The act of creation is logically impossible or God is subject to time

[bahman]

Is God is self-caused, as ever present, then he created, creates and will create through 1 perpetual timeless moment, and what we understand of time is merely approximation through movement.

I am arguing against timeless act. You are not offering any argument against mine.

This approximation in turn implies a deficiency in definition, while simultaneously definition. We observe stability and we observe movement, this dualism results in a synthesis as "both/and" and "neither nor" as dimensions which form reality. This observation of dimension manifests itself inherently as 1, and in these respects what we understand of 1 is an eternal constant that synthesizes itself continual as unity and individuation.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

As unity God is not subject to time and is unmoving, as individuative multiplicity God moves through relation as the boundary of stability. God as both unity and individuative observes a duality which synthesizes as dimensional neutrality, or in simpler terms God exists as pure measurement.

Something which is unmoving cannot cause moving unless it is unstable.

God in these respects is 3 in 1, which is not contradictory as .3333 times 3 is 1. In a seperate respect he is 1 in 3 as three is root in one.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

[attofishpi]

The act of creation is logically impossible or God is subject to time

What if 'God' is a result ..perhaps of chaos a place our logic does have no place? What if God is a result of causality? What if God is intelligent species made as a coping\judging mechanism for the onset of entropy?

All i need to feed you your entire experience of the universe is interfacing to your senses - that could be powered on a 12v battery...indeed, far less ...(your experience of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE)

ps. Of course it is subject to time - not necessarily what we consider time however.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is God is self-caused, as ever present, then he created, creates and will create through 1 perpetual timeless moment, and what we understand of time is merely approximation through movement.

I am arguing against timeless act. You are not offering any argument against mine.

Time is merely approximate observations, through the observation of movement. Movement and approximation are synonymous in many degrees. You cannot argue against a timeless act, using time as the premise axiom, as time is merely approximate movements. What we understand of time is movement. What we understand of a timeless act can only be observed approximately through time, as we observe only parts of it.

This approximation in turn implies a deficiency in definition, while simultaneously definition. We observe stability and we observe movement, this dualism results in a synthesis as "both/and" and "neither nor" as dimensions which form reality. This observation of dimension manifests itself inherently as 1, and in these respects what we understand of 1 is an eternal constant that synthesizes itself continual as unity and individuation.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Because we observe 1 moment, through time. What we observe is the relations of "parts" of it or 'fractals', as I said above. Because we observe in parts what we observe is movement as relation where these "parts of the whole" exists if and only if they relate. This is what we observe as time.

So what we understand of reality is unity as a 1 stable existence. We observe multiplicity as the boundary of this unity in which there is nothing. The problem occurs in the respect that "nothing" is not a thing in itself, but rather negation. Considering this unity is infinite, its boundary is movement as negation. Negation of unity is multiplicity. Negation of infinity is temporality. The problem occurs in the respect that this negation exists not as a thing in itself but rather an approximation of the unity, with approximation being synonymous to randomness.

So you have being as "unity" which is timeless, and its boundary as randomness/non-being which exists as a negation of the unity through the relation of particulates or "parts". Movement is relation through 0d points, as what we understand of movement is premised in moving to or from a zero dimensional point. This unity is 1D. And I will stop here for now, to address whatever you will disagree with next. Most of it is just a rehash of the above.

As unity God is not subject to time and is unmoving, as individuative multiplicity God moves through relation as the boundary of stability. God as both unity and individuative observes a duality which synthesizes as dimensional neutrality, or in simpler terms God exists as pure measurement.

Something which is unmoving cannot cause moving unless it is unstable.

Movement and stability are dual simultaneous dimensions. This duality sythesizes a third element of "dimensional limit" or the "limits" which form reality and possible limits or "no-limit". In these respects, through synthesis God manifests a third nature of measurer, as synthesis is the manifestations of dimensions.

God in these respects is 3 in 1, which is not contradictory as .3333 times 3 is 1. In a seperate respect he is 1 in 3 as three is root in one.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Stability, Movement and Synthesis are 3 parts of 1, while simultaneously manifesting as 3 individual parts. The altneration being 3/1 and 1/3 is mediated as 1 in which one is both unity 1/3 and individuator 3/1.

In a seperate respect you cannot argue against a timeless act, or your argument would at one point be legitmate and at another point illegitimate due to it temporal nature.

[bahman]

What if 'God' is a result ..perhaps of chaos a place our logic does have no place?

God is not result of something. Whether our logic applies to Him is subject to discussion.

What if God is a result of causality?

God by definition is uncauased cause.

What if God is intelligent species made as a coping\judging mechanism for the onset of entropy?

Onset of entropy?

All i need to feed you your entire experience of the universe is interfacing to your senses - that could be powered on a 12v battery...indeed, far less ...(your experience of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE)

ps. Of course it is subject to time - not necessarily what we consider time however.

What this has to do with the topic of the thread?

[bahman]

Time is merely approximate observations, through the observation of movement. Movement and approximation are synonymous in many degrees. You cannot argue against a timeless act, using time as the premise axiom, as time is merely approximate movements. What we understand of time is movement. What we understand of a timeless act can only be observed approximately through time, as we observe only parts of it.[/color]

I am simply analyzing an act and show that time is required for all act. There are two states of affair in act of creation: (1) God only and (2) God and creation. The second state of affair comes after the first one. Two states of affair cannot lay at the same timeless point since the act becomes ill-defined. There must be a waiting time to reach from the first state of affair to second state of affair since otherwise the act will never accomplish. This means that we need time fir any act, in another world timeless act is absurd.

[thedoc]

False dichotomy, and there is no reason to expect God to obey the rules of human logic.

[Reflex]

There are two states of affairs when it comes to act creation. These two state of affair are: (1) God only and (2) God and creation. The second state of affair follows the first one so there must be a substance which separate these state of affairs so called time, otherwise the act of creation is ill-defined.

The act of creation is ill-defined as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see how it can be otherwise.

Either time is a emergent phenomena related to act of creation or not. The act of creation is impossible in the first case since time cannot be at the same time an emergent phenomena and a substance which allows the creation itself. The act of creation is possible in the second case but that makes God subject to time.

None of this follows unless you put boundaries around what is by definition unbounded.

Creatorship is not an attribute of God, but rather the aggregate of his acting nature.

[seeds]

There are two states of affairs when it comes to act creation. These two state of affair are: (1) God only and (2) God and creation. The second state of affair follows the first one so there must be a substance which separate these state of affairs so called time, otherwise the act of creation is ill-defined. Either time is a emergent phenomena related to act of creation or not. The act of creation is impossible in the first case since time cannot be at the same time an emergent phenomena and a substance which allows the creation itself. The act of creation is possible in the second case but that makes God subject to time.

Of course God is subject to time.

He is simply not limited by the physiological parameters that dictate the phenomenon of time that we are subject to as corporeal beings.

In other words, God is not restricted by the speed of light.

If the universe is actually the mind of God (as is implied in Berkeleyan idealism), then God could reach any point in the universe “instantly” (at the speed of thought), in the same way that we can reach any point within our own minds instantly.

However, just because God could instantly access areas of the universe that would take us earthlings (us “matterlings”) billions of years to reach,...

...it does not mean that he and his creative acts are not subject to the forward-moving arrow of time within his own unique and transcendent context of existence.

It is time for us to realize that most of our counter-intuitive ideas regarding the creative intelligence presiding over this universe - ideas that lead to the types of paradoxes that bahman is attempting to argue in this thread - are no doubt wildly off-the-mark.
_______

[bahman]

False dichotomy, and there is no reason to expect God to obey the rules of human logic.

You need to prove that that is false dichotomy and show that God is not subjected to Logic.

[bahman]

None of this follows unless you put boundaries around what is by definition unbounded.

I am afraid that I cannot follow you here.

[thedoc]

What if God is a result of causality?

God by definition is uncauased cause.

Who's definition, if your's, why should anyone else accept it?

[bahman]

What if God is a result of causality?

God by definition is uncauased cause.

Who's definition, if your's, why should anyone else accept it?

God, uncaused cause, is a solution to infinite regress which exists in linear causal relation.

[thedoc]

God by definition is uncauased cause.

Who's definition, if your's, why should anyone else accept it?

God, uncaused cause, is a solution to infinite regress which exists in linear causal relation.

Yes, "a solution" to infinite regress which is in linear causal relation, a part of human logic, but you haven't demonstrated that God must obey your laws of logic, or any laws of logic, you have just implied that God does. You have made claims about the nature of God, so you bear the burden of proof.

[Eodnhoj7]

Time is merely approximate observations, through the observation of movement. Movement and approximation are synonymous in many degrees. You cannot argue against a timeless act, using time as the premise axiom, as time is merely approximate movements. What we understand of time is movement. What we understand of a timeless act can only be observed approximately through time, as we observe only parts of it.[/color]

I am simply analyzing an act and show that time is required for all act. There are two states of affair in act of creation: (1) God only and (2) God and creation. The second state of affair comes after the first one. Two states of affair cannot lay at the same timeless point since the act becomes ill-defined. There must be a waiting time to reach from the first state of affair to second state of affair since otherwise the act will never accomplish. This means that we need time fir any act, in another world timeless act is absurd.

Action implies a movement from A to B. If everything exists at one moment, and if God is omnipotent it does, then creation has no where to moving except within itself. However if it moves strictly within itself, technically it is not moving anywhere at all, as there is nowhere to move. Being moving into itself, is being as stability where the movement is strictly negated and what exists, exists as it is.

[Nick_A]

There are two states of affairs when it comes to act creation. These two state of affair are: (1) God only and (2) God and creation. The second state of affair follows the first one so there must be a substance which separate these state of affairs so called time, otherwise the act of creation is ill-defined. Either time is a emergent phenomena related to act of creation or not. The act of creation is impossible in the first case since time cannot be at the same time an emergent phenomena and a substance which allows the creation itself. The act of creation is possible in the second case but that makes God subject to time.

As I understand it, God IS. God IS NOW. NOW by definition is not limited by time and space. Creation in contrast is a process taking place within NOW. The relative perception of linear time is an attribute of the process creation. However vertical time is an attribute of NOW making necessary the process of creation and manifestations of fractions of the whole. We normally assume that being moves through time but actually the perception of linear time moves through being, through NOW