critical thinking made ez

Kenny, the god you suggest, could only exist in an immeasurable instant then he and all that is, would cease to exist. Inside that instant, an infinite period of time would exist we call the universe and time.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

SingleDad

Kenny

Ordinarily, when I think of something "existing" in the ontological sense, I think of it as having an extension in spacetime. Of course there are things like abstractions, but I'm not sure it's meaningful to talk about the ontological existence of abstractions.

Even quanta exist "in spacetime" although precise values of location don't actually exist when not measured.

I guess it makes a certain degree of sense to say that spacetime itself exists, even though it obviously doesn't exist "in" spacetime.

But a "person" such as a god existing outside of spacetime? What does that actually mean; I am straining the bounds of the definition of "ontological existence" too much to wrap my arms around it.

Now, if you're talking about a different "kind" of existence, it becomes unclear whether the term itself is appropriate.

I'm not really arguing here, just expressing my bewilderment.

suder

To understand living outside of spacetime, think about what your gunna do next time you knock off from work.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if the bible is any use to us in this matter (I know, I'm just as shocked as any of you by my referencing the big lie), then God is decidedly not "outside of time." The entire theology is time-dependent, including the ever elusive claim that God/Jesus will some day "return."

Even in the frame analogy (time is like a film), God still has to exist in some time-dependent realm to insert himself in and out of those frames. Just because you're watching a film or even examining the frames doesn't mean that you are no longer time-dependent; quite the opposite.

The higher question this raises, of course, beyond the free will paradox, is that this would necessarily mean that god is limited (just as we are) to some form of time-dependency, a logical contradiction to the claim that god is not limited in any way.

If god is in some way limited, then can the claim be made that he/she/it is, in fact, God?

By the way, in case someone resurrects Nomad, the concept of god self-limiting does not apply. Ultimately, either god is dependent upon time or time is dependent upon god.

If god is dependent upon time, then, arguably he/she/it is necessarily less than "God" and "time" becomes the ultimate "force."

If time is dependent upon god, however, then there can be no separation of god and time and we have another logical contradiction, in that god could not possibly be prophetic, as that would be an example of god being separate from time.

Either way you slice it, it's all a pack of lies.

Koyaanisqatsi

How would this be an example of living "outside of spacetime?"

Apikorus

The problem with notions of pure "ontological priority", it seems to me, is that they are not falsifiable. How could we possibly know that God was the "ontological predecessor and cause" of the Universe?

Can there be a multiplicity of distinct such God-entities which ontologically preceded the Universe? Could there be an ontological chain of such distinct things, in which God is simply the "last" member? Perhaps an infinite ontological regress, or a set of parallel Gods each creating a Universe causally disconnected from all others?

I see many opportunities for metaphysical pondering here, but nothing which has much hope in terms of being empirically verifiable from within our universe.

Kenny, your childhood does still exist, as a set of points in space-time. However, one of the postulates of General Relativity is that there are no closed time-like curves, so while the kindergarten Kenny does exist at some well-defined space-time coordinates, you will never get to meet him.

Of course, if a proper unified theory of gravity and the SWE sectors were to entail a cosmology in which the Universe has no beginning, or if a Hartle-Hawking like model emerges, that would largely obviate these and related arguments.

GunnerJ

Think about it: If god knows every event in the universe that will ever be, before it even happens, then how can anyone be responsible for anything? God viewing creation is like me re-reading a book. I already know the ending, and what all the characters do. If god is omnipotent, and knows all the events that will happen in the universe before they happen, then reality is just a 3-D movie, and god knows what's in all the frames in the film. Thus, Hitler is no more responsible for his genocide than Micheal Corleon (sp?) in The Godfather is responsible for all the people he whacked. No matter how many times you watch that movie, the same things will happen, and nothing can change. If god knows everything that will ever go on in the Universe, it's the same picture; god knows what's going to happen, and we can't possibly surprise god by doing somehting different.

I fail to see what this has to do with reletivity, but, whatever. You asked whether your five-year-old self still exists somewhere, and hinted that you think he does. If this is so, then our consciousness is just an observer watching the film of life go from one frame to the next; if our past still exists, then time is a string of pearls we feel our way along. As to the negation of existance, that's a bit more tricky. I don't think I can explain what I mean over an Internet forum. A good view of what I mean is presented in a work of fiction, though. You should look up <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812580281/qid=1008284698/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_15_4/107-5811542-4042117" target="_blank">genesis</a> by Poul Anderson.

Kenny

Try again. It’s meaningless to speak of God existing “in” an “immeasurable instant” if God transcends time. You are making a category mistake by continuing to speak of God in temporal terms. There is no defined “before” with respect to God’s existence, nor is there any defined “after.”

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

That may be because space and time are fundamental modes of perception by which our minds structure reality. As Kant noted, when we attempt to clear our minds of all conceptions, space and time still seem to be there in the background. It may not be possible for us to fully divorce our imaginations and perceptions from the context of space-time. That says something about our own limitations, though, not the limitations of reality (we can’t imagine four dimensions either).

I am a Platonist with regard to abstractions, so I do assign them a real existence.

That’s only because the universe provides a well defined context in which to assign those values. Consider the following thought experiment: Imagine a universe which consists solely of a single, eternally stable (such that it does not change or decay) point mass. Would it be meaningful to assign spatial coordinates to such a particle? Would it be meaningful to define any sort of passing time? Now suppose, instead, that this point mass is the type of particle that decays. In an instant, it changes from state A to state B. It seems that we now have a definite way to assign a “before” and “after” relationship between states (although, does the direction of these assignments matter or is it completely arbitrary which state is “before” and which is after?), but it still doesn’t, at this point, seem all that meaningful to speak of the length of duration between these changes (duration relative to what?). Now, let’s go back to our original stable point mass; let’s also throw another stable point mass into our hypothetical universe. Now, it seems meaningful to talk about spatial extension given that one can define a distance between these two point masses. Still, it is only meaningful, in this instance, to speak of spatial extension in one dimension. Now suppose we throw a dozen or so point masses in with their own motions relative to one another, decay processes, etc. It looks as if it is now becoming more meaningful to talk about assigning well defined space-time coordinates, distances, durations, etc.

The point of this exorcise is that space-time is only well defined in terms of relationships between things. Without such relationships, space-time does not exist in any well defined way. In other words, space-time is not a “thing-in-itself,” but something that emerges from the relationships between objects in the universe. Objects in the universe don’t depend on space-time for their existence; rather, space-time depends on them. Think about this question: “Is it meaningful to speak of moving the universe three feet to the left?” According to Relativity, the answer is no. Space-time locations are only meaningful from within the context of the universe, not outside. The universe, as a whole, has no space-time location.

It means that God is not limited by time or place. His awareness extends fully to every aspect of existence. As such God does not experience the passing of time, but, instead, experiences an eternal subjective present in which He is fully related to all aspects of existence. To say that God is transcends time, then, is really just a corollary of both His omniscience and omnipresence.

Since I don’t conceive of time as having a primary ontological status, it becomes absurd to speak of time as a necessary condition of existence. Time depends on the existence of other things and so it is meaningless to speak of other things depending on time.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

If I were an empirical reductionist, I might be concerned. I am not.

This thread asks a question from within the context of Christian theism. I am not arguing for the truth of Christian theism in this thread, only its logical consistency.

Are you sure you have that right? I recall reading that there are a plethora (I believe that it was even proved that there are infinitely many) CTC solutions to GR, some of which have been demonstrated by Kip Thorne, Kurt Godel, and the likes. If I remember correctly, the postulate that there were no CTC’s was a part of the Hawking-Penrose theorem on singularities, but not a part of GR itself. All CTC solutions to GR have been shown to necessitate rather exotic physical conditions, however. It may be that when we have a fully developed theory of Quantum gravity, the existence of such conditions will shown to be impossible. In fact, If I were a betting man, I would be willing to put money on it (I have a hard time believing in the reality of time travel). So, yeah, I don’t think all ever be able to meet my kindergarten self either.

I’m not making the first cause argument here. I believe that first cause arguments suffer from a number of physical and philosophical problems, and so I do not use them. If I were going to make the cosmological argument, I would go with the argument from contingency. I’m not making any such argument here, however. I am merely answering a question that was asked from within a theistic point of view.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>