What is your god like? (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
Well my Father does not know but he can tell that i am not religious at all and kinda senses it. If he finds out and was sure that i am muslim no more then i would kiss my Philosophy Major Goodbye. My dad is religious. My Bro knows and my close friends know. My Bro understand where i am coming from and he respects it.. my friends are dumb as bricks they just keep resisting it when we have a debate.
Fair enough. My point was that there was no better reason to believe that causality did not exist outside of the universe rather than it did. That's why we kept going back and forth, you kept assuming that causality could not possibly occur outside the universe, but you never gave a valid reason, which is why I ignored it. It's good that you accept the possibility, that's important.
Martin, 'before time' is meaningless as nothing can precede the starting point in time. It is nonsensical, I agree. However, what theists suggest is different, it is not before time, it is outside of time, independant of time. If this supernatural being is outside time, then it infinitely exists, it is not bounded by the concept of time thus is not bounded by causality. Nothing must have caused it as nothing could have preceded it, but since this being is an intelligent mind, 'God' if you will, then it could have freely chosen to cause the universe.
If a fish was living inside a pond, it will be constrained by the forces and elements of the water. It will have to respond to the bouyant force for example that causes things to float. This is part of its enviroment. It will also have to be able to live under certain elements that will otherwise drown humans, H20. We are living outside the fish pond, and we can freely choose to alter the fish's enviroment without being part of this enviroment. We do not have to live by the bouyant force or inhale H2O. We are independent of such forces, we don't need them nor do we need to experience them. Now, it is impossible for the fish to know what our enviroment is like. It too does not know of some of our laws such as air resistance.
Ah, but some forces and concepts and principles remain the same. Such as gravity or causality. Do you see the parallel here?Just because we are in a different pond or dimension, that does not exclude certain similarities. Notice how our universe could be different to the fish's but both part of a greater universe. Perhaps this is the case with our spatial dimension, and that of God. I don't know, again. But why deny the possibility, there are so many parallels to this in nature that it doesn't have to be very far-fetched.
If you think of time as a concept or dimension rather than an absolute reality that defines all concepts, you will understand this easier. I was able to grasp it much better when I tried to imagine time as a dimension just like space rather than an unalterable absolute reality.
Martin, 'before time' is meaningless as nothing can precede the starting point in time. It is nonsensical, I agree. However, what theists suggest is different, it is not before time, it is outside of time, independant of time. If this supernatural being is outside time, then it infinitely exists, it is not bounded by the concept of time thus is not bounded by causality. Nothing must have caused it as nothing could have preceded it, but since this being is an intelligent mind, 'God' if you will, then it could have freely chosen to cause the universe.
If a fish was living inside a pond, it will be constrained by the forces and elements of the water. It will have to respond to the bouyant force for example that causes things to float. This is part of its enviroment. It will also have to be able to live under certain elements that will otherwise drown humans, H20. We are living outside the fish pond, and we can freely choose to alter the fish's enviroment without being part of this enviroment. We do not have to live by the bouyant force or inhale H2O. We are independent of such forces, we don't need them nor do we need to experience them. Now, it is impossible for the fish to know what our enviroment is like. It too does not know of some of our laws such as air resistance.
Ah, but some forces and concepts and principles remain the same. Such as gravity or causality. Do you see the parallel here?Just because we are in a different pond or dimension, that does not exclude certain similarities. Notice how our universe could be different to the fish's but both part of a greater universe. Perhaps this is the case with our spatial dimension, and that of God. I don't know, again. But why deny the possibility, there are so many parallels to this in nature that it doesn't have to be very far-fetched.
If you think of time as a concept or dimension rather than an absolute reality that defines all concepts, you will understand this easier. I was able to grasp it much better when I tried to imagine time as a dimension just like space rather than an unalterable absolute reality.
As far as I'm concerned the Big Bang marks the beginning of time and space. Causality is defined in terms of time and space. Without matter no particles can interact with each other, so no causality can exist. Without time no particles can interact with each other, same conclusion. Therefore to talk about causality before the Big Bang is absurd.
These of course are classic theological empty words. There's no property of time that allows for something to be "outside" of it. "Outside of time" means nothing. If you want it to mean something you first have to tell us what it's supposed to mean. This is where theological non cognitivism comes in. If a term is undefined you cannot meaningfully think about it or discuss it. That's why I take the stand that theology cannot actually be "decided" philosophically because all the words haven't even been defined.
These of course are classic theological empty words. There's no property of time that allows for something to be "outside" of it. "Outside of time" means nothing. If you want it to mean something you first have to tell us what it's supposed to mean. This is where theological non cognitivism comes in. If a term is undefined you cannot meaningfully think about it or discuss it. That's why I take the stand that theology cannot actually be "decided" philosophically because all the words haven't even been defined.
Time and space are dimensions. It is entirely possible that something exists beyond these dimensions. Again, you are conceptionally defining time as something it's not.
This is how Stephan Hawking defines the beggining of the universe, he asserts that time(X) and space(Y) continually expand.
(Y)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9----------------------------------------(X)
(9): Starting point, Big Bang.
Now something outside space and time would simply be in a different dimension, (Z) for example.
(Y)
1 /(Z)
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
(9)--------------------------(X)
Instead of being cound by (X) and (Y), a supernatural being can exist in a different axis (Z) without being affected by time or space. Hence, outside of it.
Let's also not forget Verynine's suggestion of a 4th dimensional space. Also compatiblewith something being outside time. It's not as arbitrary as it seems.
This is how Stephan Hawking defines the beggining of the universe, he asserts that time(X) and space(Y) continually expand.
(Y)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9----------------------------------------(X)
(9): Starting point, Big Bang.
Now something outside space and time would simply be in a different dimension, (Z) for example.
(Y)
1 /(Z)
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
(9)--------------------------(X)
Instead of being cound by (X) and (Y), a supernatural being can exist in a different axis (Z) without being affected by time or space. Hence, outside of it.
Let's also not forget Verynine's suggestion of a 4th dimensional space. Also compatiblewith something being outside time. It's not as arbitrary as it seems.
Right but isn't it possible that time is of different nature in 4th dimensional space? It did not have to have begun at the same time as it did in three dimensional space. Nor does it have to be finite. So time could be 'functioning' in 4 dimensional space and this being could have chosen to initiate our world, three dimensional space. Thus initiating our dimensions of space and time in the process.
Well, no, like I said this will seem less arbitrary if you just consider time to be what it really is, a dimension. I tried the graphs but they don't seem to help. If time and space were just dimensions, and something could exist in a different dimension of space then something can certainly exist in a different dimension of time. It follows logically.
Time, again, is a dimension and like space could have alternative dimensions. There could be a superior dimension of time in which our three dimensional universe is not part of. Likewise, there could be a superior dimension of space that time does not have to be part of.
It all depends on how you are defining time here. What is time? Is it a dimension just like a spacial dimension, or is it an external reality with no dimensions at all. Hawking's model suggests that time is not an absolute, that time started at one point thus there is no harm in thinking that time could be a dimension.
I am just suggesting possibilities, I'm trying to impose that this theory is correct but rather, that this theory is a possibility. If this theory was a possibility, and there would be no valid reason for denying it, then there is also no reason for denying the existence of God.
Time, again, is a dimension and like space could have alternative dimensions. There could be a superior dimension of time in which our three dimensional universe is not part of. Likewise, there could be a superior dimension of space that time does not have to be part of.
It all depends on how you are defining time here. What is time? Is it a dimension just like a spacial dimension, or is it an external reality with no dimensions at all. Hawking's model suggests that time is not an absolute, that time started at one point thus there is no harm in thinking that time could be a dimension.
I am just suggesting possibilities, I'm trying to impose that this theory is correct but rather, that this theory is a possibility. If this theory was a possibility, and there would be no valid reason for denying it, then there is also no reason for denying the existence of God.
By "not part of" I presume you mean, "not moving in", or we're talking crap here. Such a situation would lead me to expect that neither causality nor various energy conservation laws to be observed with the unyeilding consistency they have been. Until I see otherwise, your speculated extra dimensions are about as credable as the giant, invisible, pink unicorn holding up the earth.
- Status