Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Slex · 10-12-2002, 02:30 PM

luluv

The problem here is that even if God is in a different dimension where time flows differently, it still poses a problem for the Creation. Contemporary apologetics, as far as I am aware, contends that God created space and time. William Lane Craig for example tries to prove that infinite regression of time is impossible and that is why the Universe must have been created. In fact he spots the problem I mentioned I mentioned above in the following paper:

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html</a>

"Oddly enough, Gr�nbaum concedes that the question, "What caused the Big Bang?" may well be appropriate if there were instants of time prior to t = 0. Very well; suppose that God led up to creation by counting, "1, 2, 3, . . ., fiat lux!" In that case the series of mental events alone is sufficient to establish a temporal succession prior to the commencement of physical time at t = 0. There would be a sort of metaphysical time based on the succession of contents of consciousness in God's mind prior to the inception of physical time. Thus, it is meaningful to speak both of the cause of the Big Bang and of the beginning of the universe. But are we to think that these notions become meaningless due simply to the contingent fact that God may not have been thinking discursively in the state of affairs in which He exists alone without the universe?"

Craig 'resolves' this by envoking two types of time (see the endnotes of the linked document):
"...consideration of a possible distinction between metaphysical and physical time. Our Gedankenexperiment about God's counting prior to creation shows that it is meaningful to speak of time even in the absence of physical events , which makes it evident that the temporal relations operative in physics based on clock time and light signal synchronization do not supply an exhaustive account of time..."
Craig here, by trying to prove that infinite regression is impossible, actually contradicts his thesis. According to him God was in time before the Creation, but just metaphysical, and yet he overlooks the fact that if infinite regression of time is impossible, that would mean that God must have had a beginning too, because Craig fails to make it clear that infinite regression is impossible only for physical time and not for metaphisycal. What is more, he doesn't even makes an attempt to do so.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ]

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ]

luvluv · 10-13-2002, 09:55 AM

Olorin, suppose God does not have free will. What would that do for atheism or theism?

eh · 10-13-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
I don't see why you folks have any harder of a time with God living outside of time than with God living outside of the universe.

Since time is a function of space in our universe, it is easily seen how a God outside of our universe would not be confined to OUR time at least. Perhaps there is a time in His universe, but it does not correspond to time in our universe in any degree....

If god has his own time, I have no problem with that idea. It's when theists claim that god is magically outside of time to avoid the problem of infinite regress (ie. what did god do for an eternity before creation?) that I find the argument to be silly.

Slex · 10-14-2002, 12:09 AM

Hmm, I must admit that I was quick to declare tha Craig doesn't spot this problem and just ignores it based solely on my judgement by looking trhough only one paper.
Elswhere Craig writes:
(from <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html</a> )

"Thus, on a relational view of time God would exist timelessly and independently 'prior' to creation; at creation, which he has willed from eternity to appear temporally, time begins, and God subjects himself to time by being related to changing things. On the other hand, the Newtonian would say God exists in absolute time changelessly and independently prior to creation and that creation simply marks the first event in time.{31}

These, then, are the alternatives. A relational view of time seems superior to a Newtonian view because (1) it is difficult to see how time could exist apart from events and (2) the Newtonian objection that every instant of time implies a prior instant is adequately answered by the relational view. Thus, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation."

It still, however, doesn't solve the problem of Creation, because if God is timeless and just knows (as opposed to think) "before" the Creation, and Creation marks the beginning of time, then how is it that God takes the decision to create, unless he doesn't think? And the act of Creation of time must be preceded by the decision to create it (unless it is a random and unthought action), and how can the decision to create time precede the creation of time, if decision is only possible in time and it still doesn't exist? Maybe a God who just knows and doesn't think is possible (although I think this claim is wanting, because it is not very clear how self-awareness is possible), but this God will not be able to make up his mind to create time.
Anyway, I think I'll stop for now, because obviously Craig has written a lot on the subject, and I don't want to critique him unless I haven't read all of his papers in the field, because they may contain somewhere in them the answers to my criticism. Craig's writings are here:
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html</a>
Also, a critique of Craig can be found here:
<a href="http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/wespapers.html" target="_blank">http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/wespapers.html</a>
as well as on the Secular Web - papers mainly on the Kalam argument, however they are a little bit off topic from what I intentionally meant.
Another criticsm, more in line with my point, although not exactly directed at God's relation with time is attacking the possibility of God's self-awareness:
<a href="http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm</a>

Answerer · 10-14-2002, 03:36 AM

I had a better question guys, how long does God wait before He decide to create the universe?

wdog · 10-14-2002, 05:14 AM

I have been thinking a little more about this since time is such a fascinating topic anyway. You all make some really interesting points, thanks slex.

some of the comments seem to imply that time is only a percieved psychological idea. I find that hard to accept given that most all the differentail equations of physics have a variable time in them. It would seem to me that time has to have an existence independent of the mind? yea or nay?

I can't help but think of this out of time description in terms of 'flatlanders'. luvluv says that out of time means that one can see all times at once. Ignoring the fact that I think that will bring about problems, if we take the spatial analogy (you can see all points in a 2-d universe at once by have a third orthogonal dimension), then that would mean there is another time-like dimension orthogonal to the time we live in. If you lived in this 2-d time space then it would be thinkable, I am not saying possible, to see the whole other time axis. Time and space are not formally equivalent though, so i am not sure if that analogy holds.

what that also implies though is that luvluv's god would not exist outside this universe, but within it. the orthogonal time dimension would still be a part of this universe.

Before you theists out there get excited, this in no way implies that it can exist and that we really can talk about such an idea meaningfully. I think your standards of acceptance of ideas is far too low when it comes to apologetics. I am simply playing armchair physicist here and tossing out an idea.

WHOOOPS!! I have just seen that craig already did that. I am staggered by this, the man takes this kind of stuff as a serious explaination without any justification. I did it as just an interesting thought,... now I see just a little bit more about these people work, take any half-baked explaination that seems good... I sort of knew that

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: wdog ]

wdog · 10-14-2002, 05:31 AM

also i think an atemporal being making a temporal universe would be able to make something perfect. It would be like a painting to a painter, you would only finish when you thought it was perfect.

well then god had to see how dissappointed he would be in man, he had to see the fall, and the flood before he even started time in motion. so then why would he make it flawed? seems kinda sick to know ahead of time you are going to flood the world and be angry with your creation, but then do it anyway.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-14-2002, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Olorin, suppose God does not have free will. What would that do for atheism or theism?

It means that God cannot be intelligent.

Intelligence is the ability to evaluate data, draw conclusions, and use these to choose a course of action. But an omniscient God could foresee his own actions indefinitely into the future and can never change them: his mind is on rails.

Free will is an expression of the limitations of the observer, the inability to fully determine ALL the factors which determine a choice. An omniscient being cannot have free will: an omniscient being cannot think.

To the usual "omnimax" attributes (omnipotence, omniscience etc) we must add another: God is omnistupid.

Keith Russell · 10-14-2002, 08:22 AM

Greetings:

As for 'God' being 'outside the universe', that depends on how one defines 'universe'.

I use the term 'universe' to mean the sum total of all existence.

It is possible to string words together in order to write or say 'outside the universe', but it is not possible for something to be 'outside' the universe.

What exists, is 'part of' the universe--'in' the universe, not 'outside of'.

Keith.

wdog · 10-14-2002, 11:02 AM

here is a simple refutation of William Lane Craig's out of time, or hypertime argument (I grudingly elevate it to level of a serious argument). There is probably a better one elsewhere, but since I am involved in the thread- hey what the hell!

from the link provided by slex:

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/stump-kretzmann.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/stump-kretzmann.html</a>

Quote:

The best sense that I can make of the Stump-Kretzmann notions of the eternal present and atemporal duration is that our time dimension is embedded in a hyper-time in which God endures, such that at every moment of hyper-time the entire temporal series is present (Figure 1).

Fig. 1. The horizontal T-axis represents hyper-time, in which God endures infinitely. The vertical t-axis represents time, in which our universe endures. When T2 is present for God, the entire temporal series of events is present to Him.

On this view even though our temporal present is radically evanescent, for God in hyper-time, or eternity, all our presents are equally real in His hyper-present. By the same token, the hyper-present is permanent from the standpoint of any temporal observer and is in that sense eternal. The present instant of hyper-time encompasses the whole of time and, as an instant, is indivisible. In God�s eternal present the whole temporal series of events is laid out before Him. He can survey the whole series of events in that single hyper-instant and act at any point in our temporal series without changing or waiting for events to elapse. God can be said to have atemporal duration in the sense that He does not endure throughout time, but does endure in hyper-time, or eternity. Thus, on this the notions of the eternal present and atemporal duration turn out to be coherent.{27}

Remarkably, several statements by Stump and Kretzmann suggest that they are struggling to express just such a view.

Fig. 2. By sustaining time across moments of hyper-time, time acquires width as well as length.

well the images didn't come through, but please go there and scan them if you want to follow this argument. Speaking of those images, he represents god wrong. he draws god as a line, but that leaves god at only one time (t) coordinate. With his definition, you cannot draw god since god is everywhere in hypertime.

The first problem with hypertime is putting our time on an axis as if it were an absolute variable of the universe. As we know, time durations are relative, so when Craig uses it as a variable, then you have to ask where in the universe is he talking about since time intervals near a black hole are much different than time in london.

The second problem, and the most difficult for craig, is the extrapolation from hyperspace arguments that being "out of time" or in hypertime, one would be able to 'see' the entire timeline (I am also refuting my own hypothesis above). In hyperspace, you can in theory observe the full 3-d extent of an object at once. But objects such as humans actually occupy more than one spatial coordinate (we have spatial extent), in other words we are there to be observed. Humans or any other object on the other hand do not occupy more than one temporal coordinate at a time (we do NOT have temporal extent). You can't view us in all of time because we don't exist in all of time.

craig obviously doesn't have a handle on what he is talking about here. you cannot 'see' all time coordinates at once in the context he is trying to use. out of time is demonstrated as a fallacy in this case.

10-12-2002, 02:30 PM	#11
Slex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 68	luluv The problem here is that even if God is in a different dimension where time flows differently, it still poses a problem for the Creation. Contemporary apologetics, as far as I am aware, contends that God created space and time. William Lane Craig for example tries to prove that infinite regression of time is impossible and that is why the Universe must have been created. In fact he spots the problem I mentioned I mentioned above in the following paper: <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html</a> "Oddly enough, Gr�nbaum concedes that the question, "What caused the Big Bang?" may well be appropriate if there were instants of time prior to t = 0. Very well; suppose that God led up to creation by counting, "1, 2, 3, . . ., fiat lux!" In that case the series of mental events alone is sufficient to establish a temporal succession prior to the commencement of physical time at t = 0. There would be a sort of metaphysical time based on the succession of contents of consciousness in God's mind prior to the inception of physical time. Thus, it is meaningful to speak both of the cause of the Big Bang and of the beginning of the universe. But are we to think that these notions become meaningless due simply to the contingent fact that God may not have been thinking discursively in the state of affairs in which He exists alone without the universe?" Craig 'resolves' this by envoking two types of time (see the endnotes of the linked document): "...consideration of a possible distinction between metaphysical and physical time. Our Gedankenexperiment about God's counting prior to creation shows that it is meaningful to speak of time even in the absence of physical events , which makes it evident that the temporal relations operative in physics based on clock time and light signal synchronization do not supply an exhaustive account of time..." Craig here, by trying to prove that infinite regression is impossible, actually contradicts his thesis. According to him God was in time before the Creation, but just metaphysical, and yet he overlooks the fact that if infinite regression of time is impossible, that would mean that God must have had a beginning too, because Craig fails to make it clear that infinite regression is impossible only for physical time and not for metaphisycal. What is more, he doesn't even makes an attempt to do so. [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ] [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ]</p>

10-14-2002, 05:14 AM	#16
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	I have been thinking a little more about this since time is such a fascinating topic anyway. You all make some really interesting points, thanks slex. some of the comments seem to imply that time is only a percieved psychological idea. I find that hard to accept given that most all the differentail equations of physics have a variable time in them. It would seem to me that time has to have an existence independent of the mind? yea or nay? I can't help but think of this out of time description in terms of 'flatlanders'. luvluv says that out of time means that one can see all times at once. Ignoring the fact that I think that will bring about problems, if we take the spatial analogy (you can see all points in a 2-d universe at once by have a third orthogonal dimension), then that would mean there is another time-like dimension orthogonal to the time we live in. If you lived in this 2-d time space then it would be thinkable, I am not saying possible, to see the whole other time axis. Time and space are not formally equivalent though, so i am not sure if that analogy holds. what that also implies though is that luvluv's god would not exist outside this universe, but within it. the orthogonal time dimension would still be a part of this universe. Before you theists out there get excited, this in no way implies that it can exist and that we really can talk about such an idea meaningfully. I think your standards of acceptance of ideas is far too low when it comes to apologetics. I am simply playing armchair physicist here and tossing out an idea. WHOOOPS!! I have just seen that craig already did that. I am staggered by this, the man takes this kind of stuff as a serious explaination without any justification. I did it as just an interesting thought,... now I see just a little bit more about these people work, take any half-baked explaination that seems good... I sort of knew that [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: wdog ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2002, 09:55 AM	#12
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Olorin, suppose God does not have free will. What would that do for atheism or theism?

10-14-2002, 12:09 AM	#14
Slex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 68	Hmm, I must admit that I was quick to declare tha Craig doesn't spot this problem and just ignores it based solely on my judgement by looking trhough only one paper. Elswhere Craig writes: (from <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html</a> ) "Thus, on a relational view of time God would exist timelessly and independently 'prior' to creation; at creation, which he has willed from eternity to appear temporally, time begins, and God subjects himself to time by being related to changing things. On the other hand, the Newtonian would say God exists in absolute time changelessly and independently prior to creation and that creation simply marks the first event in time.{31} These, then, are the alternatives. A relational view of time seems superior to a Newtonian view because (1) it is difficult to see how time could exist apart from events and (2) the Newtonian objection that every instant of time implies a prior instant is adequately answered by the relational view. Thus, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation." It still, however, doesn't solve the problem of Creation, because if God is timeless and just knows (as opposed to think) "before" the Creation, and Creation marks the beginning of time, then how is it that God takes the decision to create, unless he doesn't think? And the act of Creation of time must be preceded by the decision to create it (unless it is a random and unthought action), and how can the decision to create time precede the creation of time, if decision is only possible in time and it still doesn't exist? Maybe a God who just knows and doesn't think is possible (although I think this claim is wanting, because it is not very clear how self-awareness is possible), but this God will not be able to make up his mind to create time. Anyway, I think I'll stop for now, because obviously Craig has written a lot on the subject, and I don't want to critique him unless I haven't read all of his papers in the field, because they may contain somewhere in them the answers to my criticism. Craig's writings are here: <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html</a> Also, a critique of Craig can be found here: <a href="http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/wespapers.html" target="_blank">http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/wespapers.html</a> as well as on the Secular Web - papers mainly on the Kalam argument, however they are a little bit off topic from what I intentionally meant. Another criticsm, more in line with my point, although not exactly directed at God's relation with time is attacking the possibility of God's self-awareness: <a href="http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm</a>

10-14-2002, 03:36 AM	#15
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	I had a better question guys, how long does God wait before He decide to create the universe?

10-14-2002, 05:31 AM	#17
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	also i think an atemporal being making a temporal universe would be able to make something perfect. It would be like a painting to a painter, you would only finish when you thought it was perfect. well then god had to see how dissappointed he would be in man, he had to see the fall, and the flood before he even started time in motion. so then why would he make it flawed? seems kinda sick to know ahead of time you are going to flood the world and be angry with your creation, but then do it anyway.

10-14-2002, 08:22 AM	#19
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: As for 'God' being 'outside the universe', that depends on how one defines 'universe'. I use the term 'universe' to mean the sum total of all existence. It is possible to string words together in order to write or say 'outside the universe', but it is not possible for something to be 'outside' the universe. What exists, is 'part of' the universe--'in' the universe, not 'outside of'. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.