Infinite Regress

[Spenser]

An infinite Mind

Something that is supposed to be the mind of God, or so say a lot of theists. Strangely enough, a strong theistic argument against certain atheistic views is that we cannot have an actual infinite past, considering that one moment in time precedes the next. If you were to attempt to go back in time you would find an infinite regress making it difficult to picture an eternal universe.

Yet, apparently God can have an infinite mind, he has existed eternally. Wait a second here, omniscient. He knows things, he thinks. HE THINKS? One thought has to precede the next in order for thoughts to occur and decisions (such as creating a universe, life and man) to be made. But if God thinks, can he remember all his thoughts??? If he existed eternally he would be confronted with an infinite regress of his own thoughts, he wouldn't ever be able to stop remembering himself cause he could never reach a first thought. He can't even completely know himself.

So many times theistic arguments come back to bite them in the...

:mad:

[Spenser]

Hey, I graduated from New User to User!!!!

Time to pop open an brew... :D

[T. E. Lords]

Where exactly did the theistic idea that god is eternal forwards and backwards come from? I know the bible says that god is the alpha and the omega but that just means begining and end. Doesn't mean forever in both directions.

[stretch]

One theistic view is that God only has one continuous, eternal thought .... thus, no need for memory or an infinite regress.

[EGGO]

To me that seems like an easy cop out...

What theistic view is this? Or is this all theistic views?

To me, if it's so hard to think of the 'beginning' of it all(it happened much to far into the past), then it would also be hard to think of the 'beginning' of someone that always existed.

Ergh! THE BRAIN! IT HURTS!!!:mad:

[stretch]

Originally posted by EGGO
To me that seems like an easy cop out...

What theistic view is this? Or is this all theistic views?

To me, if it's so hard to think of the 'beginning' of it all(it happened much to far into the past), then it would also be hard to think of the 'beginning' of someone that always existed.

Ergh! THE BRAIN! IT HURTS!!!:mad:

I think it's a fairly standard Catholic view ... if God is outside of time and unchanging, he can't have changing thoughts.

[Calzaer]

But if God is outside of time, then being absolved of all sin must necessarily include past, present, AND FUTURE sins.

[EGGO]

I wonder if he's bored of everything then since he knows everything that will happen.

He can't wonder what will happen if he wants to do something because he knows what would happen...

...then again he can't wonder because his thoughts remain unchanging...

...what a stubborn twat...

[Jobar]

How does an infinite, perfect and changeless being interact with a finite, imperfect and changing universe? What sort of intermediary forces are applied? To go from infinitely powerful to so subtle we can't detect it, would also seem to require an infinite chain of reductions.

[Stephen T-B]

We have no analogies for a god/universe interaction, and any attempt by theists to provide one is an exercise in futility.
In other words, we cannot imagine the unimaginable.
If indeed such a thing as a creator god exists it is, by definition, unimaginable because if it created the universe it is not of the universe and is therefore beyond our minds’ parameters, we being creatures of the universe.
This sets such an entity a big problem if it were to try communicating with us, and it might be argued that the Bible is a crazy mixed-up mish-mash of apparent absurdities for the very reason that human beings have no coherent means of interpreting the “insights” which are vouchsafed them.
I don’t, personally, think that stands up as an explanation because this creator god, if it’s as clever as the theists say it is, would find some way of tuning down to our level and making itself comprehensible.
And if it did, we’d have something a lot more sensible than the Bible.

[stretch]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
We have no analogies for a god/universe interaction, and any attempt by theists to provide one is an exercise in futility.
In other words, we cannot imagine the unimaginable.
If indeed such a thing as a creator god exists it is, by definition, unimaginable because if it created the universe it is not of the universe and is therefore beyond our minds’ parameters, we being creatures of the universe.
This sets such an entity a big problem if it were to try communicating with us, and it might be argued that the Bible is a crazy mixed-up mish-mash of apparent absurdities for the very reason that human beings have no coherent means of interpreting the “insights” which are vouchsafed them.
I don’t, personally, think that stands up as an explanation because this creator god, if it’s as clever as the theists say it is, would find some way of tuning down to our level and making itself comprehensible.
And if it did, we’d have something a lot more sensible than the Bible.

Except for the last couple of sentences, that's kind of what I was going to write ... so I'll just say 'almost ditto' .

[Spenser]

Originally posted by stretch
I think it's a fairly standard Catholic view ... if God is outside of time and unchanging, he can't have changing thoughts.

The problem here is with the 'beginning' of the universe. It suggests that if God created the universe, there had to be a point when he decided to do so, which also means there had to be a point before that when he hadn't decided. These things are only understood by us in a temporal fashion, events occurring outside of time are nonsense, yet that is what theist's will tell you, God functions 'outside' of time yet is personable...

If God had unchanging thoughts, the universe would have had to begun with God. *Trying to think if that makes sense, brain near exploding* :banghead:

[stretch]

Originally posted by Spenser
The problem here is with the 'beginning' of the universe. It suggests that if God created the universe, there had to be a point when he decided to do so, which also means there had to be a point before that when he hadn't decided. These things are only understood by us in a temporal fashion, events occurring outside of time are nonsense, yet that is what theist's will tell you, God functions 'outside' of time yet is personable...

If God had unchanging thoughts, the universe would have had to begun with God. *Trying to think if that makes sense, brain near exploding* :banghead:

I think it only implies that there was a point at which he acted on the 'eternal' decision. Some of the medievel Islamic metaphysicists pondered a lot on whether or not it makes any sense that a God who always 'wanted' a created universe 'waited' before placing it in existence .... interesting reading ....

Watch out for them sploding brains .... they's messy to clean up ...
:eek:

[Spenser]

Originally posted by stretch
I think it only implies that there was a point at which he acted on the 'eternal' decision.

Still, it can be said there was a point before he 'acted' and 'acted'. He thought 'it's not time yet... ...ok now its time!' POOF He would have had to decide to act, or at least decided it was time to act, yet he's outside of time so really the concept of eternal seems to go out the window...

[stretch]

Originally posted by Spenser
Still, it can be said there was a point before he 'acted' and 'acted'. He thought 'it's not time yet... ...ok now its time!' POOF He would have had to decide to act, or at least decided it was time to act, yet he's outside of time so really the concept of eternal seems to go out the window...

I don't know how to think outside of a framework of time, so this kind of stuff makes my brain want to explode too ....

But why can't the timing of the act 'always' have been known?... i.e., why does the decision to act have to be based on 'new' information?

[Calzaer]

I think we're talking about metatime here. That is, an objective time that exists outside of the allegedly subjective Human time referred to in this discussion.

In human terms, God couldn't have created the universe "Now" or "Later" or "Sooner" because there was no time. Time began at the beginning. In order to discussion the "timing" of creation, one has to assume an objective standard of time that exists beyond human perception of time. "Before the beginning" and "After the end" are examples of metatime.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I think we're talking about metatime here. That is, an objective time that exists outside of the allegedly subjective Human time referred to in this discussion.

In human terms, God couldn't have created the universe "Now" or "Later" or "Sooner" because there was no time. Time began at the beginning. In order to discussion the "timing" of creation, one has to assume an objective standard of time that exists beyond human perception of time. "Before the beginning" and "After the end" are examples of metatime.

Then IF there is such a thing as metatime then the argument in the OP applies. God's thoughts would follow one after the next, and if you tried to traverse them in reverse you would find yourself in an infinite regress... :banghead:

[EGGO]

What oxymorons, before the beginning and after the end.

Can you really call our time subjective? I mean it is pretty accurate, since we can fortell the rotations of planets and whatnot. We even have lightyears.

And let's say someone else uses another unit of time, it would pretty much still be in relation to ours right?

6 Kerplezols (for argument's sake) = 1 hour

1 Kerplezols = 10 mins

Heck we can even say 10946.5 Kerplezols = 1 minute

Mostly because things still happen at a given time. The earth still goes around the sun pretty much in a given time. Winter still happens throughout a certain date. And the sun still sets after a certain number of hours (kerplezols, heh heh).

Is God's time not in tune with ours? (almost typed hours)
That's right, it's not. But should it be called objective?

[stretch]

Originally posted by Spenser
Then IF there is such a thing as metatime then the argument in the OP applies. God's thoughts would follow one after the next, and if you tried to traverse them in reverse you would find yourself in an infinite regress... :banghead:

What if God has only one metathought?

[Stephen T-B]

Time and Change are co-dependent; you can’t have one without the other.

God being changeless must therefore be divorced from Time.

Being changeless he can never have moved from a position of not having created the Universe to one in which he had created it.
Being timeless, he can never have taken an action in a moment of time which would result in the creation of Time.

These parameters rule out the possibility of a God-created-Universe.

[stretch]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Time and Change are co-dependent; you can’t have one without the other.

God being changeless must therefore be divorced from Time.

Being changeless he can never have moved from a position of not having created the Universe to one in which he had created it.
Being timeless, he can never have taken an action in a moment of time which would result in the creation of Time.

These parameters rule out the possibility of a God-created-Universe.

Here you are defining action as a change. Is acting on an 'eternal' decision to create something in time really a 'change'?

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
Here you are defining action as a change. Is acting on an 'eternal' decision to create something in time really a 'change'?

That is, in a nutshell, what it means to act. Also note that making a decision is, itself, an act. So deciding to do something and then doing it constitutes at least two separate actions.

I think that what Stephen T-B is getting at is that you cannot simply propose an entire realm ("outside of time") and then assume that certain characteristics of our reality exist there (for example, the ability to take actions) but that certain other characteristics upon which the first group is known to depend do not. For example, the existence of change or the passage of time.

In the real world, nothing can take any action without being changed as a consequence of that action in some way. Everything you do as well as everything that is done to you and everything you perceive being done changes you in some way. Moreover, both actions and change are events: they occur over a period of time. How you can justify exporting action to some alternative god-realm without also exporting all of the things upon which action depends is something you need to be able to explain if you want your notion to have any coherence or semblance of plausibility.

[Stephen T-B]

Let’s see...

First of all, there is no Before and no After in the timeless dimension where a changeless god resides.
Nothing can occur because any occurrence implies a Before.

Secondly, “acting on an ‘eternal’ decision” implies a change from the god’s pre-action state to its post-action state.

But God is changeless...

Is he?

It makes better sense (but not much) if he isn’t.
The creation and demise of the universe may be one of an infinite number of similar, or even identical events taking place in eternity, and since the coming and going of universes give eternity the element of time, an eternal god must be subject to Time, just as we are. And subject to change, since the two things are interrelated.
Furthermore, a god can’t have created eternity because there’s no point at which eternity didn’t exist.

[stretch]

Originally posted by fishbulb
That is, in a nutshell, what it means to act. Also note that making a decision is, itself, an act. So deciding to do something and then doing it constitutes at least two separate actions.

I think that what Stephen T-B is getting at is that you cannot simply propose an entire realm ("outside of time") and then assume that certain characteristics of our reality exist there (for example, the ability to take actions) but that certain other characteristics upon which the first group is known to depend do not. For example, the existence of change or the passage of time.

In the real world, nothing can take any action without being changed as a consequence of that action in some way. Everything you do as well as everything that is done to you and everything you perceive being done changes you in some way. Moreover, both actions and change are events: they occur over a period of time. How you can justify exporting action to some alternative god-realm without also exporting all of the things upon which action depends is something you need to be able to explain if you want your notion to have any coherence or semblance of plausibility.

It's hard to hypothesize about the characteristics of something out of time from within in a world that is in time ... even finding an appropriate vocabulary is problematic.

But we do have separate words for action and change, so I'll stick with these words.

In this hypothetical scenario, a 'timeless' being creates 'time' along with matter. Time and matter are 'outside' of this being and so do not constrain this being. The actions do not change this being because they are creating things outside of this being.

And, yup, I know this doesn't address anything about the making a decision question. Gotta head out for the afternoon ... and gotta think ... talk to ya later. :)

(Of course, as a theist, I always have the lazy way out of just saying it's a mystery ... but I ain't gonna use that one since it's meaningless in terms of philosophizing. )

[Calzaer]

Can you really call our time subjective?

Absolutely. Time is not only subjective, but relative. Read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Time is not a constant.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
...even finding an appropriate vocabulary is problematic.

If we don't understand the meaning of the words we use, we don't understand what we're talking about.

But we do have separate words for action and change, so I'll stick with these words.

Quite rightly too. An action is the application of force or influence on some thing. Change is the alteration from one state to another. But clearly, in order to act, we must move from one state (pre-action) to another (acting), which is a change. So action would seem to involve change.

In this hypothetical scenario, a 'timeless' being creates 'time' along with matter. Time and matter are 'outside' of this being and so do not constrain this being. The actions do not change this being because they are creating things outside of this being.

Define "timeless being." Define what it means to "create time." Define what it means to "create matter." Define what it means for time and matter to be "outside of a being."

Your scenario does not make sense because you throw about words willy-nilly with nary a care for what they mean. I can't even evaluate your scenario because I have no clue what you mean by the words you use, and I'll wager you don't really know either.

The burning question I have is this: how is it that people think that they can even begin to comprehend a reality in which the rules of our Universe with respect to time, space, existence, matter, and so forth, do not apply? The very fact that we resort to awkward constructions like "existing without time" when existing is, by its very nature, something that happens over time should be a clue that we are simply inventing names for concepts that make no sense.

[Spenser]

Originally by fishbulb
If we don't understand the meaning of the words we use, we don't understand what we're talking about.

Well put!

[stretch]

Originally posted by fishbulb

Quite rightly too. An action is the application of force or influence on some thing. Change is the alteration from one state to another. But clearly, in order to act, we must move from one state (pre-action) to another (acting), which is a change. So action would seem to involve change.

An action upon something changes the state of what has been acted upon. Like you said it 'influences' some thing.

Is it not logically possible for an action to not 'influence' the actor? I think it comes down to whether or not the pre-action and action states of the actor have any differences.



Define "timeless being." Define what it means to "create time." Define what it means to "create matter." Define what it means for time and matter to be "outside of a being."


Timeless being: a being who always and everywhere has the same characteristics.

Create time: can only be done in conjunction with creating matter. See "create matter"

Create matter: bring matter into existence from non-existence. If matter has the capacity to change, it must be able to take on more than one state of being. Without anything having any capacity to change, the concept of 'time' is meaningless. For definitions of time ... see the philosophy forum .....

Time and matter being outside of a being means that they are not a part of that being. They are distinct from one another.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
An action upon something changes the state of what has been acted upon. Like you said it 'influences' some thing.

Is it not logically possible for an action to not 'influence' the actor? I think it comes down to whether or not the pre-action and action states of the actor have any differences.

Acting is a process of change. Can you provide me with an example of an action you or someone else took that did not involve a change of state? Can you give an example of any observable thing whose state is not constantly in a state of change?

Timeless being: a being who always and everywhere has the same characteristics.


Create time: can only be done in conjunction with creating matter. See "create matter"

Create matter: bring matter into existence from non-existence. If matter has the capacity to change, it must be able to take on more than one state of being. Without anything having any capacity to change, the concept of 'time' is meaningless. For definitions of time ... see the philosophy forum .....


Time and matter being outside of a being means that they are not a part of that being. They are distinct from one another.

So, I can paraphrase your previous statement as:

In this hypothetical scenario, a being who is everywhere and at every time exactly the same brings matter into existence where there previously was none and with it, time. Time and matter are not part of this being (In other words, this being is not made of matter nor does it exist over time?)

I don't really see us getting any farther than we were. The concept of existence is tied to matter, space, and time. What it means to exist is to be (1) a material entity that (2) occupies space (3) over time. Lacking any one of these three characteristics would appear to imply not only a lack of the other two, but also fail to meet the definition of existence.

You talk about a being that does not change and does not exist through time, and yet you have this being doing things. To do something involves acting over a period of time. Acting involves a change from one state to another (over time). Even if the change is very small and the action is very quick, it still involves some change over some span of time. The very fact that you have to resort to using words that imply space, time, matter, and change to discuss something that is supposed to explicitly lack these characteristics should be a clue that the concept is nonsensical.

Compare this with the concept of Santa Claus. We know that Santa Claus isn't real, but I can define him in a way that you can understand and evaluate. We say that we're pretty sure that Santa Claus isn't real because a number of points in the definition of Santa Claus don't jibe with our observations: there is no toy factory at the North Pole; we've been there and haven't seen it. The physical problems of delivering toys to even a neighbourhood of children, let alone the entire world, in only a few hours by breaking into every home without causing any damage and without waking anyone; and the fact that people have confessed to leaving the presents allegedly left by Santa lead us to conclude that the Santa hypothesis is false.

By contrast, we can't even evalluate your claim because we can't make sense of it. The very words you use seem to contradict the point you try to make. We can at least imagine Santa Claus zipping across the world delivering toys at a signficant fraction of the speed of light; even imagining a being existing and doing things, but not being composed of matter or having time in which to do those things, seems an exercise in futility.

[Cross Examiner]

Good evening fishbulb. Fishbulb? Did you get that name from the Simpsons episode where Homer's head looked like the corporate logo for a Japanese soap conglomerate?

Spenser directed me here to check out the rhubarb. I've read your last post, which is apparently decisive for lack of objection. We have a parallel thread that is also about to conclude, also for apparent lack of objection, on the potential conflict between free will and omniscience, where the nature of time and the eternal were once hotly contested. I refer you back to this point for some context:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1080756#post1080756

I do have some questions for you though, if you would oblige:

The concept of existence is tied to matter, space, and time. What it means to exist is to be (1) a material entity that (2) occupies space (3) over time

OK, so if I accept your definition, for now, we can establish that God cannot possibly exist. You’ll kindly notice however that your definition only maps out what it is to exist in this universe only, in this reality that we as humans are accustomed to; time, space, and matter (I’ll also note here that particle physicists are deducing additional dimensions in this universe, beyond the traditional 3 spatial and one temporal, stay tuned). Doesn’t that present a problem for defining a God that is necessarily beyond, greater than mere time, space, and matter, the very Creator and originator of such things? Wittgenstein's net anyone? Can the subset fully define the superset? Houston, we have a problem, you’ll not catch a whale with a fisherman’s net.

Is your criteria above, though very logical, the only for existence? The dictionary says to exist is:
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).
Can God have “being”, can He “be real” if He is eternal and completely immaterial (1 Timothy 1:17)? No! Well, at least not in this universe/reality He can’t be. So we can establish that God, as traditionally described, could not have possibly originated in this universe, solely in this universe. Does anyone still see a problem? Are all the dots being connected?

Lacking any one of these three characteristics would appear to imply not only a lack of the other two, but also fail to meet the definition of existence

Sure, according to your strained definition of existence, which is a problematic Procrustean Bed, God does not exist. I, and The American Heritage Dictionary, respectfully disagree that God must conform to your notion of existence.

You talk about a being that does not change and does not exist through time, and yet you have this being doing things.

When He enters the time domain, He does things in the time domain per the rules of our universe. When Neo enters the Matrix, he does things in the Matrix per the rules of the Matrix. The rules of the Matrix have no power in the “real world”. Time has no power in eternity, by the very definition of eternity.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, please read this thread and answer/object there:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57799&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
I recommend reading the entire thread for continuity and context.

To do something involves acting over a period of time

I agree. In this universe action requires some increment of time.

Acting involves a change from one state to another (over time). Even if the change is very small and the action is very quick, it still involves some change over some span of time.

I agree. In this universe all action, even small or quick action, requires some increment of time.

The very fact that you have to resort to using words that imply space, time, matter, and change to discuss something that is supposed to explicitly lack these characteristics should be a clue that the concept is nonsensical.

By definition (see below) God is not finite nor is he tangible. Things can be defined well by what they are not. Take atheism for example ;).

http://www.truthzone.co.uk/WHC02xAttributes.htm
Compare this with the concept of Santa Claus. We know that Santa Claus isn't real, but I can define him in a way that you can understand and evaluate. We say that we're pretty sure that Santa Claus isn't real because a number of points in the definition of Santa Claus don't jibe with our observations: there is no toy factory at the North Pole; we've been there and haven't seen it. The physical problems of delivering toys to even a neighbourhood of children, let alone the entire world, in only a few hours by breaking into every home without causing any damage and without waking anyone; and the fact that people have confessed to leaving the presents allegedly left by Santa lead us to conclude that the Santa hypothesis is false.

Neat example, but it's a basket of fruit (mostly apples and oranges). What immediately comes to mind as a significant and telling difference between God and Santa Clause? Santa Clause necessarily “exists” in the universe yet God necessarily exists wholly apart from it, as Creator. Santa Clause, if he were to exist, would have to conform to your definition of existence (space, time, matter) since he necessarily must exist in this universe, by his very definition and the tradition that is associated with him. If God is, then He necessarily is beyond this universe for the same reasons; God need not necessarily conform to our finite understanding of what it is to exist (remember Wittgenstein?).

Must a football game conform to the rules of the baseball game? Can it even do so? Why? Because then football becomes baseball. Can finite fully circumscribe eternal? Can God become not-God? Absurdity! Just because we can't fully comprehend, now, the eternal does not mean the notion is unitelligable or without use. Or, what then is the point of cosmology? One concession: the problem of eternal God not conforming to finite existence parameters is not a problem at all... unless the universe, or time itself, is eternal. However, such arguments are far from convincing, often raising more problems than they solve; necessarily challenging the more respected notions of the Big Bang, temporal relativity, 2nd law of thermo etc.…for another time perhaps? What then, now? The question becomes something altogether different, is God or is He not?

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Good evening fishbulb. Fishbulb? Did you get that name from the Simpsons episode where Homer's head looked like the corporate logo for a Japanese soap conglomerate?

Yes.

I do have some questions for you though, if you would oblige:

I shall answer to the best of my ability.


OK, so if I accept your definition, for now, we can establish that God cannot possibly exist. You’ll kindly notice however that your definition only maps out what it is to exist in this universe only, in this reality that we as humans are accustomed to; time, space, and matter (I’ll also note here that particle physicists are deducing additional dimensions in this universe, beyond the traditional 3 spatial and one temporal, stay tuned). Doesn’t that present a problem for defining a God that is necessarily beyond, greater than mere time, space, and matter, the very Creator and originator of such things?

It certainly does. But I would not be so bold as to say that God doesn't exist because you can't come up with a definition of God that I can understand. What I am saying is: if you have to resort to incomprehensible concepts in order to define "God" then your concept of "God" is also incomprehensible. If you (the generic you, not you specifically) can't understand a concept, how could you possibly make an intelligent argument in favour of that concept?

Our concept of existence is intimately bound to the Universe, whether we recognize this explicitly or not. If someone proposes something as existing outside of the Universe, I have to question, first, does he really understand what he is talking about, or is he just using words that, at first pass, sound reasonable but which don't form a coherent sentence when examined more closely. I can explain what it means for a being to exist in terms of space, time, and matter; can anyone explain what it means for a being to exist without these characteristics?

Moreover, I would want to know on what grounds anyone would draw the conclusion that things can and do "exist" outside of the Universe. When I look out my window, I see a flagpole. I can verify the existence of this flagpole with my eyes. I can go outside and touch it, corroborating my vision with my sense of touch. I can also corroborate my observation with others. How does one go about determining the existence of something that cannot be sensed, either directly or indirectly?

Is your criteria above, though very logical, the only for existence? The dictionary says to exist is:
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).
Can God have “being”, can He “be real” if He is eternal and completely immaterial (1 Timothy 1:17)? No! Well, at least not in this universe/reality He can’t be. So we can establish that God, as traditionally described, could not have possibly originated in this universe, solely in this universe. Does anyone still see a problem? Are all the dots being connected?

You are begging the question. You just assume that God exists and yet can't be of this Universe. But you haven't explained what it means to exist and not be of this Universe, so your concept of God is incoherent.

Sure, according to your strained definition of existence, which is a problematic Procrustean Bed, God does not exist. I, and The American Heritage Dictionary, respectfully disagree that God must conform to your notion of existence.

The two definitions you provided that correspond to beings are:

1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.

The others correspond to phenomena, ideas, situations, and states. These are not beings: they do not act; don't confuse the definition of what it means for a state (e.g. of war) to exist with what it means for a being to exist.

If you can explain how it is possible for a being to meet either of these two definitions without occupying space and time and without consisting of matter, you may enlighten me.

When He enters the time domain, He does things in the time domain per the rules of our universe. When Neo enters the Matrix, he does things in the Matrix per the rules of the Matrix. The rules of the Matrix have no power in the “real world”. Time has no power in eternity, by the very definition of eternity.

I hate Matrix analogies, and this is not even a good one because the Matrix as proposed is part of the real world: it is a physical computer that works by passing physical electrons through physical circuits, which occupy space, over time.

The problem here is that you simply assume that God exists and that he can somehow move between two realities, but you can't explain the nature of this other reality or God in a comprehensible way, nor can you describe how the transition is made from one world to the other. That is not to say that there is no such thing as God, only that your concept of god doesn't make sense when held up to scrutiny. That is the problem: you have to assume that we actually know things that, it seems, are impossible for us to know.



By definition (see below) God is not finite nor is he tangible. Things can be defined well by what they are not. Take atheism for example ;).

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. I lack belief in God, therefore I am an atheist.

God is someone who is not finite or tangible. Satan is not finite nor is he tangible. Therefore, Satan is God. Jesus was finite and tangible. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

Your analogy misses the point. An atheist is defined in a positive way: anyone who lacks quality X is an atheist. Defining God by saying "not finite and not tangible" does not mean "anyone who is not finite and not tangible is God." Moreover, the concept of a being existing and yet not believing in God is a coherent one: we can understand what that means and even provide actual specimens. The concept of a being existing and not being tangible is not coherent: apart from repeating our definition, we cannot, it would seem, explain what that really means, nor can we offer an actual example.


[Skip the Santa part] If God is, then He necessarily is beyond this universe for the same reasons; God need not necessarily conform to our finite understanding of what it is to exist (remember Wittgenstein?).

If, if, if. If God exists, then he exists. If he doesn't, then he doesn't. If your definition of the word "exists" does not allow us to analyze the claim "God exists" then it is an incoherent definition. What you are essentially saying is: "God (may) exist, but I don't know what 'exist' means." That's a non-statement. If you don't know what you mean by "exist," then any statement you make that employs the word is meaningless: we can't evaluate whether it is true or false.

My elementary school librarian once admonished my grade 1 class to "never use a word if you don't know what it means." Good advice.

[stretch]

Hi Fishbulb,

Originally posted by fishbulb
Acting is a process of change. Can you provide me with an example of an action you or someone else took that did not involve a change of state? Can you give an example of any observable thing whose state is not constantly in a state of change?

Being a material being, I cannot personally take actions without changing my state. But then again, we're not hypothesizing about a material being, so it doesnt' really matter in terms of whether or not the concept of God requires God to be subject to a problem of infinite regress.




So, I can paraphrase your previous statement as:

In this hypothetical scenario, a being who is everywhere and at every time exactly the same brings matter into existence where there previously was none and with it, time. Time and matter are not part of this being (In other words, this being is not made of matter nor does it exist over time?)

Yup, that would do.


I don't really see us getting any farther than we were. The concept of existence is tied to matter, space, and time. What it means to exist is to be (1) a material entity that (2) occupies space (3) over time. Lacking any one of these three characteristics would appear to imply not only a lack of the other two, but also fail to meet the definition of existence.


And this is where I don't see us getting any farther. If you define existence in this way, then the (monotheistic) concept of (the) God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for example), cannot even theoretically have existence, and the question of infinite regress becomes moot.




You talk about a being that does not change and does not exist through time, and yet you have this being doing things. To do something involves acting over a period of time. Acting involves a change from one state to another (over time). Even if the change is very small and the action is very quick, it still involves some change over some span of time. The very fact that you have to resort to using words that imply space, time, matter, and change to discuss something that is supposed to explicitly lack these characteristics should be a clue that the concept is nonsensical.

Compare this with the concept of Santa Claus. We know that Santa Claus isn't real, but I can define him in a way that you can understand and evaluate. We say that we're pretty sure that Santa Claus isn't real because a number of points in the definition of Santa Claus don't jibe with our observations: there is no toy factory at the North Pole; we've been there and haven't seen it. The physical problems of delivering toys to even a neighbourhood of children, let alone the entire world, in only a few hours by breaking into every home without causing any damage and without waking anyone; and the fact that people have confessed to leaving the presents allegedly left by Santa lead us to conclude that the Santa hypothesis is false.

By contrast, we can't even evalluate your claim because we can't make sense of it. The very words you use seem to contradict the point you try to make. We can at least imagine Santa Claus zipping across the world delivering toys at a signficant fraction of the speed of light; even imagining a being existing and doing things, but not being composed of matter or having time in which to do those things, seems an exercise in futility.

If you want, we can introduce terms like essence, substance and accident (not my favourite terms, but possibly useful in this context and fairly standard terms in many metaphysical schools of thought ...) But, with the definition of existence that you have proposed, I don't see the point of doing so right now ...

[Cross Examiner]

Bonjour et bon matin, mes amis, fishbulb, stretch two fine canucks...its still morning here, and I'm on PST. fishbulb, You write:

if you have to resort to incomprehensible concepts in order to define "God" then your concept of "God" is also incomprehensible. If you (the generic you, not you specifically) can't understand a concept, how could you possibly make an intelligent argument in favour of that concept?

If you preclude that anything may exist in another dimension in this universe, or outside this universe, or arbitrarily restrict your discourse to only that which can be observed, empirically, ignoring revelation or deduction as means of understanding, then we’ve no basis to proceed, as stretch has astutely noted. Personally speaking, precluding anything with a limited, finite understanding is bad philosophy.

An analogy. Our understanding is finite. Currently speaking, we know only so much, collectively, as a species. Our collective knowledge of the universe is a circle that expands, perhaps even geometrically as the years progress, on the plane of what can be known in totality. The knowledge of all reality, this universe, its dimensions and perhaps other universes and other dimensions, is this plane. As our knowledge of reality grows so does the diameter of our circle, increasing the circumference of the circle, which is contact with the unknown. The more we know, the more we are exposed to the unknown. So the more we know, the more less we truly understand. This is what it is to be finite and to wrestle with the infinite. Physics is necessary, but so is metaphysics. In fact, metaphysics exists precisely because physics fails to provide all the answers.

Our concept of existence is intimately bound to the Universe, whether we recognize this explicitly or not

Our concept? Our only concept? I assume based on your confined definition of exist (matter, space, time) that you subscribe to a materialist or similar to materialist philosophy? Materialism, the philosophy of physicality, fails at its cardinal calling to explain observable phenomena in purely empirical terms. If this universe is the only universe, and this universe is only matter, space and time (physical) then the problems of First Cause, the mind (e.g. awareness, cognition, abstraction, intuition), and abiogenesis can be resolved with physics alone, without resorting to metaphysics, no?

If someone proposes something as existing outside of the Universe, I have to question, first, does he really understand what he is talking about, or is he just using words that, at first pass, sound reasonable but which don't form a coherent sentence when examined more closely

Can Mr. Hawking form a coherent sentence?¨ Multiverse? Imaginary time? Is all of cosmology...incoherent?

I can explain what it means for a being to exist in terms of space, time, and matter; can anyone explain what it means for a being to exist without these characteristics?

Can anyone coherently explain `A only using that which defines A? Procrustean Bed. God's reality (infinite, immaterial) is the antithesis of ours (finite, material). Antithesis is coherent for explanatory purpose. A being exists in this universe; therefore to not exist in this universe is to not be. Cyclical reasoning.

Moreover, I would want to know on what grounds anyone would draw the conclusion that things can and do "exist" outside of the Universe. When I look out my window, I see a flagpole

Is the "perfect flagpole", just because such a thing does not exist in this universe, necessarily incoherent (invoking Plato here)? Or, Is the abstract necessarily incoherent? Must only the concrete, the empirical, be the only object of discussion?

I can verify the existence of this flagpole with my eyes. I can go outside and touch it, corroborating my vision with my sense of touch. I can also corroborate my observation with others. How does one go about determining the existence of something that cannot be sensed, either directly or indirectly?

Event horizons do not exist because you, nor any other, can see or touch them? How many other things cannot be seen or touched yet are?

Moreover, I would want to know on what grounds anyone would draw the conclusion that things can and do "exist" outside of the Universe.

When purely naturalistic means fail to explain the big questions of life, we may logically deduce causes that exceed our mere perceptions.

When I look out my window, I see a flagpole. I can verify the existence of this flagpole with my eyes. I can go outside and touch it, corroborating my vision with my sense of touch. I can also corroborate my observation with others. How does one go about determining the existence of something that cannot be sensed, either directly or indirectly?

Deduction. Take the singularity for example.

You are begging the question. You just assume that God exists and yet can't be of this Universe. But you haven't explained what it means to exist and not be of this Universe, so your concept of God is incoherent.

You can't ask for `A purely in terms of A. One might legitimately say your definition of existence is arbitrary.

Depending upon how you define “real”, which is typically presupposed by your particular philosophy, God conforms to the dictionary's definition, which should be inherently authoritative (unless you're a nihilist or some such), of existence:

To have actual being; be real.

That is, if one allows that reality is more than what we can currently sense experientially, also that which we may deduce or accept by revelation, then real is broad. So, your philosophical presupposition is crucial. If you're a strict materialist, well, good luck explaining the universe coherently.

I think it is fair to say that from materialist perspective, the notion of eternal is incoherent. Hm. This discussion invariably leads to cosmology, and for me, some version of the Kalam argument. I’ll stop here so we don’t get transferred elsewhere.

If you can explain how it is possible for a being to meet either of these two definitions without occupying space and time and without consisting of matter, you may enlighten me.

God is the antithesis of man. If man is -1, then God is 1. If you live in the land of negative, and preclude the land of the positive, you’ll have a hard time with 1. Similarly, if you were two dimensional, a sphere would not exist, but we, being 3 (perhaps 4 if you consider space-time a true dimension) dimensional know better. What? Ok, just read this:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Flatland.html

God is someone who is not finite or tangible. Satan is not finite nor is he tangible. Therefore, Satan is God. Jesus was finite and tangible. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

Satan, is not eternal, among other shortcomings, therefore Satan is not God. Jesus had a finite and tangible body in this universe but always existed as the Word of God (John 1).

Your analogy misses the point. An atheist is defined in a positive way: anyone who lacks quality X is an atheist. Defining God by saying "not finite and not tangible" does not mean "anyone who is not finite and not tangible is God."

Infinite and immaterial are intrinsic attributes of God, but there is more to Him. Check it:

http://www.truthzone.co.uk/WHC02xAttributes.htm

We're going to move quickly into epistemology, from here, I suspect.

I hate Matrix analogies, and this is not even a good one because the Matrix as proposed is part of the real world: it is a physical computer that works by passing physical electrons through physical circuits, which occupy space, over time.

I guess no analogy is "good", if you alone are the one who defines what a good analogy is. The Matrix is a reality within a greater reality, a subset of the superset. You say the Matrix is not a separate reality? It's just energy in motion (voltage changes on a PCB + capacitance in the superconductors of a microprocessor) within the "real world?" Then it stands to reason that the events that occur in the Matrix would have no affect, no baring upon the "real world". Yet this is not so. To die in the Matrix equates to dying in the real world. Does this tell against materialism? No, only that the Matrix analogy is "good" for envisioning how a reality subset and a reality superset might interact, giving coherence to those who struggle to understand what reality transcending matter might entail. But I digress.

On an aside, where you (not you, generically speaking, as “one might” etc.) set the bar for that which might convince you is of your own choosing. It is not absolute at all. The problem is, if you want empirical certainty, 100% mapped out before you trust God, then if you believe because you have no other choice than to believe your eyes, you are effectively coerced into heaven negating the idea of free will and faith. Though I believe that many would still doubt for reasons of stubborn will + rationalization but I digress again.

The concept of a being existing and not being tangible is not coherent: apart from repeating our definition, we cannot, it would seem, explain what that really means, nor can we offer an actual example.

Some examples. You want me to entertain the notion of football? That is incoherent. I can touch a baseball, steal second, and throw to the plate. Can I do these things in football? Can you even explain to me what football means in terms of baseball? No? By the very definition of baseball, and my experience with such, your notion of football is meaningless to me. Even closer, the squirrel gives no indication that it is aware that man has lofty thoughts. The squirrel cannot even approach such an idea. Where to begin? Nuts. Trees. Avoid predators. Eat. Sleep. Mate. Excrete. This is the essential program of the squirrel. All outside of this is incoherent. So, to the squirrel, such things beyond this program do not exist, like the lofty thoughts of men. In fact, what is man? All they see is a tall predator, unless he passes out nuts, in which case he is a mere vending machine. We know better. Our reality is greater than theirs.

It is naturalistic fallacy, a category error in logic, to insist all that is must necessarily be material. My teacher taught me to beware the Procrustean Bed: do not let presupposition lead you, let deduction lead you to your supposition.

A parting thought on materialism’s failure to account for the soul-like phenomena:

“Anthropological Materialism is completely disproved by demonstrating for psychical activities a simple, spiritual substance distinct from the body -- i.e. the soul. Reason assumes the existence of a simple being, since a multiplicity of atoms can possess no unitary, indivisible thought, and cannot compare two ideas or two psychical states. That which makes the comparison must have simultaneously in itself both the states. But a material atom cannot have two different conditions simultaneously, cannot for example simultaneously execute two different motions. Thus, it must be an immaterial being which makes the comparison. The comparison itself, the perception of the identity or difference, likewise the idea of necessity and the idea of a pure spirit, are so abstract and metaphysical that a material being cannot be their subject”

Read “Minds, Machines, and Godel" by J. R. Lucas for more info.

Can you rightly demand a purely natural basis for the supernatural? Can you rightly exclude the supernatural since it is not wholly natural? Absurd! I might add here that the monotheistic notion of God eternal, among other heretofore unseen and enlightened qualities, significantly predates our Greek friends, so assigning God such attributes as eternal is anything but an ad hoc response to criticism. Rather revolutionary notions of the supernatural for a mere Jewish shepherd to concoct in his little brain, eh? Time to go see those San Diego Padres play some ball (woohoo, what a team), baseball that is :). Have a good day all.

Regards,
BGiC

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Depending upon how you define “real”, which is typically presupposed by your particular philosophy, God conforms to the dictionary's definition, which should be inherently authoritative (unless you're a nihilist or some such), of existence:

To have actual being; be real.


To have actual being; be real

This implies physicality and any notion that this could possibly refer to something immaterial is stretching the imagination beyond all common sense limits.

Just to be on the safe side, lets look up the definition for the word actual.

Actual

1.) Existing and not merely potential or possible.

2.) Being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.
Based on fact: an actual account of the accident.

Actual (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=actual)

Now lets look at ye olde dictionary to find out what it means to be real, shall we.

Real

1.)
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.

6.) Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.


8.) Physics. Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.

Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=real)

emphasis mine

I included only those entries which dealt with the context of this discussion.

So it seems that God does not conform to the dictionary defintion of what it means to exist. Therefore, God does not exist. ;)

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Jobar
would also seem to require an infinite chain of reductions.

BRILLIANT IDEA.

Thanks jobar, I shall investigate this idea. Fascinating way of putting the parsimony problem, absolutely fantastic. What a goldmine!

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
Being a material being, I cannot personally take actions without changing my state. But then again, we're not hypothesizing about a material being, so it doesnt' really matter in terms of whether or not the concept of God requires God to be subject to a problem of infinite regress.

You are still missing the point. I see nothing wrong with supposing that there may be things whose natures are completely alien to our Universe. The point that I am making is that you cannot coherently conceive of such beinge because their natures are alien to our Universe, nor can you perceive such things. You cannot imagine what such things might be like because they fall outside of your frame of reference. You have no reason to suspect that such things exist. The fact that you have to resort to using terms that explicity deny what you propose to be an essential characteristic of these beings.

It is not that such things cannot exist, it is that you cannot perceive them, talk about them or think about them in a coherent manner. As such, there can be no coherent discussion about such entities, let alone any grounds to suspect they exist.

[stretch]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
To have actual being; be real

This implies physicality and any notion that this could possibly refer to something immaterial is stretching the imagination beyond all common sense limits.

Just to be on the safe side, lets look up the definition for the word actual.

Actual

1.) Existing and not merely potential or possible.

2.) Being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.
Based on fact: an actual account of the accident.

Actual (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=actual)

Now lets look at ye olde dictionary to find out what it means to be real, shall we.

Real

1.)
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.

6.) Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.


8.) Physics. Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.

Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=real)

emphasis mine

I included only those entries which dealt with the context of this discussion.

So it seems that God does not conform to the dictionary defintion of what it means to exist. Therefore, God does not exist. ;)

Proof via dictionary. That's a new one. :rolleyes:

Do you speak any French? If so, you would probably be able to tell that the word 'actual' most likely came from the French (which came from the Latin). Definition number 2 is closest to the original meanings in French and Latin and fits best here.

(And I think you accidentally merged definitions 2 and 3 of actual ... they are separate uses of the word.)

By the way, being real does not imply physicality. Or are not real numbers real? Are invisible quarks real?

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
If you preclude that anything may exist in another dimension in this universe, or outside this universe, or arbitrarily restrict your discourse to only that which can be observed, empirically, ignoring revelation or deduction as means of understanding, then we’ve no basis to proceed, as stretch has astutely noted. Personally speaking, precluding anything with a limited, finite understanding is bad philosophy.

Perhaps you should define what you think it means for an entity to exist, if you think that a temporal, material requirement is too restrictive.


An analogy. Our understanding is finite. Currently speaking, we know only so much, collectively, as a species. Our collective knowledge of the universe is a circle that expands, perhaps even geometrically as the years progress, on the plane of what can be known in totality. The knowledge of all reality, this universe, its dimensions and perhaps other universes and other dimensions, is this plane. As our knowledge of reality grows so does the diameter of our circle, increasing the circumference of the circle, which is contact with the unknown. The more we know, the more we are exposed to the unknown. So the more we know, the more less we truly understand.

Nonsense. Our understanding of the Universe has grown by leaps and bounds. While we are now aware that there are many more facts we do not know than we previously thought, our understanding of how the Universe works has only increased.

This is what it is to be finite and to wrestle with the infinite. Physics is necessary, but so is metaphysics. In fact, metaphysics exists precisely because physics fails to provide all the answers.

I won't dispute the second point. But I would suggest that the reason science has failed to produce answers to every question humans ask is that science is concerned with providing answers which are correct, as opposed to merely emotionally satisfying.

Our concept? Our only concept? I assume based on your confined definition of exist (matter, space, time) that you subscribe to a materialist or similar to materialist philosophy?

You are free to provide your own definition of existence if you wish, but keep in mind that a definition is of little use if you cannot apply it to an example.

Event horizons do not exist because you, nor any other, can see or touch them? How many other things cannot be seen or touched yet are?

Name something that we know exists yet we have failed to observe.

.
.
.

Can you rightly demand a purely natural basis for the supernatural?

That is not it at all. If you are going to propose the existence of anything, whether it is material or immaterial; natural or supernatural; I have every right to demand three things from you:

(1) A coherent definition of the thing you propose exists. If you cannot provide a definition that is coherent, then you are not providing a definition of anything. Words are not magical. Definitions refer to things only because we can make a connection between the words and some thing. If we cannot make sense of the words, the definition is meaningless. It is not that the statement, "there exists a being who exists outside of time" if false; it is that the statement is meaningless.

(2) A reason why you think the thing exists. Simply saying that you believe in some exceptional phenomena, whether it is a god, intelligent life on other planets, a black hole, or plate tectonics (the latter two having been confirmed but which were all extraordinary claims when they were first made) is insufficient to merit taking the claim seriously. You need a credible reason that can stand up to scrutiny.

(3) A proposed methodology for reconciling your definition with the actual phenomena. In other words, you need to be able to explain how we could take a specimen, apply your the definition of your entity or phenomenon to it, and determine whether or not our specimen meets the criteria of your definition. If you cannnot think of a way to do this, then you have a claim that cannot be evaluated by anyone, including you.

People asserting the existence of supernatural entities like "unchanging gods" fail to fulfill any of these criteria. They do not provide meaningful definitions. The reasons they provide for believing that such things exist are extremely dubious, and no one has ever proposed a test that we can conduct to determine whether or not a subject is unchanging.

[stretch]

Originally posted by fishbulb
You are still missing the point. I see nothing wrong with supposing that there may be things whose natures are completely alien to our Universe. The point that I am making is that you cannot coherently conceive of such beinge because their natures are alien to our Universe, nor can you perceive such things. You cannot imagine what such things might be like because they fall outside of your frame of reference. You have no reason to suspect that such things exist. The fact that you have to resort to using terms that explicity deny what you propose to be an essential characteristic of these beings.

It is not that such things cannot exist, it is that you cannot perceive them, talk about them or think about them in a coherent manner. As such, there can be no coherent discussion about such entities, let alone any grounds to suspect they exist.

(1) I'm not positing anything about something completely alien to our universe. If we are talking about a first-cause omni-fill-in-the-blank God who might exist, such a God would have an existence that is not contingent on the universe but would not be 'alien' to the universe.

(2) You think that such a God, even if existent cannot be perceived. How are you defining perception? I assume that it would rule out anything that a theist would regard as perception of God.

(3) Thanks for telling me that I have no reason to suspect that such a being might exist. Problem is solved. I'm an atheist now. First-cause arguments that led to the original infinite regress argument in the beginning (which were not the only reason for my belief) leave absolutely no room for any possibility of God.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by stretch
Do you speak any French? If so, you would probably be able to tell that the word 'actual' most likely came from the French (which came from the Latin). Definition number 2 is closest to the original meanings in French and Latin and fits best here.

Well, if we go by definition #2 of actual, we find..

Being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that God has being, exists, or is acting at the present moment, so he/she/it does not meet the criteria for being real and therefore does not meet the definition of having existence. Since God does not meet the criteria for having existence, he/she/it does not meet the definition for being real.

(And I think you accidentally merged definitions 2 and 3 of actual ... they are separate uses of the word.)

Indeed. :p

By the way, being real does not imply physicality. Or are not real numbers real?

Philosophically speaking, yes, numbers are real because they exist objectively in the world regardless of thought or language. God does not meet this criteria, so therefore he/she/it is not real.

Are invisible quarks real?

Is there objective, verifiable evidence that invisible quarks exist and are acting at the present moment? If yes, then they are real. If no, then they are not real.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
(1) I'm not positing anything about something completely alien to our universe. If we are talking about a first-cause omni-fill-in-the-blank God who might exist, such a God would have an existence that is not contingent on the universe but would not be 'alien' to the universe.

(2) You think that such a God, even if existent cannot be perceived. How are you defining perception? I assume that it would rule out anything that a theist would regard as perception of God.

(3) Thanks for telling me that I have no reason to suspect that such a being might exist. Problem is solved. I'm an atheist now. First-cause arguments that led to the original infinite regress argument in the beginning (which were not the only reason for my belief) leave absolutely no room for any possibility of God.

It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god. It is a question of coherent versus incoherent definitions.

If you say that you think there exists some sort of god whose nature is a mystery to us, then fine. That's not inherently a problem. One might question you as to why you believe that, but we all know of the existence of all sorts of things and phenomena whose inner workings we do not fully understand. But we know these things because we are able to percieve them, either directly or indirectly.

However, if you say that you think that there exists a god and that this god does things but never changes nor does he operate within time, then you have some 'splaining to do. What does it mean to perform an action without changing (e.g. from a pre-action to post-action state) and to do so without time? Merely saying the words doesn't convey any meaning because the words seem to contradict one another. Simply redefining the words by removing the clause that actions require change doesn't seem to help, because it is still hard to imagine just what that would be like. Could you provide an example (it can be hypothetical, as long as it illustrates the difference between a conventional action and a timeless, changeless action) of a being performing an action and undergoing literally no change through the process, and doing it in literally zero time? How can you tell the difference between a being to whom time does not apply and one to whom it does? If you can't tell the difference between the two, how do you know there is a difference? How do you know that there aren't only beings to whom time applies?

A useful definition is one that you can apply to different things and make a determination about which ones fit the definition and which ones don't. (Or, at least, you can make a rough judgement about how closely an example fits the definition.) Otherwise, they're just words.

[Cross Examiner]

fishbulb,
I'm in non-verbose mode today. Don't take it personally.

Perhaps you should define what you think it means for an entity to exist, if you think that a temporal, material requirement is too restrictive.

Cogito, ergo, sum.

Nonsense. Our understanding of the Universe has grown by leaps and bounds.

And so has our contact with the unknown.

While we are now aware that there are many more facts we do not know than we previously thought, our understanding of how the Universe works has only increased.

And we find that the natural world is more complex, better designed then ever imagined, but it is the wise man knows he knows nothing. Grab the pebble from my hand...

I won't dispute the second point. But I would suggest that the reason science has failed to produce answers to every question humans ask is that science is concerned with providing answers which are correct, as opposed to merely emotionally satisfying.

Not that some things are inherently beyond the reach of science? If something exists beyond this universe, could we ever observe it? Isn't that a contradictory notion?

You are free to provide your own definition of existence if you wish, but keep in mind that a definition is of little use if you cannot apply it to an example.

Keep in mind an example eh (eh, check it, I can speak Canadian too)? I am certain, as is everyone who knows you, that your mind exists, and it exists brilliantly. Mind over matter ;)

Name something that we know exists yet we have failed to observe.

Space. Vacuum. Anti-particles. Gravity. Dark matter. Universal background matter. Thought. Entropy. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Deductive logic. Etc.

(1) A coherent definition of the thing you propose exists. If you cannot provide a definition that is coherent, then you are not providing a definition of anything. Words are not magical. Definitions refer to things only because we can make a connection between the words and some thing. If we cannot make sense of the words, the definition is meaningless. It is not that the statement, "there exists a being who exists outside of time" if false; it is that the statement is meaningless.

Let's start with the traditional "omnimax" definition of God. Atheists seems to understand this, not objecting to it as "incoherent", and even take it for granted their attempts to deconstruct the idea.

(2) A reason why you think the thing exists. Simply saying that you believe in some exceptional phenomena, whether it is a god, intelligent life on other planets, a black hole, or plate tectonics (the latter two having been confirmed but which were all extraordinary claims when they were first made) is insufficient to merit taking the claim seriously. You need a credible reason that can stand up to scrutiny.

Wow, broad request there. I don't even know where to start. Evident design in the universe implies a designer. ICR means the universe cannot be eternal itself. Abiogenesis is improbable to impossible but is required without intelligent intervention. The Bible which proclaims a personal God as creator is a credible source upon scrutiny. Lots more. Lots more. Perhaps hundreds to thousands of reasons and sub-reasons if I cared to enumerate them all. Proving the aforementioned is well-beyond the scope of this thread.

(3) A proposed methodology for reconciling your definition with the actual phenomena. In other words, you need to be able to explain how we could take a specimen, apply your the definition of your entity or phenomenon to it, and determine whether or not our specimen meets the criteria of your definition. If you cannnot think of a way to do this, then you have a claim that cannot be evaluated by anyone, including you.

Methodology? Deduction. Metaphysics does not translate easily into physics. I would be careful about trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick.

People asserting the existence of supernatural entities like "unchanging gods" fail to fulfill any of these criteria. They do not provide meaningful definitions. The reasons they provide for believing that such things exist are extremely dubious, and no one has ever proposed a test that we can conduct to determine whether or not a subject is unchanging.

A test? For God? Really, you're serious? I think we're going to continue talking past eachother. If you expect your finite mind to completely circumscribe the eternal God, well, I guess we can talk sports. Talk about a tangent. What was the point of this thread again?

Regards,

[fishbulb]

Ah well, I had thought this thread dead and buried, but...

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Cogito, ergo, sum.

If this is your definition of existence, then tell me: is it the case that rocks think, or is it the case that rocks do not exist?


And we find that the natural world is more complex, better designed then ever imagined, but it is the wise man knows he knows nothing. Grab the pebble from my hand...

We can dispense with the sophistry. A man who knows nothing is not wise. Human knowledge has increased by enormously over the course of our history. We are now aware of many things we do not understand which we were previously unaware existed, but that hardly translates into knowing less.


Not that some things are inherently beyond the reach of science? If something exists beyond this universe, could we ever observe it? Isn't that a contradictory notion?

There are certainly things which we suspect are real and yet may be fundamentally beyond empirical investigation. Of course, it is also possible that those things really don't exist; that's the point: we can't know. This is a red herring. Science does not try to answer all possible questions; it only answers questions that are within the realm of empirical observation. If you think that having lots of answers that may or may not be right instead of having some answers of which you can be highly confident and some "I don't knows," then this could be considered a weakness of science over theology.


Space. Vacuum. Anti-particles. Gravity. Dark matter. Universal background matter. Thought. Entropy. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Deductive logic. Etc.

I observe space every conscious moment of my life. It is what allows me to move.

A vacuum? Does such a thing exist? Outer space approaches a perfect vacuum, but certainly we can observe that.

Is dark matter known to exist, or just hypothesised? If we know it exists, how do we know? In fact, isn't dark matter stuff that we hypothesise we ought to find because of our calculations with regard to gravitational forces, but haven't actually observed so we can't verify what it is or, for that matter, that it is really there?

I don't know what universal background matter is. I can't comment on that.

Thought and entropy are processes. The same goes for deductive logic. Processes don't exist--at least not in the same sense that material things do--they happen. Moreover, we can and do observe these things happening; that's how we know they happen. If you couldn't observe yourself thinking, how would you know that you think?

The laws of thermodynamics are observations.

Perhaps you are interpreting "observe" as meaning "observe visually and directly." We can observe a thing by seeing it, but also by hearing, tasting, feeling, or smelling it. We can also observe things indirectly through the effects they have on other things, though until we do observe them directly, we cannot confirm that they are what we hypothesise they are.


Let's start with the traditional "omnimax" definition of God. Atheists seems to understand this, not objecting to it as "incoherent", and even take it for granted their attempts to deconstruct the idea.

There hardly seems to be a consensus among atheists that the omnimax god is coherent. There are countless threads on this board, for example, in which the exact opposite is argued. There is also no clear consensus among believers in an omnimax god as to what exactly that means.


Wow, broad request there. I don't even know where to start. Evident design in the universe implies a designer. ICR means the universe cannot be eternal itself. Abiogenesis is improbable to impossible but is required without intelligent intervention. The Bible which proclaims a personal God as creator is a credible source upon scrutiny. Lots more. Lots more. Perhaps hundreds to thousands of reasons and sub-reasons if I cared to enumerate them all. Proving the aforementioned is well-beyond the scope of this thread.

None of this constitutes evidence. Half of it is just question begging. How do you know that the Universe displays signs of design? What does an undesigned Universe look like? Lots of ancient texts proclaim the existence of lots of gods and other fantastic creatures. Why accept the Bible's word and reject the others?

Proving these claims is absolutely essential and yet proof has remained elusive despite centuries of trying.


Methodology? Deduction. Metaphysics does not translate easily into physics. I would be careful about trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick.

The fact that something may be inherently unprovable does not mean that we are justified in believing that it is true. It is just the opposite: we must always be suspicious of a claim that can never be backed up with solid evidence because evidence is the only way we can evaluate whether something is likely to be true or false. People have often used the inscrutable nature of claims as an excuse to believe in the ones they like the best or hold the most dear, but it is all an exercise in self-deception and wishful thinking.

A test? For God? Really, you're serious?

Yes. If you are going to claim that there is a god, you should provide a definition that I can apply to various entities in order to determine whether each one is or is not the god you claim exists. If you can't provide a definition to test against, how would you know if you saw (or otherwise experienced) god? And if you don't know whether or not you have ever seen or otherwise observed or experienced god, and nobody else knows whether or not they have either, then why would you think one even exists?

I think we're going to continue talking past eachother. If you expect your finite mind to completely circumscribe the eternal God, well, I guess we can talk sports.

I'm just saying that if your finite mind can't determine whether something is or is not god, then you have no idea whether or not there is one. Complete understanding is not one of my requirements. My requirement is the ability to tell the difference between god and not god when you see it (or feel it or whatever).

[Spenser]

BGiC,

I originally directed you here in hopes that you would comment on the OP, the problem of infinite regress. Why can God be thought to be eternal but not the universe. Before using the Big Bang as a mention for the beginning, it could be thought that there is an infinite series of Big Bangs, Big Crunches, Big Bangs, Big Crunches. Also, if God has an infinite mind, how could he ever even completely know himself??? If he is eternal, how could he ever go back through his own thoughts and come upon a first thought??? Hence infinite regress...

Spenser
:notworthy A God in his own mind! :notworthy

[stretch]

Originally posted by Spenser
BGiC,

I originally directed you here in hopes that you would comment on the OP, the problem of infinite regress. Why can God be thought to be eternal but not the universe. Before using the Big Bang as a mention for the beginning, it could be thought that there is an infinite series of Big Bangs, Big Crunches, Big Bangs, Big Crunches. Also, if God has an infinite mind, how could he ever even completely know himself??? If he is eternal, how could he ever go back through his own thoughts and come upon a first thought??? Hence infinite regress...

Spenser
:notworthy A God in his own mind! :notworthy

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'm working backwards through the posts on my Saturday break from the world of work ....

As far as I know, there is no compelling logical reason for the universe not being eternal. It is just as (and I assume that you might argue more) logically consistent as an eternal God from which a non-eternal universe comes into being. Even very 'theistic' philisophers such as the medieval Islamic and Christian theologian-philosophers, often argued that an infinite regress in terms of the material world cannot logically be ruled out. (I'm too lazy to find exact quotes, but these types of arguments can be found in works of Aquinas and, well, I'd have to check which of the Islamic philosophers who wrote in earlier times.)

Eternal existence of energy and/or matter Is one of those things that I might put into the category of being 'observationally equivalent' to an eternal God and a non-eternal physical universe.

As for the other questions, although it is impossible for a finite mind to at all times be aware of all aspects of anything infinite, why would it be logically impossible for an infinite mind to be eternally aware of all of its infinite knowledge?

(edit ... changed it's to its ... duh )

[stretch]

Originally posted by wordsmyth

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that God has being, exists, or is acting at the present moment, so he/she/it does not meet the criteria for being real and therefore does not meet the definition of having existence.

Have you considered the definition of reality from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

(One nice thing about Saturdays, is I have the time to pull the fun books from my shelf :D )

reality, in standard philosophical usage, how things are, in contrast to their mere appearance. Appearance has to do with how things seem to a particular perceiver or group of perceivers. Reality is sometimes said to be two-way-independent of appearance. This means that appearance does not determine reality. First, no matter how much agreement there is, based on appearance, about the nature of reality, it is always conceivable that reality differs from appearance. Secondly, appearances are in no way required for reality: reality can outstrip the range of all investigations that we are in a position to make. .....

It goes on for quite a few more sentences. Anyway, it doesn't seem to jive with your dictionary definition of reality ... (Yeah, I know, technically you provided a definition of the adjective real, and not the noun reality ... but methinks the words are related.)

[stretch]

Originally posted by fishbulb
However, if you say that you think that there exists a god and that this god does things but never changes nor does he operate within time, then you have some 'splaining to do. What does it mean to perform an action without changing (e.g. from a pre-action to post-action state) and to do so without time? Merely saying the words doesn't convey any meaning because the words seem to contradict one another. Simply redefining the words by removing the clause that actions require change doesn't seem to help, because it is still hard to imagine just what that would be like. Could you provide an example (it can be hypothetical, as long as it illustrates the difference between a conventional action and a timeless, changeless action) of a being performing an action and undergoing literally no change through the process, and doing it in literally zero time? How can you tell the difference between a being to whom time does not apply and one to whom it does? If you can't tell the difference between the two, how do you know there is a difference? How do you know that there aren't only beings to whom time applies?

A useful definition is one that you can apply to different things and make a determination about which ones fit the definition and which ones don't. (Or, at least, you can make a rough judgement about how closely an example fits the definition.) Otherwise, they're just words.

Ok, I'll make a feeble attempt at 'splaining.

If you don't mind, I'll introduce a couple of terms. (Definitions are from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy ... they are found in the 'essence and accident' subtopic of the 'property' entry in the dictionary)

Essence: a property is essential to an entity if, necessarily, the entity cannot exist wtithout being an instance of the property.

Accident: A property is accidental to an individual if it is possible for the individual to exist withouth being an instance of the property.

When I'm talking about God not changing, I'm talking about the 'essence' of God not changing.

(I don't think that I ever said that God has never acted within time. If I did, I'll retract that statement. I think what I said was that actions taken by God that involve time do not change God. Creation of a material universe entails the possibility of material change, and material change requires time (as far as I can tell ... ). At the point of material creation, change is possible and time must exist. If there is anything outside of a framework of the material, either it is immaterial and does change or it is immaterial and does not chage. If this hypothetical immaterial entity does change, I suppose time exists in the absence of matter. If this hypothetical immaterial does not change, then time is meaningless, except in an accidental sense, in the context of this entity.)

Basically, what I proposed earlier was that nothing essential to God's being is, or has ever changed, regardless of the fact that God has acted 'in time'. I.e., the omni-fill-in-the-blanks, never change. Which means that, among other things, God's perceptions of himself and others never change, regardless of any actions that he takes, including the act of creation, which is an act that creates something outside of himself.

If there was a beginning to the universe, and material of any sort did not exist before that, then God acting at the first point in time is 'accidental' to his nature. It doesn't change his knowledge, his power or his benevolence or any of the other omni's that are predicated on him.

I don't think there is no such thing as a timeless, changeless action, in that at the very least, what is acted upon changes. The difference from a theistic perspective is whether 'accidents' change or 'essences' change.

If you sneak up behind me, and cut off some of my hair, 'accidentally' I have changed, regardless of whether or not I or anybody else ever notices. Essentially nothing has changed within me. Whether or not something 'essential' has changed in you with that act, I don't know.

A God who has eternally known that he will create and does so, can, I think, do so without changing anything essential about himself, while at the same time changing something essential about those outside of himself.

OK .... there's my feeble attempt. Fire away. ;)

I'll check in next weekend. Take care.

[Cross Examiner]

Top'o'the mornin' to ya Spenser. Feeling sloppy and in a rush so no data (soup) for you! Only my memory and a bit'o'analysis.

I originally directed you here in hopes that you would comment on the OP, the problem of infinite regress.

Danka.

Why can God be thought to be eternal but not the universe.

Ready for the cop-out? 'Cause God is necessarily outside of the universe, not subject to the laws of this universe in his own domain and can create the universe and time at t = 0. Conversely, the universe, eternal or otherwise, is subject to the laws of the universe and so ICR creates a problem for the Big Bang ever occurring at all, but we are confident it did so...

Before using the Big Bang as a mention for the beginning, it could be thought that there is an infinite series of Big Bangs, Big Crunches, Big Bangs, Big Crunches.

Shoot. Too late. IIRC, Big Bang/Big Crunch ad infinitum is called the Oscillation Model. It's been largely discredited for lotsa reasons. Two that I remember off the top'o'me head are:
1. The universe is definitely expanding beyond contraction point (not enough gravity/density to reign it in) and will die heat death (will burn out/entropize, not collapse). Yeah, I know entropize is not a word, sue me ;)
2. Even if the universe did collapse there is not enough force to cause a rebound (new Big Bang)

As stated, there's lots more to counter the Oscillation Model. I can dig up the gory details some other time if you really want. If I were an atheist, and didn't want to bat for the other team, I'd hope real hard in the QM/Vaccuum Fluctation Model--though that's got oodles of problems too.

Also, if God has an infinite mind, how could he ever even completely know himself??? If he is eternal, how could he ever go back through his own thoughts and come upon a first thought??? Hence infinite regress...

Whoah. You blew my mind with that last question. Stretch, you're read-up on meta-thought, no? This is where'd I'd have to research for you Spenser, and I gotta jet. Going up (north is up right?) your way to see my brother-in-law's production of Jesus Christ Superstar. He added a twist to Webber's ideas though. Should be neato. Can you tell it's Saturday? BTW, did you go to UCSB?

Mas Tardes,
BGiC

[stretch]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Stretch, you're read-up on meta-thought, no? This is where'd I'd have to research for you Spenser, and I gotta jet.

Hi BGiC,

I'm read up on lots of things .... but most of it has flowed through my brain and back into the void :eek:

I've read a lot of scholastic metaphysics, among lots of other weird stuff. When you're as far north as I am, there's plenty of time to sit and read while waiting for all of the snow and ice to melt. ;)

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Whoah. You blew my mind with that last question. Stretch, you're read-up on meta-thought, no? This is where'd I'd have to research for you Spenser, and I gotta jet. Going up (north is up right?) your way to see my brother-in-law's production of Jesus Christ Superstar. He added a twist to Webber's ideas though. Should be neato. Can you tell it's Saturday? BTW, did you go to UCSB?

Blowing minds is the purpose of these threads... :eek:

I find often times theistic arguments and tactics were originally used against them and simply adopted, or many times their own arguments do more damage to their own cause. Oh, and I did graduate from UCSB...

[Spenser]

Originally posted by stretch
As for the other questions, although it is impossible for a finite mind to at all times be aware of all aspects of anything infinite, why would it be logically impossible for an infinite mind to be eternally aware of all of its infinite knowledge?

It presents what I believe is a logical contradiction much like the analogy:

Can God create a rock he cannot lift?

If he can't create it he's not omnipotent, if he can't lift it he's not omnipotent. This argument is dismissed by theists as logically impossible therefore it doesn't fit into their definition of omnipotent.

So then, God has an infinite mind that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Can he conceive all his thoughts? How can he there are an unlimited amount of them so just when he thinks he's got all of his thoughts there are still more. Get it yet?

If he can conceive of all of his thoughts, his mind is not infinite. If he can't he's not omnipotent. This argument cannot be dismissed by redefining omnipotence simply because problem is more related to the concept of 'infinite'. The definition of infinite can not be altered because it is quite clear what it means.

How could God ever know himself if he has an unlimited amount of thoughts? He is all powerful so he is more than capable of focusing on one thought at a time and if he were to go back through each preceding thought he could never stop thinking about his past. :banghead:

What is interesting was the first time I heard the infinite regress argument it was used as justification for God by demonstrating the unlikeliness of an eternal universe. Now both sides face the same problem of infinite regress, however I think it is more problematic for the theistic side...

[stretch]

Originally posted by Spenser

So then, God has an infinite mind that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Can he conceive all his thoughts? How can he there are an unlimited amount of them so just when he thinks he's got all of his thoughts there are still more. Get it yet?



No. I am positing that God has an infinite mind that has existed eternally ( not for an infinite amount of time ... as time is not an issue in the absence of the existence of anything material) with ONE thought that contains all knowledge. I have never posited that God has an 'infinite number of thoughts' to be enumerated. It's not as if God's thoughts make up some sort of countably infinite set.

Gotta run. May or may not have time to check in again this weekend.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by stretch
When I'm talking about God not changing, I'm talking about the 'essence' of God not changing.

It does seem a bit vague: the concept of "essential"' versus "accidental" properties seems to give you a lot of wiggle room. I'm not sure what makes you think that there are certain properties that are essential to an individual being what it is, but other properties that are not. I can see applying these distinctions to a class of things (this is, after all, how we define a class of things: a set of different individuals which have certain properties in common) but I am not certain where the justification for an individual comes in.

Still, nothing in that definition strikes me as being incomprehensible. I would agree that your concept is intelligable. I think you would still have a job of supporting such a position, but you have nonetheless articulated a coherent position.

[stretch]

Originally posted by fishbulb
It does seem a bit vague: the concept of "essential"' versus "accidental" properties seems to give you a lot of wiggle room. I'm not sure what makes you think that there are certain properties that are essential to an individual being what it is, but other properties that are not. I can see applying these distinctions to a class of things (this is, after all, how we define a class of things: a set of different individuals which have certain properties in common) but I am not certain where the justification for an individual comes in.



Actually, in scholastic metaphysics (which I think borrows this general approach from Aristotle), the distinction between essence and accident is applied (i) to classes of things; and (2) to God who is the only member of his 'class'.

And since scholastic metaphysics basically takes the position that characterists of God (should he exist) can only be known via analogy (or revelation), the terms are used analogically with reference to God.

And for what it's worth, my understanding is that the many of the 'infinity'-type characteristics attributed to God aren't part of what Western monotheists would consider to be 'revealed' traits, but have been imputed by theologians and philosophers.

Still, nothing in that definition strikes me as being incomprehensible. I would agree that your concept is intelligable. I think you would still have a job of supporting such a position, but you have nonetheless articulated a coherent position.

Thanks for the compliment. It's been fun thinking about these things. :)

[pmurray]

Does God aleady know what he is going to think next?

That question reveals that it's meaningless to say that god "thinks". To think is to consider what you know, to fill in the blanks and make a considered decision, to sort out your conflicting aspirations and needs and to make a choice between them. It's obvious that God cannot "think" as we mere mortals understand it - at all.

Neither can an omnipotent being "act".

Of course, in the OT "wisdom" simply equates to composing and memorising proverbs, and solving verbal riddles.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by pmurray
Does God already know what he is going to think next?

Excellent point! If God doesn't think then WTF is the point of prayer? If God already knows the future therefore the future cannot change, WTF is the point of prayer?

The notion that God is an eternal thought doesn't hack it. How can actions ever be brought about by an unending thought. God would have to think about what action he would want to occur (like create the universe or make sure the Raider's win Sunday night) and then make that action happen. This would bring that initial thought to a close and he would be on to the next. Once again this traps you with infinite regress, if he is eternal, can he know every future thought he will have (being omniscient). If you don't like the temporal word 'future', substitute it with every 'next' thought he will have. How can he if there is no end to them???

Infinite Regress....................... :mad:

[Vicar Philip]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Furthermore, a god can’t have created eternity because there’s no point at which eternity didn’t exist. Wow. I was glossing through this thread and this little tidbit caught my eye, and subsequently my brain. Think about it.

Good one.

[Spenser]

An infinite Mind

Something that is supposed to be the mind of God, or so say a lot of theists. Strangely enough, a strong theistic argument against certain atheistic views is that we cannot have an actual infinite past, considering that one moment in time precedes the next. If you were to attempt to go back in time you would find an infinite regress making it difficult to picture an eternal universe.

Yet, apparently God can have an infinite mind, he has existed eternally. Wait a second here, omniscient. He knows things, he thinks. HE THINKS? One thought has to precede the next in order for thoughts to occur and decisions (such as creating a universe, life and man) to be made. But if God thinks, can he remember all his thoughts??? If he existed eternally he would be confronted with an infinite regress of his own thoughts, he wouldn't ever be able to stop remembering himself cause he could never reach a first thought. He can't even completely know himself.

So many times theistic arguments come back to bite them in the...

:mad:

Just got the urge to talk about infinite regress and rather than start a new thread I'll just resurrect an old one...

As noted in the post above this one, did God create eternity? How exactly do theists deal with the issue of infinite regress when applied to their own God? Do you think God thinks thoughts one after the next? What is outside of time exactly? What do the Chinese call their fine plates? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Prof]

BGiC, I really enjoy your contributions here!

Can you rightly demand a purely natural basis for the supernatural? Can you rightly exclude the supernatural since it is not wholly natural?

I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, actually explain what something "supernatural" could actually be. Any description seems only to be in the negative: "not anything natural." Sort of like saying "not playing basketball" can be considered an entity. Or it's "that which we do not know how it could exist, but it still exists" type talk.

It seems to me that all manner of things we now know exist could have been (and were) termed supernatural in the past. But once they become known quantities - either that they are observable or that we have inferred their influence reliably (say, gravity) - we consider them natural. In other words, once we know something actually exists, no matter how strange, we consider it natural. Given this, I don't actually see what actual ontological meaning "supernatural" can have.

Thanks,

Prof.

[Prof]

The notion that God is an eternal thought doesn't hack it. How can actions ever be brought about by an unending thought. :

I've seen the "unchanging God" and the "God doesn't change his mind but is one unending thought" argument several times from theists. I think that such concepts are indicative of "cornered theist" syndrome, wherein it's hoped that such an idea somehow solves or deflects many of the criticisms regarding God changed his mind, vs. being omniscient, vs. thinking, vs. being outside of time etc. (Just as, it seems to me, Christian apologetics has attempted to get out of the Euthyphro dilemma by asserting that morality is neither commanded by God, nor is it objectively independent of God, rather morality "flows from God's nature.")

Regarding the assertion that God is unchanging, or holds all thoughts at once, or is an unchanging eternal everything thought...or whatever...it would seem the Bible itself makes mincemeat of that claim. God is clearly described as communicating with people, using language, saying "I will do this" at X time and later at Y time doing it. If he did indeed do as the Bible described, then it would be impossible to hold that God is an unchanging thought, or that he holds all thoughts at once. He clearly has displayed changes in his actions and thoughts. (If we believe the Bible).

The guy that drives the last spike into the problem (forgive me) is Jesus himself. If, as per Christian doctrine, Jesus was God then God absolutely, positively demonstrated regular old human actions, thought processes and communication...all regular time-based and clearly changing.

In that case, either the idea that Jesus was God goes, or this (already ridiculous) concept of an eternally unchanging God has to go.

Prof.

(BTW, BillyGrahamisCool, in answering the challenge of how God can be outside of our universe and also act in our universe posited God' actions here as being like a visit to another matrix and abiding by it's rules[space/time of our universe etc]. That, of course, does nothing for the theist who posits the unchanging God. If God appeared in our dimension and did what he did, then he exhibited time/space-based changing when he did. Once God had been documented as changing, for whatever reason and in whatever universe, He can not reasonably be portrayed as unchanging anymore).

[Vorkosigan]

Given this, I don't actually see what actual ontological meaning "supernatural" can have.

"Supernatural" is simply the belief that (usually) conscious entities can alter reality by an act of Will unrelated to physical causation. It is fallout from the human belief in Other Minds, which we need to carry out social intercourse with complex fellow primates. God is simply a giant disembodied Other Mind.

Vorkosigan

[Spenser]

"Supernatural" is simply the belief that (usually) conscious entities can alter reality by an act of Will unrelated to physical causation. It is fallout from the human belief in Other Minds, which we need to carry out social intercourse with complex fellow primates. God is simply a giant disembodied Other Mind.

Vorkosigan

I thought supernatural was anything outside the known universe or that defies the laws of physics...

[Dominick_7]

An infinite Mind

Something that is supposed to be the mind of God, or so say a lot of theists. Strangely enough, a strong theistic argument against certain atheistic views is that we cannot have an actual infinite past, considering that one moment in time precedes the next. If you were to attempt to go back in time you would find an infinite regress making it difficult to picture an eternal universe.

Yet, apparently God can have an infinite mind, he has existed eternally. Wait a second here, omniscient. He knows things, he thinks. HE THINKS? One thought has to precede the next in order for thoughts to occur and decisions (such as creating a universe, life and man) to be made. But if God thinks, can he remember all his thoughts??? If he existed eternally he would be confronted with an infinite regress of his own thoughts, he wouldn't ever be able to stop remembering himself cause he could never reach a first thought. He can't even completely know himself.

So many times theistic arguments come back to bite them in the...



REPLY: Not at all.The problem that many nontheists and anti theists have is that they apparently don' listen very well to what the Theistic position even says, and therefore don't know what the Thetsic position entails and cannot seem to come close to effectively refuting it.

The problem of the actual infinite regressive series of current causes of existence is that because existence is current and simultaneous (not being something one gets in one package then passes it to another person) an actual infinitre series of current causes of existence would make each link in this sucessive series SIMLUTANEOUSLY potential in regards to its exisetnce, as well as actual. It would mean that each link would need to firstly not exist, inorder to have its existence caused, and also would need to exist inorder to cause the next link in the series. But because something cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously, an actual infinite regress of current causes of exisetnce is impossible.

Besides that there are several other problems it has. Adding up 100, 1000, 100,000,000, or an infinite amount of effects can never equate to the cause that the effects in this series needs in order to exist. The cause for their existence must not only ontologically (not chronologically) exist prior to the series to start the series, but must also exist concurrently/simultaenously with the series, for as long as each link in the chain is a contingent effect (existing but having a possibility of nonexistence), it needs its existence caused continually. Nothing would exist unless the cause was concurrently/smlutaneously existing with the series. If there was no concurrent cause for the series, if mother caused teh existence of the child and the mother died, whod be causing he existence of the child? The mother? No shes gone? The child? No a self caused being is impossible. In the cause of an infinite series of current causes of existence, if one in the series died, then the entire series would cease. Since some have ceases, and were still here, then that means there must be a simultaneous/concurrent cuase for the series which exists separately and transcendantly beyond the series.

Since every finite being must be caused to exist by by something beyond itself, and if the total parts of the finite parts equates to a finite whole, then it necessarily follows that the whole must be caused to exist by something that exists beyond itself; IE by something nonfinite=infinite. IF the total sum of the finite parts equals an INfinite whole (which is just bad math), where the whole is a greater than/other than the total sum of teh finite parts, that is identical top what theists call God, but is packaged in atheistic terminology. Either way you have Theism.

The question really is...where does the ground of the existence of this "infinite series" come from, from within or from without? If from within then its a self caused contradiction. In that case you have a contradiction when trying to blurr the effect with teh cause...the contradiction is removed when one affirms the ontological separation/distinction between the effected/caused series and the non effected/uncaused causor of the series...in that case you have Theism. IF the ground for the existence of the chain comes from without, then you have Theism. Either way you have Theism or no meaningfull position.

In regards to your statement about God remembering and thinking, and equating that with an infinite regress...this is just a strawman plain and simple. I listed the problems with an actual infinite regression. While there is a problem with that, theres no problem with Gods infinite knowledge of omniscience.

Youre merely assuming that God knows as we do. God is a necessary being, with no potential or possibility for non existence. A necessary being must necessarily exist, and cannot not exist. Its a must be, not a maybe. A contingent being while it exists, HAS a potential/possibility to not exist. A contingent being is a maybey, NOT a must be. IF a necessary being could have any potential at all, then it could change, thus COULD not be...its nonexistence could be possible. Then it wouldnt really be necessary, but rather would be contingent. Anything that changes must be contingent, for if it changes then it COULD not be..thus since it could not be, and cannot account for or cause its own existence, it must therefore be caused by another. Since an actual ininite regress is impossble (as shown above), that means there must be a first uncaused necessary causor of every contingent being that exists.

The thing is, while we know finitely, and successively, becuase we change and dont know everything in ourselves, God knows infinitely, without change or sucession. God cannot come to be or come to know, for he cannot change at all. He has ONE single eternal cointuition within himself about all things. He cannot change, nor can he have any potential for change whatsoever, as a necessary being. While he has one single eternal co intuition knowing every potential and actual thing, knowing all of this within himself, we on the other hand dont know everything within ourselves, but must come to know things sucessively and moment by moment, comming to know or discover things that exist outside of ourselves. So while we know finitely, God knows infinitely, in His thought, there can be NO sucession, therefore there is no actually regressive or successive series...

So the short answer is that becuase God doesnt know in a sucessive finite way as we do, but has one single eternal cointuition within himself, with no change, there is no actually infinite regression/series within His mind...therefore the Theistic position does not advocate ANY actual infinite regressive series...While there can be an ABSTRACT infinite regress (put an infinite number of intersecting points in a line), an ACTUALLY infinite regress of current causes of existence (putting an infinite amount of actual concretely existing books whether far apart of close together) would be a contradiction, thus would be impossible/false. While God can know about any possibilities and any actulalities, and can know about an abstract infinite series, and can know potentially infinite series (like we are in, where one more future moment can be added going forward), the WAY in which He knows can have NO succession therefore no change. Therefore your assumption is incorrect.

[Dominick_7]

I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, actually explain what something "supernatural" could actually be. Any description seems only to be in the negative: "not anything natural." Sort of like saying "not playing basketball" can be considered an entity. Or it's "that which we do not know how it could exist, but it still exists" type talk.

REPLY: There is no contradiction with the idea of a non natural or supernatural being. You must bring forth an argumnet which porves that assertion. For youre not just asking about it, you seem to be assuminbg it is false or impossible...you said you dont believe it could be. That means that you seem to know for absolute certainty there is no God, thereforre no acts of God/miracles. Where is your proof for that position? No one has or could provide proof for that assertion for it would imply His existence in the denial of His existence...one must know and have seen all evidnce everywhere, where one cannot allow any doubt, to be able to conlude there is no God anywhere...at anytime..but for one to do that, one must know everything to do so. If one can affimr that someone knows everything, that would be an addmittal to the existence of God...but God wouldntmake a self negating argument, therefore all it shows is that there is a God, but Him you are not.

So if you do not have absolute certainty that there is no God, then his existnence is possible, thus it woul;d follow that if its possible that God could exist, tat means that acts of God are possible as well. Though the person who continues to hold to the irrational position of having absolute certainty there is no God would not listen to the evidence of His existence, the person who r