NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings all NSers.

I've been watching these forums for over a year now, and I finally feel like jumping in and starting a serious thread/discussion.

What has baffled me lately is the concept of a transcendent god, as described by Muslims and some Christian interpretations. What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?

PS: hope the syntax isn't too confusing.

Because she can? I'm sorry.. I don't understand the question..

Greetings all NSers.

I've been watching these forums for over a year now, and I finally feel like jumping in and starting a serious thread/discussion.

What has baffled me lately is the concept of a transcendent god, as described by Muslims and some Christian interpretations. What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?

PS: hope the syntax isn't too confusing.

I suppose the answer is that humans cannot truly comprehend the nature of the transcendent god, so they shouldn't worry their little heads about it. God can do anything, after, being, well ... God.

Reminds me of St. Augustine's answer when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the world. "Creating Hell for people who ask questions like that," the saint said.

Reminds me of St. Augustine's answer when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the world. "Creating Hell for people who ask questions like that," the saint said.

ROTFLMAO

who says that no universe has existed since the non-existent start of God/s? why would a being outside this universe be subject to the same logic? how do you hope to understand an omnipotent beings thought and intentions?

also a creator God doesn't need to be subject to such things since it doesn't exist :p

Reminds me of St. Augustine's answer when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the world. "Creating Hell for people who ask questions like that," the saint said.

Sooo... not masturbating then?:confused:

If god is transcendent then he is outside of time.
If he is outside of time he is unmovable/unalterable.
Creation is a change of contingency from non existence to existence of the Universe.

So how can an unalterable god will the Universe into existence from where he didn't? Or in other words, god is atemporal, creation is temporal -> so how can creation occur as the effect of such a god's will?

If god is transcendent then he is outside of time.
If he is outside of time he is unmovable/unalterable.
Creation is a change of contingency from non existence to existence of the Universe.

So how can an unalterable god will the Universe into existence from where he didn't? Or in other words, god is atemporal, creation is temporal -> so how can creation occur as the effect of such a god's will?

Who says that being outside of time makes one unmovable/unalterable? If we accept that premise, then yes, you're probably right, but that is not a given.

Sooo... not masturbating then?:confused:

Well, depends on what the deadline for creating Hell was. Oh, but wait, there was no time then, so ... :eek:

who says that no universe has existed since the non-existent start of God/s? why would a being outside this universe be subject to the same logic? how do you hope to understand an omnipotent beings thought and intentions?

also a creator God doesn't need to be subject to such things since it doesn't exist :p

Yes, I thought it is quite obvious I'm an atheist myself. And yes your sort of answer is as agnostic regarding the nature of god (from a theist point of view) as the take of a weak atheist on the whole religion issue.

What I'm trying to point out is that the whole proposition of a transcendent creator god is logically inconsistent. I was honestly hoping for more than an argument to ignorance, as I personally tend to (ab-)use that line of reasoning. I was looking for a fresh view.:)

Could you please elaborate? In the physics I was taught, motion is defined relative to time and time is defined relative to motion. It could be just me lacking imagination but how do you separate the two?

If something is outside the universe then why would it be bound by the physical laws of this universe?

Who says that being outside of time makes one unmovable/unalterable? If we accept that premise, then yes, you're probably right, but that is not a given.

Could you please elaborate? In the physics I was taught, motion is defined relative to time and time is defined relative to motion. It could be just me lacking imagination but how do you separate the two?

Well, depends on what the deadline for creating Hell was. Oh, but wait, there was no time then, so ... :eek:

Perhaps that's what God was doing before he created Hell. If God is anything like me then perhaps he is filled with self-loathing upon ejaculating into whatever the divine equivalent of a sock is and it was this self-loathing that made God create Hell. And then later the universe so that he could fill Hell up with souls so he didn't feel so pathetic.

Could you please elaborate? In the physics I was taught, motion is defined relative to time and time is defined relative to motion. It could be just me lacking imagination but how do you separate the two?

You're attempting to apply physics to a supernatural being, is all. If God is subject to those definitions of time and motion then he is not super-natural. And if he is not super-natural, I sincerely doubt he created much of anything, let alone the entire universe.

Perhaps that's what God was doing before he created Hell. If God is anything like me then perhaps he is filled with self-loathing upon ejaculating into whatever the divine equivalent of a sock is and it was this self-loathing that made God create Hell. And then later the universe so that he could fill Hell up with souls so he didn't feel so pathetic.

That's ... ahem, actually it's ... great, I'm going to have that image stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

That's ... ahem, actually it's ... great, I'm going to have that image stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

Well, yes.. I do apologise but you have to admit it makes sense! Do you not agree that all the worlds problems are due to God not getting laid?

You're attempting to apply physics to a supernatural being, is all. If God is subject to those definitions of time and motion then he is not super-natural. And if he is not super-natural, I sincerely doubt he created much of anything, let alone the entire universe.

Well I was attempting to apply logic not physics. And since I was referring to definitions alone, not any quantity relationships I believe I've kept in those limits. Logic is generally given as a priori knowledge in most cosmologies (thus some Christian's claim that God cannot be logically inconsistent) so I do not believe that my question is inadequate.

Reminds me of St. Augustine's answer when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the world. "Creating Hell for people who ask questions like that," the saint said.

I thought he answered that time was a property that God gave to the Universe?

That's ... ahem, actually it's ... great, I'm going to have that image stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

:mad: Yes, I was eating as well... quite entertaining thought though. Sounds like something I'd say :p

Well I was attempting to apply logic not physics. And since I was referring to definitions alone, not any quantity relationships I believe I've kept in those limits. Logic is generally given as a priori knowledge in most cosmologies (thus some Christian's claim that God cannot be logically inconsistent) so I do not believe that my question is inadequate.

Except you replied to me by saying, "In physics I was taught," which made me think that you were wanting God to be obedient to the physical laws and definitions of the Universe he created. And even if you leave out quantities, you are still wanting to apply those definitions to a being who, by his very nature, cannot be defined that way. I'm surprised someone told you that God cannot be logically inconsistent. To me, it's more like God does have to be logically consistent. Against, if God created the Universe, he cannot be of the Universe, and therefore not subject to the physical definitions of time and motion.

I thought he answered that time was a property that God gave to the Universe?

Could be. I haven't got the book handy (Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, by the way). Anyway, if Augustine didn't say that, I bet he wishes he did.

Our brains are designed to understand the world we live in, not stuff outside of what we experience. We are not built to understand for example how bidirectional time would work or which directions more than 3 room dimensions would point to or how stuff would look with more than 3 room dimensions. Our knowledge and logic that is based on our experiences is in best case confused or in worth case useless outside of the box we experience.

This is like characters in a movie saying: "How could someone put the movie tape in the cinema projector and start the projector? Change is to have a different position on the next frame compared to the previous frame so how could they change anything about the projector if they and the projector are outside of the tape?"

Well, yes.. I do apologise but you have to admit it makes sense! Do you not agree that all the worlds problems are due to God not getting laid?

So that's why he made Adam! And later when he realized it was a no-go, he made Eve. And then when Eve wouldn't give him any he got all pissy and then hid in a bush, knowing that someone would screw up, giving him a chance at revenge.

I thought he answered that time was a property that God gave to the Universe? First you have to know what time is, then you can think about why it's there.

Our brains are designed to understand the world we live in, not stuff outside of what we experience. We are not built to understand for example how bidirectional time would work or which directions more than 3 room dimensions would point to or how stuff would look with more than 3 room dimensions. Our knowledge and logic that is based on our experiences is in best case confused or in worth case useless outside of the box we experience.

This is like characters in a movie saying: "How could someone put the movie tape in the cinema projector and start the projector? Change is to have a different position on the next frame compared to the previous frame so how could they change anything about the projector if they and the projector are outside of the tape?"

I found this example by far the most helpful, thank you... so you are suggesting that there are two temporalities here: that of the film, representing our Universe and that of the god which is external to it? Interesting concept.

God is immanent. Does that help resolve the problem?

So that's why he made Adam! And later when he realized it was a no-go, he made Eve. And then when Eve wouldn't give him any he got all pissy and then hid in a bush, knowing that someone would screw up, giving him a chance at revenge.

That must be it! Damn, why didn't I learn this stuff in Religious Education at school!?

God is immanent. Does that help resolve the problem?

:D That's what I was hoping for. Though there have been some good issues raised.

Although does the fact that god is immanent necessitate him to be subject to empirical observation or not? (This was going to be my next thread but I can't really help it:D)

I found this example by far the most helpful, thank you... so you are suggesting that there are two temporalities here: that of the film, representing our Universe and that of the god which is external to it? Interesting concept.That's how I think of it, too (although my version has us in a video game, and God's outside doing the programming and/or playing, but it's the same basic idea).

Greetings all NSers.

I've been watching these forums for over a year now, and I finally feel like jumping in and starting a serious thread/discussion.

What has baffled me lately is the concept of a transcendent god, as described by Muslims and some Christian interpretations. What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?

PS: hope the syntax isn't too confusing.

If this being is outside of time then it does not at any point change from not wanting to create a universe to wanting to. From the atemporal creator's point of view all points in creation, from beginning to end, happen at once. It creates a, let's say, thirty billion year history, from beginning to end, in an instant.

Look at it this way. When a contractor is hired to build a quarter-mile racetrack at the local park they don't build the start line then work their way to the finish line. It's built from the ground up. But the runners who use it experience it from the start line to the finish line. But that's not how the creator conceived it or viewed it.

If this being is outside of time then it does not at any point change from not wanting to create a universe to wanting to. From the atemporal creator's point of view all points in creation, from beginning to end, happen at once. It creates a, let's say, thirty billion year history, from beginning to end, in an instant.

Look at it this way. When a contractor is hired to build a quarter-mile racetrack at the local park they don't build the start line then work their way to the finish line. It's built from the ground up. But the runners who use it experience it from the start line to the finish line. But that's not how the creator conceived it or viewed it.

Not a satisfying explanation. I have conceived the possibility of the whole history of existence as a feature of an ever-there divine plan. But there is a difference between this omniscience of a transcendent god and his ability to perform change (which implies motion) if time does not apply to him.

Because it's God.

That simple. Atheists can argue themselves blue in the face. They can present all kinds of facts, arguments, charts, scientific data, philosophical debate and hard evidence they want until the end of time, theists will forever have their fingers in their ears going "Lalalalalalalala~ because it's God!"

*shrug* It's kind of become a pointless waste of breath to debate it.

Greetings all NSers.

I've been watching these forums for over a year now, and I finally feel like jumping in and starting a serious thread/discussion.

What has baffled me lately is the concept of a transcendent god, as described by Muslims and some Christian interpretations. What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?

PS: hope the syntax isn't too confusing.

great argument! Your own or have you read it somewhere?

According to Philo, God cannot be described in human terms, and we cannot comprehend God's mind or power. Also, time doesn't actually exist, oddly enough. There is no increment of time below the Planck scale, and if it doesn't work on a small scale, then it could not possibly work on an infinite scale, such as that of God.

Truth be told, there is no real answer to your question about God creating the universe. There's also no other explanation for how the universe came into existence. I mean, what prompted the big bang to go off? Or, if you prefer the ocellating uinverse theory, what created the first universe which has been expanding and contracting in a series of big bangs and implosions?

The only possible explanation is that we cannot comprehend God. Unless, of course, God can change, in which case God isn't infinite. In the end, there are no beliefs about God which are "correct." If I was Christian or Muslim, saying that might be blasphemy, but in Judiasm, we're free to believe whatever we want about God. In fact, scholars have debated about God for thousands of years and continue to do so today.

Anyway, you should try to answer your own God questions with an answer that fits your beliefs in God.

Physics don't apply to God, because God created it, and God is omnipotent. Omnipotent means you can do anything, and that includes breaking the laws of physics and logic.

Remember, logic is limited by Human comprehension, and comprehension is limited by the Human brain, and the Human brain is a very finite thing. The Biblical God, however, is described as infinite, omniscient and omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, I think a few laws of physics and logic are nothing to Him.

so you are suggesting that there are two temporalities here: that of the film, representing our Universe and that of the god which is external to it? Interesting concept.

You say you are only applying logic and not physics to god but you are using threads of causation which depends upon the temporal nature of our universe and is, really, just an extension of physics. The argument that has been brought up is that you can't apply any temporality to a god-entity. There would be one temporality, that of the film, because temporality is itself contingent upon the film rather than having any necessary correlation with stuff outside the film.

You're attempting to apply physics to a supernatural being, is all. If God is subject to those definitions of time and motion then he is not super-natural. And if he is not super-natural, I sincerely doubt he created much of anything, let alone the entire universe.

What's stopping natural beings from creating big things? :confused:

I'm pretty sure creating planets, life, stars or even alternate universes isn't entirely illegal, as per laws of this universe. :)

What's stopping natural beings from creating big things? :confused:

I'm pretty sure creating planets, life, stars or even alternate universes isn't entirely illegal, as per laws of this universe. :)

yeah, and we have also managed to split the atom, so that helps to show humans can make interesting things happen.
I reckon in a few hundred years we can make planets like in douglas adams books "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy"

great argument! Your own or have you read it somewhere?

It came to me as I was re-reading one of my old school essays on the cosmological arguments. I think the train thought had something to do with determinism (i.e.: If God is aware of the whole time line of the Universe upon Creation, when transcendent, thus knowing of all our free will "choices", then his choice to create the world as he did, bears the later responsibility of all human sin.*evrika* But how could this moment exist to a timeless god?)

God can't be omnipotent because he is omnipresent and therefore can't play hide-and -seek! Using this reasoning it becomes obvious that god does not exist!

*disappears god in a poof of logic*

According to Philo, God cannot be described in human terms, and we cannot comprehend God's mind or power. Also, time doesn't actually exist, oddly enough. There is no increment of time below the Planck scale, and if it doesn't work on a small scale, then it could not possibly work on an infinite scale, such as that of God.

Truth be told, there is no real answer to your question about God creating the universe. There's also no other explanation for how the universe came into existence. I mean, what prompted the big bang to go off? Or, if you prefer the ocellating uinverse theory, what created the first universe which has been expanding and contracting in a series of big bangs and implosions?

The only possible explanation is that we cannot comprehend God. Unless, of course, God can change, in which case God isn't infinite. In the end, there are no beliefs about God which are "correct." If I was Christian or Muslim, saying that might be blasphemy, but in Judiasm, we're free to believe whatever we want about God. In fact, scholars have debated about God for thousands of years and continue to do so today.

Anyway, you should try to answer your own God questions with an answer that fits your beliefs in God.

Well since I'm new here I think I need to explain my stance on the issue first. Technically I am agnostic in the sense that there is no way to prove theist, deist or naturalist explanations of the universe, thus any stance on the issue is a matter of faith. My stance of faith on the matter is that since we know of no explanation it is reasonable to accept that there is none. (I can post an essay about this I wrote in school here if requested).

And indeed I'm not searching for truths here, I am merely looking for a debate and there have been some very interesting points presented. I'm hoping this to carry on:D

God can't be omnipotent because he is omnipresent and therefore can't play hide-and -seek! Using this reasoning it become obvious that god does not exist!

*disappears god in a poof of logic*

that made me chuckle:D... or the famous "can god make a rock heavier than he can lift?"

that made me chuckle:D... or the famous "can god make a rock heavier than he can lift?"

Does not being able to put a limit on your own power mean your power has a limit? The question makes no sense!

:D That's what I was hoping for. Though there have been some good issues raised.

Although does the fact that god is immanent necessitate him to be subject to empirical observation or not? (This was going to be my next thread but I can't really help it:D)

If god is immanent, he is the subject and the object and the act of observing. It would be easier to say that empirical observations would occur wholly within god, as a subsystem of god.

According to Philo, God cannot be described in human terms, and we cannot comprehend God's mind or power. Also, time doesn't actually exist, oddly enough. There is no increment of time below the Planck scale, and if it doesn't work on a small scale, then it could not possibly work on an infinite scale, such as that of God.

Truth be told, there is no real answer to your question about God creating the universe. There's also no other explanation for how the universe came into existence. I mean, what prompted the big bang to go off? Or, if you prefer the ocellating uinverse theory, what created the first universe which has been expanding and contracting in a series of big bangs and implosions?

The only possible explanation is that we cannot comprehend God. Unless, of course, God can change, in which case God isn't infinite. In the end, there are no beliefs about God which are "correct." If I was Christian or Muslim, saying that might be blasphemy, but in Judiasm, we're free to believe whatever we want about God. In fact, scholars have debated about God for thousands of years and continue to do so today.

Anyway, you should try to answer your own God questions with an answer that fits your beliefs in God.

I find the "we can't possibly imagine god, let us just bow" argument as rather frustrating. It is quite obvious that this should be the case, yet if we can't comprehend his nature why should we comprehend or indeed acknowledge his existence. This is really what I am getting at. The whole "god is transcendent (implying not bound by natural laws in any way), we shouldn't try, but we should stand in awe" is the most basic and flawed argument from ignorance there is. (yes I am aware that god is not subject to logical fallacies according to this argument as well :rolleyes:). Reminds me of the Deontological argument, in that it contradicts it, as god is no longer defined in any way.

Does not being able to put a limit on your own power mean your power has a limit? The question makes no sense!

It's called a logical paradox;) of course the question defies logic, so it should be on par with your explanation of god:D I should have a poll on whether it is a valid question to apply to god or not.

It's called a logical paradox;) of course the question defies logic, so it should be on par with your explanation of god:D I should have a poll on whether it is a valid question to apply to god or not.

I don't see how:confused: My explanation of god was that he touched himself and then created hell to make himself feel better..

If god is immanent, he is the subject and the object and the act of observing. It would be easier to say that empirical observations would occur wholly within god, as a subsystem of god.

Narcisism:rolleyes:

Well what I meant by that is really that if god acts within the Universe, he must have a physical dimension, to be able to do so. If there is a physical side/aspect/manifestation of god then that should also be observable by us.

Narcisism:rolleyes:

Well what I meant by that is really that if god acts within the Universe, he must have a physical dimension, to be able to do so. If there is a physical side/aspect/manifestation of god then that should also be observable by us.

The simple truth is that since god is immanent, he is constantly being observed by us. He is everything we see.

I wonder how do we apply human logic when talking about God?

According to the Assembly of Nihilo, this is what transcendence supposed to be :

Shijima is a Reason based on stillness and oneness, influenced by Buddhism and the concept of Nirvana. It is a world of perfect harmony, where there is no 'self' whatsoever, and no passion to cause dissent, conflict and destruction. Individuality is eradicated, and replaced with a collective inner peace where everyone is equal to a god, all working together as cogs in the giant, stable machine that is the Universe

I wonder how do we apply human logic when talking about God?

According to the Assembly of Nihilo, this is what transcendence supposed to be :

Shijima is a Reason based on stillness and oneness, influenced by Buddhism and the concept of Nirvana. It is a world of perfect harmony, where there is no 'self' whatsoever, and no passion to cause dissent, conflict and destruction. Individuality is eradicated, and replaced with a collective inner peace where everyone is equal to a god, all working together as cogs in the giant, stable machine that is the Universe

No, that, according to the Assembly of Nihilo, is pantheism. Transcendence is quite another thing and it applies to concept of god as an entity of pure knowledge and unlimited creative power that is external to the physical dimensions of the Universe, yet in it's infinity is not at all shy about limits (as in the given physical ones). And I particularly refer to the limit, or in other words moment, when he can have a change of will from not to creating the Universe. Such a change necessitates a temporality (one limit) and a will (another limit, as things are defined, by definition, in terms of limits... dualism)

I don't see how:confused: My explanation of god was that he touched himself and then created hell to make himself feel better..

What exactly can't you see again?

No, that, according to the Assembly of Nihilo, is pantheism. Transcendence is quite another thing and it applies to concept of god as an entity of pure knowledge and unlimited creative power that is external to the physical dimensions of the Universe, yet in it's infinity is not at all shy about limits (as in the given physical ones). And I particularly refer to the limit, or in other words moment, when he can have a change of will from not to creating the Universe. Such a change necessitates a temporality (one limit) and a will (another limit, as things are defined, by definition, in terms of limits... dualism)

I'd settle with omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#Mahabharata_Version) first.

The simple truth is that since god is immanent, he is constantly being observed by us. He is everything we see.

Example? I just hope you are not going to start on Design arguments. The remoteness of the chance of there being a present like ours, in which we can and do observe patterns, evolving by random chance does not necessitate design, just as it does not eliminate the possibility of this present (since we do in fact observe it).

If you had any conclusive example, where there can be no alternative natural explanation then I will be more than happy to hear it:)

Example? I just hope you are not going to start on Design arguments. The remoteness of the chance of there being a present like ours, in which we can and do observe patterns, evolving by random chance does not necessitate design, just as it does not eliminate the possibility of this present (since we do in fact observe it).

If you had any conclusive example, where there can be no alternative natural explanation then I will be more than happy to hear it:)

Oh, I see what you're asking. You're asking for some sort of empirically observable and repeatable phenomenon that can only be explained by divine intervention, right?

If that's what you want, I'm going to have to say that I have nothing for you. The closest we could come would be a mystical experience, and the observations of those who undergo such an experience can not be recorded in any meaningful fashion that can be quantified or measured.

I'd settle with omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#Mahabharata_Version) first.

:confused:

I don't get it? A being that has no limit, and exists must exist everywhere. Your point?

Oh, I see what you're asking. You're asking for some sort of empirically observable and repeatable phenomenon that can only be explained by divine intervention, right?

If that's what you want, I'm going to have to say that I have nothing for you. The closest we could come would be a mystical experience, and the observations of those who undergo such an experience can not be recorded in any meaningful fashion that can be quantified or measured.

I do find that Religious Experience is in fact the best argument for god out there. Pity that it does have alternative natural explanations. (You know: god is the plaintiff, brain chemistry is the defendant and Occam's razor is the judge:))

:confused:

I don't get it? A being that has no limit, and exists must exist everywhere. Your point?

I think those qualities are a perquisite for understanding what is transcendence. Kinda like an upgraded version of "I think therefore I am". Unlimited Creative Power? Pure Knowledge? How do you achieve that by not being "everywhere yet nowhere (paradoxical due to limited perception, or ,communication of ideas?)" ?

The problem of discussing this type of stuff is kinda like having to say what is the color red while being color blind.

Oh, by the way, I'm talking about the mechanism of understanding, since our tools are limited to... well, ideas of what might work. Pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

Ah... ok I get it now. Well we can't conceive these concepts as such but we can conceive of them and what they should imply. And when what they should imply leads to contradictions we can make judgements on them as part of a unified, self-consistent whole. Just because we "don't quite get it", despite the fact that we can conceive of these concepts, doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss them or seek understanding. Yes we are limited, but apparently not that limited that we cannot hold this conversation.

(Ok I might be using the "even the atheists have a notion of god, therefore he must exist" line of reasoning, against the Christian view, but again, even though ad ignorantiam is my take on this, ab ignorantiam isn't)

I do find that Religious Experience is in fact the best argument for god out there. Pity that it does have alternative natural explanations. (You know: god is the plaintiff, brain chemistry is the defendant and Occam's razor is the judge:))

You could say the same about anything. This conversation could be occuring solely in your head. Yet you assume that it is a part of consensual reality. Why is that?

You could say the same about anything. This conversation could be occuring solely in your head. Yet you assume that it is a part of consensual reality. Why is that?

Well, to my knowledge it IS consensual reality anywhere but in Evangelical America (my apologies if I presume wrongly). I grew up in the most religious country in the EU (look it up if you are interested) and I can tell you that if you are too convinced you've had a religious experience and were not stoned or pissed drunk, your family, friends and priest will kindly direct you towards a psychiatric ward.

Well, to my knowledge it IS consensual reality anywhere but in Evangelical America (my apologies if I presume wrongly). I grew up in the most religious country in the EU (look it up if you are interested) and I can tell you that if you are too convinced you've had a religious experience and were not stoned or pissed drunk, your family, friends and priest will kindly direct you towards a psychiatric ward.

What are you talking about? I am asking a simple question: How do you know that your reality is not entirely a fabrication of your imagination? It has nothing to do with the political and religious communities we may have grown up in. It is just a simple question. When you wake up in the morning, how do you know you're not still dreaming?

You seem to have this idea that mystical experiences must be solely caused by brain chemistry. Why?

What are you talking about? I am asking a simple question: How do you know that your reality is not entirely a fabrication of your imagination? It has nothing to do with the political and religious communities we may have grown up in. It is just a simple question. When you wake up in the morning, how do you know you're not still dreaming?

You seem to have this idea that mystical experiences must be solely caused by brain chemistry. Why?

:) Funny you should ask that question, as I am (philosophically speaking) the refined version of the skeptic, the nihilist. I don't. But arguing about all this is nonsensical if we remove the context, therefore, what you asked, is assumed automatically. If one own's reality is separated from the concept of the possible common reality then you do not exist and what I am doing is akin to mental masturbation.

And you need not put words into my mouth. I never said mystical experience must be solely caused by brain chemistry. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? (or are you being daft on purpose?)

:) Funny you should ask that question, as I am (philosophically speaking) the refined version of the skeptic, the nihilist. I don't. But arguing about all this is nonsensical if we remove the context, therefore, what you asked, is assumed automatically. If one own's reality is separated from the concept of the possible common reality then you do not exist and what I am doing is akin to mental masturbation.

And you need not put words into my mouth. I never said mystical experience must be solely caused by brain chemistry. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? (or are you being daft on purpose?)

No. I'm just having trouble following you. Are you saying that you can't tell the difference between your dreams and reality? Or that you don't know if your reality is not entirely a fabrication of your imagination?

I don't even know why we got here, it's completely off topic but to answer your questions:

1) that is called paranoid schizophrenia

2) that is called philosophical skepticism

Which do you think I was referring to?

And to get back on topic, have you done your research on Occam's razor yet?

I don't even know why we got here, it's completely off topic but to answer your questions:

1) that is called paranoid schizophrenia

2) that is called philosophical skepticism

Which do you think I was referring to?

And to get back on topic, have you done your research on Occam's razor yet?

I assume that you are not a paranoid schizophrenic, then. Which means you must have some method of differentiating between reality and dreams, hallucinations, etc.

What is that method?

I keep asking this because it is important to have this method,or set of criteria, for determining if such a mystical experience is more like a hallucination (existing only in the brain) or more like reality (existing outside of the brain).

There are four possible options:


The mystical experience meets the criteria for hallucinations, and it is one.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for consensual reality, and is real.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for a hallucination, but it is in fact real due to some unexplained factor.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for consensual reality, but it is in fact a hallucination due to some unexplained factor.


Using Occam's razor, we can safely assume that the first two options are simpler and better. However, we can not use Occam's razor to differentiate between the first two options, as they are not comparable situations.

I assume that you are not a paranoid schizophrenic, then. Which means you must have some method of differentiating between reality and dreams, hallucinations, etc.

What is that method?

I keep asking this because it is important to have this method,or set of criteria, for determining if such a mystical experience is more like a hallucination (existing only in the brain) or more like reality (existing outside of the brain).

There are four possible options:


The mystical experience meets the criteria for hallucinations, and it is one.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for consensual reality, and is real.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for a hallucination, but it is in fact real due to some unexplained factor.
The mystical experience meets the criteria for consensual reality, but it is in fact a hallucination due to some unexplained factor.


Using Occam's razor, we can safely assume that the first two options are simpler and better. However, we can not use Occam's razor to differentiate between the first two options, as they are not comparable situations.

Well actually we can apply Occam's razor to the first two. One very specific part of this method is that one should never add more entities to an explanation than the strict necessary minimum. Hallucinations are known to be real and to a very good extent have been scientifically investigated. Genuine religious experience however requires an additional, unprovable, unexplainable entity: God.

The most likely explanation is RE is a hallucination on the basis that it is the simplest and most plausible. The alternative requires an additional entity (that as I said, unlike the scientific mechanism behind hallucinations, is unprovable and unexplainable in terms of properties and nature).

What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.God wills, but there is no time "when" God wills.

Your mistake is to assume that to stand outside of time is to be unalterable, when in fact to stand outside of time is merely to exist without succession. To put it another way, there is no reason to assume that change depends on time. While it is clear that without time there could be no measurement of change, no understanding of it, at least for creatures such as ourselves.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?No. The lesson is that any creator god must lack reason, at least as creatures such as ourselves know reason.

A god outside of time need not be "unalterable." But his alterations will make no sense... at least, again, to creatures such as ourselves.

If there is a god, we need to find our moral compass elsewhere, because god is... well, an idiot. At least to creatures such as ourselves.

--Atheist.

God wills, but there is no time "when" God wills.

Your mistake is to assume that to stand outside of time is to be unalterable, when in fact to stand outside of time is merely to exist without succession. To put it another way, there is no reason to assume that change depends on time. While it is clear that without time there could be no measurement of change, no understanding of it, at least for creatures such as ourselves.

No. The lesson is that any creator god must lack reason, at least as creatures such as ourselves know reason.

A god outside of time need not be "unalterable." But his alterations will make no sense... at least, again, to creatures such as ourselves.

If there is a god, we need to find our moral compass elsewhere, because god is... well, an idiot. At least to creatures such as ourselves.

--Atheist.

A note on the "without succession": to have an entity that may will or may not will and does both but not simultaneously , i.e. first he doesn't, then he does will the Universe into existence, means he must have a succession (he actually has a succession of states of existence) and thus is subject to time. The only other way a creator god can be unalterable, and thus without succession is if the universe is just as infinite (temporally) as he is, yet in this case applying the term "creator" is no longer accurate - and all this also implies his existence necessitates the existence of the Universe as well, but then he cannot be removed from the Universe and as such cannot be transcendent.

A note on the "without succession": to have an entity that may will or may not will and does both but not simultaneously , i.e. first he doesn't, then he does will the Universe into existence, means he must have a succession (he actually has a succession of states of existence) and thus is subject to time.You're begging several questions.

First of all, succession does not follow from non-simultaneity. To say that two states are non-simultaneous does not entail that they happen in succession. That presumes a temporal order, which is what we suspended in the first place.

Secondly, the whole concept of simultaneity assumes some measure of time. Again, this is what we have suspended.

The alternative is to suppose that a figure outside of time is unalterable but also non-identical: it contains the contradiction (will/not-will) within itself.

If we're going to transcend, let's fucking transcend. ;)

You're begging several questions.

First of all, succession does not follow from non-simultaneity. To say that two states are non-simultaneous does not entail that they happen in succession. That presumes a temporal order, which is what we suspended in the first place.

Secondly, the whole concept of simultaneity assumes some measure of time. Again, this is what we have suspended.

The alternative is to suppose that a figure outside of time is unalterable but also non-identical: it contains the contradiction (will/not-will) within itself.

If we're going to transcend, let's fucking transcend. ;)

I must say I found your post rather bizarre until the bolded. Ok, let's fucking transcend but there is still the fact that while god could be presumed to contain the said contradiction, there is still the issue that as far as the Universe is concerned the moment of creation is still temporal. While you could say that god wills and does not will, you cannot say that the Universe is in both states of contingency, permanently. If god does not will then the Universe does not exist, if he does then the Universe exists, if he does both then the Universe does both. Which is obviously nonsensical. If the Universe exists and there was a point where it didn't then this necessitates that god also wills where he did not will. The nature of creation, if nothing else, necessitates that god does posses that succession and the implied temporality.

Sooo... not masturbating then?:confused:

Where do you think the universe came from? God was playing 'morning missile crisis' over a singularity one day and an accident occurred.

I must say I found your post rather bizarre until the bolded. Ok, let's fucking transcend but there is still the fact that while god could be presumed to contain the said contradiction, there is still the issue that as far as the Universe is concerned the moment of creation is still temporal.From our perspective, not from God's.

Look, there is no a priori reason that time has to have a direction other than that our little minds can't make sense of the universe in any other way.

If I pick out the points (-1, 3) and (3, -1) on a plane, does one come "first"? Why?

We experience time as linear and one-directional. Is there any reason it must be that way? The fact that we cannot imagine anything else particularly well does not prove anything.

Thus, if time is more like a plane from God's perspective outside of it, he can have non-simultaneous actions that are not successive: like putting one of my fingers down on (-1, 3) and the other one down on (3, -1). If God has his (not-will) temporal finger in one time and his (will) temporal finger at another, where is the contradiction? Where is the need to describe his circumstance in terms of "change"?

While you could say that god wills and does not will, you cannot say that the Universe is in both states of contingency, permanently.No, I can't. But the universe is in time. God isn't.

If god does not will then the Universe does not exist, if he does then the Universe exists, if he does both then the Universe does both.From his perspective, why couldn't it?

If I pick up a two-dimensional creature with my fingers, what does it see? Two circles of flesh: my fingertips. It has no mind for three dimensions, so it cannot see how the circles are connected. It just sees two circles. Moreover, while I lift it out of its plane, it will experience a continuous shift of planes ("dimensions" our sci-fi writers might say) until I drop it back where it was or perhaps on some other two-dimensional plane.

If a four-dimensional creature were similarly to pick me up with two fingers, what would I see? Two spheres of flesh: its three-dimensional fingertips. If it were then to "lift" me out of my three-dimensional world, I would experience a jarring shift of realities (or "dimensions"--rather more accurately cross-sections of a four-dimensional world) until it drops me back where I was or perhaps in some other three dimensional world.

Does our logic make sense of contradiction between these worlds? I think not.

If the Universe exists and there was a point where it didn't then this necessitates that god also wills where he did not will.Why should there be a point when the Universe did not exist? Time appears, from everything we know, to be intimately bound up with space. No space, no time.

The nature of creation, if nothing else, necessitates that god does posses that succession and the implied temporality."The nature of creation." Ha!! What do you know about creation???

I think the best thing human reason can do on this one is to think through its limits and bow out. While we may be able to understand the physical mechanics of the Big Bang, I do not believe we can ever really "prove" there is no god; but neither can we prove anything about said god, because all our notions of "aboutness" presume a temporal and spatial order the objective necessity of which we cannot prove. We know we cannot understand the world without notions of space and time, but for that very reason they both ground what we can know and carve out what we cannot.

--Atheist.

Where do you think the universe came from? God was playing 'morning missile crisis' over a singularity one day and an accident occurred.No! It was the big crack, when the giant purple chicken twitched inside the egg

Sooo... not masturbating then?:confused:

Well, how many people would respond to questions about their private time in a nice way? Given god's jolly nature and all, it makes sense about that kind of response. Besides, it's written out about Onan anyway.

Where do you think the universe came from? God was playing 'morning missile crisis' over a singularity one day and an accident occurred.

SIGWORTHY!

From our perspective, not from God's.

Look, there is no a priori reason that time has to have a direction other than that our little minds can't make sense of the universe in any other way.

If I pick out the points (-1, 3) and (3, -1) on a plane, does one come "first"? Why?

We experience time as linear and one-directional. Is there any reason it must be that way? The fact that we cannot imagine anything else particularly well does not prove anything.

Thus, if time is more like a plane from God's perspective outside of it, he can have non-simultaneous actions that are not successive: like putting one of my fingers down on (-1, 3) and the other one down on (3, -1). If God has his (not-will) temporal finger in one time and his (will) temporal finger at another, where is the contradiction? Where is the need to describe his circumstance in terms of "change"?

No, I can't. But the universe is in time. God isn't.

From his perspective, why couldn't it?

If I pick up a two-dimensional creature with my fingers, what does it see? Two circles of flesh: my fingertips. It has no mind for three dimensions, so it cannot see how the circles are connected. It just sees two circles. Moreover, while I lift it out of its plane, it will experience a continuous shift of planes ("dimensions" our sci-fi writers might say) until I drop it back where it was or perhaps on some other two-dimensional plane.

If a four-dimensional creature were similarly to pick me up with two fingers, what would I see? Two spheres of flesh: its three-dimensional fingertips. If it were then to "lift" me out of my three-dimensional world, I would experience a jarring shift of realities (or "dimensions"--rather more accurately cross-sections of a four-dimensional world) until it drops me back where I was or perhaps in some other three dimensional world.

Does our logic make sense of contradiction between these worlds? I think not.

Why should there be a point when the Universe did not exist? Time appears, from everything we know, to be intimately bound up with space. No space, no time.

"The nature of creation." Ha!! What do you know about creation???

I think the best thing human reason can do on this one is to think through its limits and bow out. While we may be able to understand the physical mechanics of the Big Bang, I do not believe we can ever really "prove" there is no god; but neither can we prove anything about said god, because all our notions of "aboutness" presume a temporal and spatial order the objective necessity of which we cannot prove. We know we cannot understand the world without notions of space and time, but for that very reason they both ground what we can know and carve out what we cannot.

--Atheist.

Well, yes, we are essentially 4 dimensional creatures. 3 physical dimensions and a temporal one. That does not mean time is unidirectional in the way we perceive it nor that these are all the dimensions there are.

But where our views conflict is where god would stand comparative to our perceptions (and please don't misinterpret this). I am saying that for god to be transcendent, to transcend space and time, he would have to have less dimensions to his existence than we do. You claim that it must have more.

I would sustain a non-dimensional god, which would be both outside of time and space - according to the definition of transcendence. You on the other hand would sustain a supra dimensional god (one that exists in more dimensions than we do). I think your idea of this god might go towards him existing in the 10th dimension (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php) if you are familiar with this.

My problem now is that if god was according to your view of him, then he contains all creation, in all temporal possibilities, in all parallel existences.

If that is the case then the initial proposition I argued against: "God is transcendent AND creator" is still false. In your view the Universe is contained in god. Thus it must be as permanent as god himself. And thus it cannot be described as his creation.

Whichever way you argue, creation, as a temporal (single temporal dimension) act, cannot be caused by something that differs from the dimensional characteristics of itself, whether this cause is sub-dimensional or supra-dimensional.

And to give an example the reality of a 2D creature. Its reality is inferior to ours. The existence of 2 dimensions does not necessitate the existence of 3. But the existence of 3 necessitates the existence of 2. Our existence of 4 dimensions (3 physical plus 1 temporal) does not necessitate the existence of 10. But the existence of 10 (or any other number of dimensions above 4) necessitates the existence of 4. Thus any super-dimensional god necessitates the existence of our Universe (we however do not necessitate him). And if that is the case god is no more a creator of our Universe/reality than he is of himself.

SIGWORTHY!

I finally typed something sigworthy :).

Now if I could only participate the debate...

Regardless of the number of dimensions in the universe (personally I like m-theory's dimension set better) you would have to explain how a non-dimensional entity would be able to create a dimensional region. The fundemental difference between the two would make it difficult to see any creation (though you could try to argue that at the initial point all dimensions were unfied, though that still makes it more dimension-y than a god) taking place.

There is also the problem of what happened after the initial creation. If god was not of any universe's dimensions then surely there could be no further interaction (in which case god would seem more a 'natural' force rather than a god).

I thought this thread was about technological singularity...

However the dimensional argument doesn't explain exactly how an entity like God could exist in -infinite and +infinite time and where it came from.

If God doesn't exist, the question still remains: "Where did all the matter of the Universe came from before the Big Bang existed?"

If God does exist the question is: "Where did God came from? How can he exist in an infinite amount of time past and future?"

My opinion is simply that those questions can't be answered, thus neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved.

I thought this thread was about technological singularity...

However the dimensional argument doesn't explain exactly how an entity like God could exist in -infinite and +infinite time and where it came from.

If God doesn't exist, the question still remains: "Where did all the matter of the Universe came from before the Big Bang existed?"

If God does exist the question is: "Where did God came from? How can he exist in an infinite amount of time past and future?"

My opinion is simply that those questions can't be answered, thus neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved.

And just to push you further into disbelief - if indeed there was a Big Bang in the first place;)

Greetings all NSers.

I've been watching these forums for over a year now, and I finally feel like jumping in and starting a serious thread/discussion.

What has baffled me lately is the concept of a transcendent god, as described by Muslims and some Christian interpretations. What I can't understand is how a transcendent (in my definition an immaterial and atemporal) being, whilst being outside of time, thus unalterable, can change his will from not, to willing the Universe into existence.

Must then any creator god be subject to time and therefore not transcendent?

PS: hope the syntax isn't too confusing.

I think the idea is that God transcends time and space and isn't limited by them (or by their lack there of). If you think that's illogical, know that God transcends logic too.;)

I am saying that for god to be transcendent, to transcend space and time, he would have to have less dimensions to his existence than we do. You claim that it must have more.I am saying no such thing.

I am merely suggesting that if we're going to talk about "god" in the first place, it's rather presumptuous to suppose we can reach any conclusions at all about what he/she/it is "really" like.

I finally typed something sigworthy :).

Now if I could only participate the debate...

Regardless of the number of dimensions in the universe (personally I like m-theory's dimension set better) you would have to explain how a non-dimensional entity would be able to create a dimensional region. The fundemental difference between the two would make it difficult to see any creation (though you could try to argue that at the initial point all dimensions were unfied, though that still makes it more dimension-y than a god) taking place.

There is also the problem of what happened after the initial creation. If god was not of any universe's dimensions then surely there could be no further interaction (in which case god would seem more a 'natural' force rather than a god).

So The Art of Contraction, Zim-Zum, doesn't come to mind?

http://home.earthlink.net/~lyam/KABDICT.htm#Z
Zimzum (tzeem-tzum)
A term from Lurianic Kabbalah meaning the contraction of the Ain Sof to form a "space" into which all of creation would manifest. God still fills this space, like the fragrance of a rose lingers after it leaves the room. This is the first appearance of the "separation" between God and the Universe necessary for manifestation. In order for anything to become distinct and visible, something else must become invisible. A foreground is not visible unless there is a background. This is the first appearance of the Abyss and also of Knowledge (Daath). By the very act of separation God imposes ignorance or latency on Himself in order to create. This ignorance is simultaneously the birth of Knowledge.

I am saying no such thing.

I am merely suggesting that if we're going to talk about "god" in the first place, it's rather presumptuous to suppose we can reach any conclusions at all about what he/she/it is "really" like.

Of course but that doesn't mean we should not speculate.

The alternative is wilful ignorance:)

So The Art of Contraction, Zim-Zum, doesn't come to mind?

http://home.earthlink.net/~lyam/KABDICT.htm#Z

Zimzum (tzeem-tzum)
A term from Lurianic Kabbalah meaning the contraction of the Ain Sof to form a "space" into which all of creation would manifest. God still fills this space, like the fragrance of a rose lingers after it leaves the room. This is the first appearance of the "separation" between God and the Universe necessary for manifestation. In order for anything to become distinct and visible, something else must become invisible. A foreground is not visible unless there is a background. This is the first appearance of the Abyss and also of Knowledge (Daath). By the very act of separation God imposes ignorance or latency on Himself in order to create. This ignorance is simultaneously the birth of Knowledge.

Very interesting indeed. Thank you for posting that:D

Very interesting indeed. Thank you for posting that:D

No problem. :)
I'd spent an awful long time mulling this over about a decade and a half ago, and this particular concept was one of the most interesting i'd encountered.

Of course but that doesn't mean we should not speculate.

The alternative is wilful ignorance:)It's ignorance in any case.

Wisdom lies in acknowledging the things we cannot know.

Well actually we can apply Occam's razor to the first two. One very specific part of this method is that one should never add more entities to an explanation than the strict necessary minimum. Hallucinations are known to be real and to a very good extent have been scientifically investigated. Genuine religious experience however requires an additional, unprovable, unexplainable entity: God.

The most likely explanation is RE is a hallucination on the basis that it is the simplest and most plausible. The alternative requires an additional entity (that as I said, unlike the scientific mechanism behind hallucinations, is unprovable and unexplainable in terms of properties and nature).

Occam's razor only works if the two theories are alike in every other way. They are not.

Look at it this way: all of reality could be occuring solely in your head, or it could be real. Occam's razor suggests that it is all in your head, as that would require the least amount of entities. Yet, we still define our waking, sober observations as coming from consensual reality. Why are we ignoring Occam's razor in that regard?

Occam's razor only works if the two theories are alike in every other way. They are not.

Look at it this way: all of reality could be occuring solely in your head, or it could be real. Occam's razor suggests that it is all in your head, as that would require the least amount of entities. Yet, we still define our waking, sober observations as coming from consensual reality. Why are we ignoring Occam's razor in that regard?

I am not... as mentioned in another thread I am a solipsist;)