The Timelessness of God

[quip]

Go ahead and try.


:french:

I assume from this emote you agree that it's absurd...but I ask you what proof do you have that it's not.

I could apply to you the same ad hom you assigned to me:

• I, Right Divider, cannot understand it.
• Therefore, it must not be true.

:idunno:

You seem to think that your knowledge is what determines if something is possible or not.

Your knowledge is not the standard of determining what is possible.

While you're too religiously credulous to accept a comprehensible denial.

 

[quip]

I have a proposal for you. Because this OP isn't about "If" God... would you be willing to pick a side of if God is Timeless or not?

Is this sheer insanity to ask?

I will make a presumption. You believe in a universal energy that all things derive from and ultimately return to and further more, you see the universe and this energy as "one".

Am I totally off?

Spot on!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Spot on!

I recognize your understanding and give it validity for the sake of this argument. (Did you catch my arrogance? It was humor cast in your direction)

Would you be willing to switch energy with the word (God) for the sake of the OP?

Congratulations... you believe "God" is eternal and bound to the universe. This is a theological stance. : )

It also places you on the God and Time are one... side of the debate... thus you argue against it being possible for "God" to exist apart from "Time" and the universe.

Does that sound fair?... for sake of debate congruence and OP recognition?

 

[quip]

opps double post

 

[quip]

I recognize your understanding and give it validity for the sake of this argument. (Did you catch my arrogance? It was humor cast in your direction)

Would you be willing to switch energy with the word (God) for the sake of the OP?

Congratulations... you believe "God" is eternal and bound to the universe. This is a theological stance. : )

It also places you on the God and Time are one... side of the debate... thus you argue against it being possible for "God" to exist apart from "Time" and the universe.

Does that sound fair?... for sake of debate congruence and OP recognition?

To be more specific, I take a nominalist approach to God. (if your familiar with this.)

"God" is the sum of everything of which the universe is comprised...that is, "God" is a universal and according to nominalisim universals don't exist per se. "God" is therefore a convenient convention, a proxy, for the universe (what we know as well as don't now about the universe.)

 

[Right Divider]

I assume from this emote you agree that it's absurd...but I ask you what proof do you have that it's not.

Your application was absurd.

I could apply to you the same ad hom you assigned to me:

• I, Right Divider, cannot understand it.
• Therefore, it must not be true.

:idunno:

• It's NOT ad hominem
• I don't think that.....
• That is the DIFFERENCE.
• You do.

While you're too religiously credulous to accept a comprehensible denial.

I guess that you will never understand the ridiculous error of your thinking.

But let me say is ONCE more.... just because YOU cannot understand something does NOT mean that it is not possible.

YOU are NOT the measure of all things.

 

[quip]

There are only three (and I will challenge you to come up with a fourth) potential origins for the universe.
Either it:
A. Created itself out of nothing
B. Always existed
C. Was brought into existence by something outside of this universe, a "supernatural creator"

It cannot be A, for a rock cannot create itself out of nothing, nor can it be B, for a fire cannot burn forever. You may recognize those reasons as alternate ways to state the first two laws of thermodynamics, which are neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only changed from one to the other, and entropy in a closed system always increases.

Theory A violates the first law, because it states that the universe came into existence on it's own (energy/matter created), and Theory B violates the second law, because it states that the universe has been "burning" forever, but it's not cold and dead, as it should be due to the second law stating that entropy always increases (fire burning forever).

The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by a "supernatural creator", something outside this universe.

If you think that it's not one of these three, please provide an alternate theory that does not incorporate these.



Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

A is as absurd as C (for reasons given prior)...that leaves B. While the critique of B is based upon what we know of the studied universe...which is not much. B seem the most plausible.

 

[quip]

Your application was absurd.

• It's NOT ad hominem
• I don't think that.....
• That is the DIFFERENCE.
• You do.

I guess that you will never understand the ridiculous error of your thinking.

But let me say is ONCE more.... just because YOU cannot understand something does NOT mean that it is not possible.

Same line could be side-dished with the "pink unicorn" assertion. You've no recourse to say it's untrue...beyond mere opinion or bias.

YOU are NOT the measure of all things.

Either are your supernatural assertions.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

To be more specific, I take a nominalist approach to God. (if your familiar with this.)

"God" is the sum of everything of which the universe is comprised...that is, "God" is a universal and according to nominalisim universals don't exist per se. "God" is therefore a convenient convention, a proxy, for the universe (what we know as well as don't now about the universe.)

Indeed... I am very familiar with the nominalistic stance... however, I haven't seen it worded so succinctly before.

So... right to it then... I step back to the side of the "Timeless" crowd and you step back into the "time" crowd. As in all debate... I'm looking to get my hooks into your perspective to begin pulling on it and countering it.

You asserted that the Universe and "God" are one, now the clench... you have stated in earlier debate that "all" things have a beginning" in reference to God.

Is this still on record towards your perspective, or do I now address that you see the "universe" as having no beginning and the energy(God) as such, as well?

 

[quip]

Indeed... I am very familiar with the nominalistic stance... however, I haven't seen it worded so succinctly before.

So... right to it then... I step back to the side of the "Timeless" crowd and you step back into the "time" crowd. As in all debate... I'm looking to get my hooks into your perspective to begin pulling on it and countering it.

You asserted that the Universe and "God" are one, now the clench... you have stated in earlier debate that "all" things have a beginning" in reference to God.

Is this still on record towards your perspective, or do I now address that you see the "universe" as having no beginning and the energy(God) as such, as well?

Currently, such determinations regarding the origin or eternal status of the universe is unknown, mayhap unknowable.

Are you comfortable with this lack of knowledge or must you seek solace in an answer... even an incoherent one?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Currently, such determinations regarding the origin or eternal status of the universe is unknown, mayhap unknowable.

Are you comfortable with this lack of knowledge or must you seek solace in an answer... even a incoherent one?

Why must one seek solace in answers when questions are the birth of wisdom?

But... In debate, unfortunately a stance is necessary. You are not bound to a stance. To walk in ones shoes is a debate technique. I gain more counter argument strength towards a matter, if I learn to debate from the perspective counter to mine.

My assertion... taking stance in debate does not "lock" you into that stance as an answer.

.......

And to directly address you question... Yes. I am comfortable with a lack of knowledge on any matter. The words "I know nothing" are the foundation of wisdom.

We have not seen God, nor many aspects of our universe, but we can ponder these matters. Such is our discussion here. At the end of the day we "know" that it is only "God" that knows the true answers to our assumptions.

What stance do you gravitate naturally towards? Beginning or No beginning...

For the sake of debate and allowing the delivery of counter argument.

IDK is an answer, but how can we debate over IDK? : )

 

[Right Divider]

Same line could be side-dished with the "pink unicorn" assertion. You've no recourse to say it's untrue...beyond mere opinion or bias.

:french:

Either are your supernatural assertions.

Your FALSE logic still stands as revealed here on TOL.

The LORD Jesus Christ confirms the creation account and He is the one that knows.

Feel free to get back on topic.

 

[Right Divider]

A is as absurd as C (for reasons given prior)...that leaves B. While the critique of B is based upon what we know of the studied universe...which is not much. B seem the most plausible.

It only seems more plausible to you because it's what you want to believe.

You have no proof of that assumption.

 

[quip]

Why must one seek solace in answers when questions are the birth of wisdom?

Because human beings are uncomfortable with uncertainty, Humans crave certainty and authoritative answers... no matter the absurdity of them. To expose my Buddhist belief, humans tend to irrationally cling - in this particular case - to some form of God(s). It's historically evident.

But... In debate, unfortunately a stance is necessary. You are not bound to a stance. To walk in ones shoes is a debate technique. I gain more counter argument strength towards a matter, if I learn to debate from the perspective counter to mine.

My assertion... taking stance in debate does not "lock" you into that stance as an answer.

.......

And to directly address you question... Yes. I am comfortable with a lack of knowledge on any matter. The words "I know nothing" are the foundation of wisdom.

We have not seen God, nor many aspects of our universe, but we can ponder these matters. Such is our discussion here. At the end of the day we "know" that it is only "God" that knows the true answers to our assumptions.

What stance do you gravitate naturally towards? Beginning or No beginning...

For the sake of debate and allowing the delivery of counter argument.

IDK is an answer, but how can we debate over IDK? : )

To answer your question: Something is purported to exist eternally, as such, There's no evidence of positing an eternal God over an eternal universe (which we know -- at least ostensibly -- to exist). So, that's the stance I gravitate toward.

 

[quip]

It only seems more plausible to you because it's what you want to believe.

You have no proof of that assumption.

Fair enough....we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Because human beings are uncomfortable with uncertainty, Humans crave certainty and authoritative answers... no matter the absurdity of them. To expose my Buddhist belief, humans tend to irrationally cling - in this particular case - to some form of God(s). It's historically evident.



To answer your question: Something is purported to exist eternally, as such, There's no evidence of positing an eternal God over an eternal universe (which we know -- at least ostensibly -- to exist). So, that's the stance I gravitate toward.

Edited in. I agree with your assertion that humanity hates uncertainty... my favorite modern example of this is a quote from the "Ledger" Joker; "Nobody panics when things go according to plan... even if the plan is horrifying"

On the matter of God... well... that's another PM and time. : )

This is a very difficult stance to debate against from my perspective. Excellent choice.

I gather that I am now debating against the eternity of God and the universe, while I must assert timelessness is possible?

 

[Right Divider]

Fair enough....we can just agree to disagree.

Yes. Like you must do with all the Christians on this Christian forum. :wave:

 

[quip]

Yes. Like you must do with all the Christians on this Christian forum. :wave:

Yes.
The Don't-Question-My-Cherished-Belief crowd is rather prevalent here on ToL.

There are exceptions though. :up:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yes.
The Don't-Question-My-Cherished-Belief crowd is rather prevalent here on ToL.

There are exceptions though. :up:

Ahem... My last response and question <~ link. : )

 

[Right Divider]

Yes.
The Don't-Question-My-Cherished-Belief crowd is rather prevalent here on ToL.

There are exceptions though. :up:

Ha Ha Ha.... It's always a one-way street with you know-it-all's.