Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ron Singh · 05-16-2002, 10:04 PM

Uh Kenny, are you Albert C.?

Ron Singh · 05-16-2002, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
1)Well, perhaps I wasn't attempting to be philosophical. But really, the post was comprised of my initial, amateur thoughts on the theist argument.

I was just kidding, that little latin was fictional, I thought you would have caught the "paramecium" part. I myself am an amateur philosopher, theologian too. Let's start a club!

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
2)If time before the universe is to be considered merely a point, then how can we know how long this god existed before the beginning of the universe? Why wouldn't he create the universe the moment he began? But if he is eternal, then this couldn't be. Why would he exists on a 'point' before time, waiting to create his universe?

I believe that Kenny does a great job explaining this one. Refer to that who calls himself Kenny.

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:

I do not contend that the universe is eternal. I mentioned it in my post as simply something to add. I think I've heard something about a 'big crush' which will be the opposite of the big bang. Whether this is legitimate I do not know.

Actually, when I was in the fifth grade, I was very interested in atoms and big bangs and such. It occured to me that the universe would recreate itself with the "big crunch" naturally. Well, this theory is not viable. The universe, having the most mass possible, including the most possible dark matter and such, would still constitute for only one fifth of the mass needed for a big crunch.

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:

So, if I went to heaven, there is no length of time? So I cannot stand around in heaven and count five minutes of passing time?

I apologize for my mis-wording. I mentally consider transcending time being without time. Please refer to Kenny's post, as he elegently explains it. Yet still I stand by my position, that there is no specific independent time of heaven.

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:

What's always been absurd to me is the superpowers of god. Transcending time, matter, etc. I know one thing he can't do--violate mathematics. For example, 2+2=5 is impossible, even god could not accomplish that.

God created mathematics. If he made it, it's not to say that he isn't omnipotent.
Suppose that there is no universe. You are just a mind, with no perception or input. Can you prove to yourself that 1=1? Perhaps this is a fallible arguement..

Now, you address SOMMS. I hope you or SOMMS don't mind me chiming in.

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
Yes, but if he created the universe, then he existed before it was created, and therefore there is distance of 'time' to measure between the point in which he began to the point in which he made the universe.

But it is always said that god is eternal. Well, if the universe is not eternal, and he is, then he has existed infinitely before the universe began. It doesn't make sense.

Apparently this "refer to Kenny" arguement is rather useful in this thread. Sorry to be repetative, but I believe that the link that Kenny gave is rather insightful. Hopefully we can delve into that, and/or its validity?

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

Ron Singh · 05-16-2002, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

Hi sikh,

In hypothesis testing, it is normal and rational to speak of rejecting a hypothesis. Therefore, it is normal and rational to reject "gods" -- the hypothesis that there are such beings.

Hi Vorkosigan. Hypotheses are premises of conclusions. A hypothesis is proposed solely for acknowledgement of whether the hypothesis has validity or not, one can not deduce that it is rational to reject a hypothesis before results are observed. In some cases, the results are observed prior to the hypothesis being formed. In this case, it can be justified to reject a hypothesis? I still say that one must, as an atheist would put it, "have a lack of belief in" the validity of a hypothesis opposed to rejecting a hypothesis all together prior to the observance of results.

~your friendly neigbhorhood 15yr old Sikh.

Kenny · 05-16-2002, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sikh:
Uh Kenny, are you Albert C.?

No

Ron Singh · 05-16-2002, 10:58 PM

Fair enough.

Secular Edition, I'de like to hear your take regarding the subject of the beginning.

HRG · 05-17-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny (in part):

Actually, when theologians say that God is eternal, they usually don’t mean that God has existed for an infinitely long period of time. They mean that God transcends time all together.

Could you please explain the meaning of an actual thing/being/entity "transcending time" ? Not all sequences of English words which are grammatically correct mean something.

Regards,
HRG.

Ender · 05-17-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

HRG: Could you please explain the meaning of an actual thing/being/entity "transcending time" ? Not all sequences of English words which are grammatically correct mean something.

Kenny is just waxing another symptom of the logic of illusion when he is weilding a concept that "transcends" temporality.

~WiGGiN~

Automaton · 05-17-2002, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Actually, God would not need to traverse any amount of time at all. For God, all moments in time could simply be present to His awareness in an eternal subjective present.

I know I always bring this up, but:

Argument from Change against Immutable God
Causality only takes place within a coherent framework of time, and hence, change. A cause, by definition, implies change on the part of the causative agency. Otherwise, "effects" would be merely arbitrary events in promixity to the "cause", and this wouldn't be causation at all. If God is to be the cause of anything, change is required. Change is not possible if God is immutable.

Argument from Omniscience against Immutable God
God is defined as having knowledge of all things. Before event X happened, God would have had the knowledge, "Event X has not happened yet." And after it, "Event X has occured in the past." If God is immutable and omniscient, he would have to know both of these mutually exclusive "facts" at once. This is impossible, ergo if God is immutable he cannot be omniscient.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]

Kenny · 05-17-2002, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG:


Could you please explain the meaning of an actual thing/being/entity "transcending time" ? Not all sequences of English words which are grammatically correct mean something.

Regards,
HRG.

Well, I did explain, in detail, in the link I provided, so I direct your attention there

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny · 05-17-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
[QB]I know I always bring this up, but:

Argument from Change against Immutable God
Causality only takes place within a coherent framework of time, and hence, change. A cause, by definition, implies change on the part of the causative agency. Otherwise, "effects" would be merely arbitrary events in promixity to the "cause", and this wouldn't be causation at all. If God is to be the cause of anything, change is required. Change is not possible if God is immutable.

Well, I think this exactly backwards. I believe causal relationships reflect relationships of logical dependence and are metaphysically prior to time. See the link I provided for more details.

Quote:

Argument from Omniscience against Immutable God
God is defined as having knowledge of all things. Before event X happened, God would have had the knowledge, "Event X has not happened yet." And after it, "Event X has occured in the past." If God is immutable and omniscient, he would have to know both of these mutually exclusive "facts" at once. This is impossible, ergo if God is immutable he cannot be omniscient.

This argument assumes that tensed facts are real, which in term assumes a view of time as something which passes or flows from one point to another. If the passing of time is an illusion, however, and all moments simply exist as part of a single space-time manifold (as I believe is the case), then tensed facts are illusory artifacts of our own perception. Hence, there are no real tensed facts for God to know. God sees all of space-time as the single whole that it really is.

God Bless,
Kenny

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

05-16-2002, 10:04 PM	#11
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	Uh Kenny, are you Albert C.?

05-16-2002, 10:58 PM	#15
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	Fair enough. Secular Edition, I'de like to hear your take regarding the subject of the beginning.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.