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

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:49 pm

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.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

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

Post by Necromancer » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:50 pm

As you may guess, God is indeed subject to time, but eternal! :D

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:40 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:49 pm
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

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

Post by thedoc » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:06 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:49 pm
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.
Since you seem to imply that you know all there is to know about God, why don't you tell us what you know about God.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:55 am

thedoc wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:06 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:49 pm
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.
Since you seem to imply that you know all there is to know about God, why don't you tell us what you know about God.
You theists are so tiresome! The guy said something logical, and you imply that he implied he knows all there is to know about god. He did not claim it, so why do you think he claimed that? I tell you why: Because the OP's post can be viewed negatively about god, and you won't abide by that. All theists are like that. Tell them something that is even slightly negative about their god, and they will lose their heads, go delusional, and 1. claim things that the utterers of the original claim did which they did not, and 2. request an impossible demand.

You stupid theists -- you are not stupid, but you do lose your heads when you run out of logical refutations to defend your position re: god. You resort, eventually, all of you, when you are threatened by irrefutable logic, to names-calling or to asking impossible demands, or to attributing a claim to the original utterer which he or she never claimed.

These are your three tactics, and it is getting really frigging tiresome. Why don't you theists man up, and either 1. come back with a logical retort or else if that's impossible, 2. just admit defeat?

God worship has been rejected by billions of people for a reason. The reason is that he is impossible to be, with the attributes you theists attach to him, and the non-belief is supported by no evidence of god. And the evidence the theists have? For the Christians, it is a book written less than 2000 years ago and another book written about 3000 years ago, both written by inadequately talented human writers, whom the theists believe got their inspiration from god. Read it again: the text were written by humans, in a time when it was in fashion to establish new religions. Inside, these books are replete with self-contradictions. There are contradictions in these books that deny the truth of the physical world we observe. I would not trust those books for spiritual content any more than Mrs. Spiribinski's Polish cook book she inherited from her grandmother.

But I don't ask you to abandon your faith. All I ask is not be stupid. You are not stupid; but you do act that, when you are cornered in logical wrench you can't defend your position from, and you squeal and utter really stupid counter-arguments. THAT is what I wish you would stop doing. If you can't counter in a way that is worthy of philosophy, then don't. Period.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:54 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:55 am
thedoc wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:06 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:49 pm
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.
Since you seem to imply that you know all there is to know about God, why don't you tell us what you know about God.
You theists are so tiresome! The guy said something logical, and you imply that he implied he knows all there is to know about god. He did not claim it, so why do you think he claimed that? I tell you why: Because the OP's post can be viewed negatively about god, and you won't abide by that. All theists are like that. Tell them something that is even slightly negative about their god, and they will lose their heads, go delusional, and 1. claim things that the utterers of the original claim did which they did not, and 2. request an impossible demand.

You stupid theists -- you are not stupid, but you do lose your heads when you run out of logical refutations to defend your position re: god. You resort, eventually, all of you, when you are threatened by irrefutable logic, to names-calling or to asking impossible demands, or to attributing a claim to the original utterer which he or she never claimed.

These are your three tactics, and it is getting really frigging tiresome. Why don't you theists man up, and either 1. come back with a logical retort or else if that's impossible, 2. just admit defeat?

God worship has been rejected by billions of people for a reason. The reason is that he is impossible to be, with the attributes you theists attach to him, and the non-belief is supported by no evidence of god. And the evidence the theists have? For the Christians, it is a book written less than 2000 years ago and another book written about 3000 years ago, both written by inadequately talented human writers, whom the theists believe got their inspiration from god. Read it again: the text were written by humans, in a time when it was in fashion to establish new religions. Inside, these books are replete with self-contradictions. There are contradictions in these books that deny the truth of the physical world we observe. I would not trust those books for spiritual content any more than Mrs. Spiribinski's Polish cook book she inherited from her grandmother.

But I don't ask you to abandon your faith. All I ask is not be stupid. You are not stupid; but you do act that, when you are cornered in logical wrench you can't defend your position from, and you squeal and utter really stupid counter-arguments. THAT is what I wish you would stop doing. If you can't counter in a way that is worthy of philosophy, then don't. Period.
Tell me the origin of the point, line and circle.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:54 pm
Tell me the origin of the point, line and circle.
What, you think we are back in kindergarten, you are a baby and I am your caregiver?

You have eyes. Go and read it yourself. Don't ask me to baby you.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:56 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:54 pm
Tell me the origin of the point, line and circle.
What, you think we are back in kindergarten, you are a baby and I am your caregiver?

You have eyes. Go and read it yourself. Don't ask me to baby you.
Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, how do that differ from God as a perpetual measurer?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:56 pm
Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, how do that differ from God as a perpetual measurer?
I am not your educator. You don't pay me to answer questions. You go and figure it out yourself. If you can't, too bad.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:04 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:56 pm
Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, how do that differ from God as a perpetual measurer?
I am not your educator. You don't pay me to answer questions. You go and figure it out yourself. If you can't, too bad.
Good then I will make it a statement: Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, they do not differ from God as a perpetual measurer.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:10 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:04 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:56 pm
Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, how do that differ from God as a perpetual measurer?
I am not your educator. You don't pay me to answer questions. You go and figure it out yourself. If you can't, too bad.
Good then I will make it a statement: Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, they do not differ from God as a perpetual measurer.
Thanks for heeding to my request. Now here's another one: please don't use pronouns without a clear reference to what their antecedents are. In your script the first occurrence of "they" and "them" and the second occurrence of "they" refer to something you do not define.

Your script is not comprehensible. You use pronouns without defining their antecedents. Bad compositional practice. Basic stuff. You may have a brilliant mind, but you still need to learn a thing or two in basic communication, is my opinion.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:31 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:10 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:04 pm
-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm

I am not your educator. You don't pay me to answer questions. You go and figure it out yourself. If you can't, too bad.
Good then I will make it a statement: Considering they are universals that both composed and define reality, with no myth to support them other than sheer belief, they do not differ from God as a perpetual measurer.
Thanks for heeding to my request. Now here's another one: please don't use pronouns without a clear reference to what their antecedents are. In your script the first occurrence of "they" and "them" and the second occurrence of "they" refer to something you do not define.

We weren't talking about the line, point and circle? What else was I talking about prior? If I included that in, would it be too long? Can all you do is criticize argument form and not the argument itself? Can you even answer an of these questions?

Your script is not comprehensible. You use pronouns without defining their antecedents. Bad compositional practice. Basic stuff. You may have a brilliant mind, but you still need to learn a thing or two in basic communication, is my opinion.
I think you are intellectually lazy and need to study more before making accusations. Do you have to agree with me? No, of course not. You have full right to argue and believe what you choose, but you provide no counter arguments to the argument itself. Strict ad-hominums, through while having their place, seem to be your only recourse. "You still need to learn a thing or two in basic communication, [in] my opinion."

You can take this as far as you want.



To get back to the actual point of the argument. What we understand of the universe is fundamentally the line point and circle, reflecting eachother to various degrees as spatial constants that both compose and define our reality. It is this universal nature of dimensions, synthesizing, ad-finitum (and it is ad-fininitum as these dimensions are founded upon the "point") that observes the universe both to contain a degree of consciousness and reflect a degree of consciousness, through perpetual measurement as the synthesis of dimension, that would could unify under the term of God.

What we understand of time is merely movement, as relation, in which these dimensions relate through a 0 dimensional point as a form of individuation. These units, relate through constant multiplication and division as time itself. In these respects, what we understand of time is merely the relation of spatial dimensions, that individuate to form further spatial dimensions as movement through relation.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:31 pm
To get back to the actual point of the argument. What we understand of the universe is fundamentally the line point and circle, reflecting eachother to various degrees as spatial constants that both compose and define our reality. It is this universal nature of dimensions, synthesizing, ad-finitum (and it is ad-fininitum as these dimensions are founded upon the "point") that observes the universe both to contain a degree of consciousness and reflect a degree of consciousness, through perpetual measurement as the synthesis of dimension, that would could unify under the term of God.

What we understand of time is merely movement, as relation, in which these dimensions relate through a 0 dimensional point as a form of individuation. These units, relate through constant multiplication and division as time itself. In these respects, what we understand of time is merely the relation of spatial dimensions, that individuate to form further spatial dimensions as movement through relation.
You caught me with this by surprise. This has not come up in this thread at all, nobody even mentioned it, not even passingly. And then you call it the actual point of the argument.

You call point, line and circle the actual points of the argument, and their manifests as the basic building block of the universe. That's one way of looking at it, my way of looking at point, line and circle is to consider them as abstractions made by man, to aid him in creating and solving problems in analytic geometry.

What other thread did you mix this one up with? Because if you look back on this one, nobody called it the actual point of the argument. Well, maybe I make mistakes like this too, mixing up the contents of two separate threads. It's a forgivable mistake.

If you think that the original post of this thread was a direct derivative of your theory of point, line a circle, then you are thinking way above my head. I never would have extrapolated from the OP's proposition to reduce the problem of the proposition to point, line and circle, and to call it the actual point of the argument. Quite a stretch. If you can connect the two, fine, you are a better man, but to me the two (the original post and your actual point of argument) are completely unrelated.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:30 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:31 pm
To get back to the actual point of the argument. What we understand of the universe is fundamentally the line point and circle, reflecting eachother to various degrees as spatial constants that both compose and define our reality. It is this universal nature of dimensions, synthesizing, ad-finitum (and it is ad-fininitum as these dimensions are founded upon the "point") that observes the universe both to contain a degree of consciousness and reflect a degree of consciousness, through perpetual measurement as the synthesis of dimension, that would could unify under the term of God.

What we understand of time is merely movement, as relation, in which these dimensions relate through a 0 dimensional point as a form of individuation. These units, relate through constant multiplication and division as time itself. In these respects, what we understand of time is merely the relation of spatial dimensions, that individuate to form further spatial dimensions as movement through relation.
You caught me with this by surprise. This has not come up in this thread at all, nobody even mentioned it, not even passingly. And then you call it the actual point of the argument.

That is because the argument just began...

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


You call point, line and circle the actual points of the argument, and their manifests as the basic building block of the universe. That's one way of looking at it, my way of looking at point, line and circle is to consider them as abstractions made by man, to aid him in creating and solving problems in analytic geometry.

And where did analytic geometry come from but empirical observations of the universe? Take for existence the triangle. The standard empirical argument is that the perfect triangle does not exist within nature, just approximates. However if we look at the nature of approximation it is merely lack of definition through movement. A triangle may exist in various relative dimensions at the same time, when looking into a flame, with each triangle being seperated by variations in angulature etc. Time is movement as approximation of structure. If a triangle, which in theory has infinite fractal dimensions that form as variations of the same triangle, exists through multiple triangles what we understand of the perfect triangle is merely approximation through movement.

In a seperate respect as perfect forms, these dimension exists as probability densities of "1" or "100%". In simpler terms, abstract forms, relative to empirical observation, are merely probability densities of "1" which manifest a fractal gradation through "movement". Take for example the flame again, it is composed of multiple triangles, of various grades however the movement as flame observes the triangle as approximation. This approximation manifests the flame as a fractal nature of the original geometric form (triangle), with this fractal form equating to a probabilistic fraction.

In a third respect, the point, line and circle exist a dimensional constants that continually relate through space as what consitutes the forms we know. To seperate the empirical from the abstract is to create a "space" between them. This is logically ironic, as polar duals eventually synthesize to form a triadic nature, which in this case is space. What we understand of space is merely dimensions that are boundaries through direction. A line seperates another line through the relation of directions, the particle wave exists only through direction, etc.

It is this continual synthesis of dimension, as space, which forms the basis of all axioms as "measurement" systems in themselves. Is the point, line and circle, as universal spatial entities, subjective or objective? If both, then space is conscious as a form of self-measurement through direction.

The question occurs, if they cannot be subjective and objective? Personal experience manifests itself through boundaries, emotions are boundaries between other emotions, sense experience follows this same paradigm, etc. Objectively the line and point are things in themselves. In these respects the line, point and circle are universal axioms that exist as consciousness for all form of consciousness are either:

1) rooted in them as elements
2) manifest as gradations of them
3) reach them as an apex

People usually get confused at this point. They think of a memory, usually one of intimate value, and say how can it be composed of spatial elements. Well let's take a look at the example of two people hugging, friends/lovers/relatives/etc. Physically the movements are merely gradations of circular and linear movements, such as grasping the other person as encirculating them or lifting them up into the air in a straight manner.

People look into eachother's eyes, with the faces merely being spatial curvature reflecting itself into a symmetry extending between the two points as the eyes.

Emotionally, people circulate between multiple emotions of joy, happiness, sadness, vulnerability, etc. Each of these dimensions, as emotions are merely dimensions of the spirit relating to other dimensions. Physically they are patterns within the nervous system which circulate through nerve bundles, or alternating chemical trying to maintain proportions.

In these respects what we understand of a simple moment such as this is space folding upon itself quantitatively and qualitatively in various degrees, with the center point, being the consciousness as "point" itself. The height of these experiences results in one getting "lost" or "ceasing to be aware" in the midst of a center point, in these case the action of hugging. However, by default rationally and intuitively we deem these experiences as points of our lives, as they are composed of further points, etc.

We connect the dots of these experience, intellectually and emotionally, in order to give structure to them and to ourselves. However, the constant never changing thing is the applicaiton of dimensions as a form of dimensionality. This dimension as the basis of all axiomatic systems, implies God as being both definition and definitionless through the synthesis of space as an ever present constant.


What other thread did you mix this one up with? Because if you look back on this one, nobody called it the actual point of the argument. Well, maybe I make mistakes like this too, mixing up the contents of two separate threads. It's a forgivable mistake.

If you think that the original post of this thread was a direct derivative of your theory of point, line a circle, then you are thinking way above my head.


I never would have extrapolated from the OP's proposition to reduce the problem of the proposition to point, line and circle, and to call it the actual point of the argument. Quite a stretch. If you can connect the two, fine, you are a better man, but to me the two (the original post and your actual point of argument) are completely unrelated.

In a simple summary, the application and observation of dimension is a universal binding median that reflects consciousness as universal in one respects, infinite in another, and reflective of a greater form of measurement as consciousness, i.e God.

Look at the ancient view of God as "logos" in the greek, the "architect" in freemasonry, the "tao" in eastern philosophy, the "1" in judaism/islam, the trinity in christianity, nirvanic "emptiness" in buddhism, etc. and what you see are dual quantitative and qualitative spatial dimensions. Even the human body is strictly symmetry of qualitative curvature and quantitative number.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:45 am

Necromancer wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:50 pm
As you may guess, God is indeed subject to time, but eternal! :D
That is impossible if by eternal you mean infinite past. There is argument against eternal living: It takes infinite amount of waiting to reach from infinite past to now. Infinite waiting however cannot be reached logically.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Veritas Aequitas and 3 guests