect break down. This could suggest that it was something else.

But whichever option we pursue, we are faced with the dilemma that time seems to have begun to exist. If we rule out the 'popped into being' idea then we are facing a universe that can exist independently of time or some other cause. It seems inescapable.

Stephen Hawking has attempted to remove the problem using quantum theory which has resulted in his notion of a universe that has no beginning, no end, is finite but has no boundaries.

However, his entire idea rests upon something called 'imaginary time' that takes over when 'real time' finishes. Hawking has to admit though, that once imaginary time is removed, general relativity is faced again with those problematic singularities.

Philosoft

E_muse,

One reason why 'timeless existence' doesn't make sense is that existence isn't itself a thing that might or might not be subject to time. Obviously, material things couldn't exist without time because electrons wouldn't be able to orbit nuclei, nuclear forces wouldn't be generated, strings wouldn't oscillate. Clearly, an existing timeless being could not be material in any sense.

The only other category of existence is abstraction. But abstractions by definition cannot directly affect material things. If God exists as an abstraction, you've got a new set of problems.

All this stuff about whether or not we can logically deduce a caused universe is a red herring if your only answer is to stick two logically exclusive terms together and claim there must be some way to reconcile them.

HRG

Those singularities exist only in the mathematical sense; they are just an indication that GR is a "classical" theory and need to be quantized (which we don't know yet how to do).

We see a similar problem in aerodynamics: it predicts singularities (aka shock waves), but they, too, are an artefact of the theory.

Regards,
HRG.

Theli

E_Muse...

First of all, why do you assume the cause of the universe still exists?

Ouside of what time?
The universe's time?
Whatever caused the universe could not be outside of our universe's time before the universe was created.
So why do you assume that it is still there now?

Invisible to what?
For something to be considered invisible, you must name an observer. Do you mean it doesn't emitt energy? please, be specific.

Why did you use the word transcend?
And why must it "transcend" laws of science?

If something is seperate from the physical universe aswell as invisible (undetectable) then how can it interact with the physical universe, or create it?

And also, the cause you reffered to here.

Why assume that the cause still exists and isn't merely an initial state of the universe's existence?
Such as a quantum fluctuation.

Theli

The problem still remains, what quality does "god" have wich makes him independent of an external cause, that the universe doesn't have?

E_muse

Indeed. Existence is always an attribute of something.

This would seem to suggest that time is an attribute of anything that possesses the ability to change.

Are we correct in suggesting that time is a 'dimension'?

It could lead us towards deism.

It could be our understanding of time that is at fault. This is something I am currently putting a lot of thought into - so apologies if I cannot offer any well defined arguement.

Answerer

Hey guys, I have another question,Is God independent of causes and conditions of this universe?