Tercel

Thank's Technos for that. I agree.
I would also like to point out that such a view implies that time is a result of cause-effect. Suggesting thus that cause-effect can plausibly exist outside time.

<strong>Jaliet:</strong>
Not directly. They do however tell us that time is relative (hence their name), and this in turn can be used in support of the Cosmological argument as is happening here.

As far as I am aware, they state only the ideas that time is relative to the observer, and that time is similar to the 3 dimensions of space and is like a 4th dimension - save that only one-way travel through it is possible.
It may well be that something recognisable as time exists in another universe or outside our own one. What the theories seem demonstrate that our time (the time we experience) does not extend beyond our universe in the same way the other 3 spatial dimensions of our universe do not extend beyond our universe.

Datheron answered well-enough: "I think what Tercel meant was that time is indeed an exclusive property of our Universe, and there is no "overarching time" outside of our Universe to make it possible to apply our temporal minds/equations."

Tercel

Tercel

That's because it's not an "excuse": It's a basic doctrine about the nature of God. It's not a cop-out that Christian's made when the atheists proved that God couldn't exist in time: It's a doctrine that has always been included in Christian beliefs.

No. But, it doesn't really matter as the kind of proof you suggest is impossible. Just to play devil's advocate: If God transcends logic then logically a solid disproof of his existence would not disprove his existence.

Tercel

Technos

I'd be quite interested in comments regarding my post.

Ted Hoffman

TechnosI am keen on responding to your post. Currently I am reading GR, superstring theory etc coz they are areas I am pretty ignorant in. But stay tuned.

Draygomb

Logically everything that exists can logically exist. Therefore if god exists then god logically exists. if god logically exists then god can't transcend logic because to transcend logic is to be beyond logic and anything that isn't logical is illogical. If god transcends logic god is illogical. Since everything that exists logically exists nothing can exist illogically. Therefore nothing can exist beyond logic.

Draygomb

Technos

If you go macro instead of micro time gets much less flexible. If you look at the pattern formed by all of the energy and take that as a single moment of time then any variation of that pattern no matter how small is a different moment. Then if you look at each micro change occurring one by one the whole pattern changes at a steady rate even though sections of the pattern change at different rates.

If a specific pattern were to repeat would that amount to traveling back in time?

Amos

But logic and illogic are only value judgements of existence and require that existence must first exist before logical inferences can be made. Therefore God must transcend logic and just be the subject of logical inferences. In other words, "this is God."

Theli

Tercel...
Where have you found this?
What kind of explaination do have for something to "trancend time"?
From our last discussion on time, I got the impression that you don't even know what time was. And I'm pretty sure that you don't know what "trancends time" means either.

Not really. You can't use God's omnipotence or nature in proving his existance, since his existance is in question. If you descibe god, based on hearsay information or assumptions without any reason why he should even exist in the first place, you simply don't have any case.

Note that by default, an onproven entity is nonexistant until evidence (solid or logic) is presented.

To hold on to the notion that god exists like grim death and try to push him further and further away from evidence shown in nature just so that he can exist in your own mind for a little while longer doesn't really help your argument. The last time we had this discussion you almost turned the entire universe upside-down just so that god would be able to exist.

This is quite similar to my "Intergalactic banana" thread, before it got out of hand.

It shows that if you invent an entity in your mind (like a god, or a banana) and then push it far beyind our reality and the boundaries of our own knowledge it eventually becomes impossible to disprove it's existance. If you then reach the conclusion that your own invented entity must exist, because noone can disprove it then your logic is simply false.
The only way not to fall into this pit of false logic is to state that an entity is nonexistant by default. Also remember Ockhams razor, if your god is not needed to produce the evidence shown in nature then it's existance is only an assumption.

Tercel

Where have I found this???
Do you mean "where is this doctrine evidenced in the Bible"? Well it's so often repeated that there's far too many examples to list, but a few are:
"the LORD, the Eternal God" Gen 21:23
"the LORD, is the Rock eternal" Isaiah 26:4
"the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King" Jeremiah 10:10
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter 3:8

You mean that such an entity is assumed to be nonexistant until proven. (it still might exist regardless of whether it's proven after all...)
At anyrate, consider it noted.

I see... you think I'm playing God-of-the-gaps here. Well, I don't know what I can say or do to convince you otherwise, but I think you need to review the soundness of your thoughts on the matter. The Christian conception of God and his actions hasn't changed that much over the last thousand years or more: The theologies and ideas of the historic Christian writers (eg Augustine, Anselm etc) are for the most part, even the whole part, just as valid today as they were when they were written. What I'm saying here is this: Christian doctrine hasn't changed significantly. Since their time Science has come on the scene and our knowledge of the universe and how everything works has increased greatly. The Christian response has not been to do a God-of-the-gaps by forcing our doctrines of God into realms as yet unexplored by science. Why? Because we haven't needed to. Surprise surprise, where Science has been able to check up on any major Christian doctrines there has been agreement and what disputes there were got smoothed over with the further advance of science and the revision of conflicting theories. (The one and only exception to this being Creation/Evolution debate in which I happen to think evolution is perfectly acceptable as do quite a number of other Christians. It’s a pity the fundies are the most vocal ones) eg Christians doctrine clearly states that the universe began a finite period of time ago, whereas the teachings of Aristotle (widely accepted in Medieval Europe) had the eternity of the universe as a fundamental tenet. This wasn’t completely cleared up until the Big Bang theory was so heavily evidenced last century. Another example was the conflict created by Newton’s theories of motion. Newton’s theories seemed to suggest to many that the universe functions like a vast cosmic machine, which, once started off, runs on its own in a completely deterministic fashion. This flies in the face of the Christian idea that God is active in his creation governing and sustaining it. It also seems to remove the possibility for any kind of free-will. Many thought Christianity seemed no longer plausible in light of this, but with the advent of quantum mechanics this view is no longer tenable and Christianity seems perfectly plausible once more.
It has turned out that quite a number of Christian assertions are uncheckable by science, because science investigates the measurable material world which most Christian doctrines concern God not the world. However it is important to understand that this uncheckability is not a result of us changing what we believe because of advancing science.
This is all to say: Christians have always believe what they believe, we haven’t done any rewriting of our basic tenets to accommodate scientific disproof. We’re not playing god of the gaps and shoving our beliefs further and further into the untestable. Any such wrangling you think is taking place is purely your imagination. Sure science has done a lot to demolish the lightening-gods and sun-gods etc of the pagans, and good for it, but it has left Christianity remarkably in tact.

I don’t assert that God exists because no one can prove he doesn’t! Of course such logic would be false – I’m not crazy!

Indeed, Occam’s razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. (Random Trivia: Did you know Occam was a Christian?)
Look you seem to have the wrong end of the stick here: I know things need evidence. I think God needs proving. I think there is sufficient proof of his existence therefore I believe God exists.

Good day,
Tercel

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
I have been reading the post "Gods long countdown" and frankly I dont see what you called Kenny's good defence. Thanks anyway, I gleaned quite a lot from it.
last thousand years? My God, how many times must christianity divide before you realize christians have very different and conflicting conceptions of God?

Some even say the creation story was symbolical - do you Suppose Adam and Eve merely ate an apple?

Armanians, catholics, calvinists, seventh day adventists, presbyterian, Jehovahs witnesses etc etc. Some say Jesus is the son of God, some say God Jesus is God, some say you should kneel before a fellow man and confess your sins, some say you should confess to God, some say heaven is on earth, some say heaven will be a place away from earth, some say God performs miracles, some say God does not etc I could continue forever.

Please illustrate which idea in QM shows evidence of Gods existence - wave-particle duality?, Please explain point by point. Please.

We all have our beliefs, what makes you think we are interested in your beliefs? What we are interested are THE REASONS for holding onto those beliefs.