Two paradoxes related to God

[-1-]

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

Ah. If you think that creation's time is problematic, then you must believe in creation, which is a tenet described in the Bible. So you do believe the bible, so as far as you are concerned, the creation happened 6000 years ago (give or take a few).

However, if you dispute the 6000 years, you are disputing the bible, in which case you can throw away the creation story as well.

THAT is your paradox. To cherry pick things you believe in the bible. I think it ought to be an all-or-nothing thing. But you theists move the goal posts of belief like you wouldn't beleive, only an outsider can properly see how ridiculous you theists are in proving one thing and disproving another both in the bible.

This I said in terms of the bible, but you can migrate the logic to other religion's scriptures, gods and creation stories.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

In the case of the Kalam Cosmological argument, this is specifically addressed; The reason why theologians believe that his act of creating the universe does not need a form of progression to actualize is because he has a form of free will. So, to give a comparative example of why this matters to them - a rock that starts rolling down a hill to hit a wall needs time in order to make any progression in order to hit that wall; God's action to create the universe does not need progression, because it doesn't rely on a series of steps that need to progress in order to happen.

Progression is not necessarily excluded. Please see my immediately previous post.

I don't entirely understand your argument; It sounded like you were trying to give an analogy that doesn't actually demonstrate the possibility of infinite regression. If you were to give a logical equation that exactly showed the possibility of an infinite past, that would be one thing, although I'm not sure how you would do that.

In fact, the Kalam Cosmological argument is another faith-based impossiblity, to make people's belief compatible with reality, which can't be done in real terms.

I think that's a pretty unsympathetic response to what theologians are trying to do...

But my argument has shown that an infinitely long progression in time which never has had a starting point in time (since it's infinitely long) does have values of complexity at any point in time in the infinitely long timeline.

Well, it's not exactly about the complexity to theologians, it's a perceived impossibility that something can have a start, a middle and a present if the first two are infinitely long.

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

There's no time stamp of when it happened, because there is no time, and that is sort of the point. It's just that by proxy, it must have been 'before' time, for lack of a better word.

Obviously, another proponent to this is the idea that god created time when he created the universe.

[-1-]

Progression is not necessarily excluded. Please see my immediately previous post.

I don't entirely understand your argument; It sounded like you were trying to give an analogy that doesn't actually demonstrate the possibility of infinite regression. If you were to give a logical equation that exactly showed the possibility of an infinite past, that would be one thing, although I'm not sure how you would do that.

I think I showed you what you demanded to be shown: an infinite regression of complexity from infinite past. The only reason I can think of why you are a bit baffled by my explanation is that you are not familiar with the shape of the exponential function f(x)= a^x where a is a real number.

Without this knowledge my explanation does not make sense. However, I maintain that that is not the weakness of my explanation. I've given an analogy that clearly and elegantly demonstrates the possibility of infinite regression of complexity.

[-1-]

In fact, the Kalam Cosmological argument is another faith-based impossiblity, to make people's belief compatible with reality, which can't be done in real terms.

I think that's a pretty unsympathetic response to what theologians are trying to do...

I don't understand why you expect me to sympathise with "stupid". The entire Christian faith and other major religions are replete with impossible tenets; saying the tenets are impossible is not unsympathetic, it's only reasonable. Believe me, the said theologians would not be upset by my calling their theories stupid, because it would not be the first time they'd have heard that. Everyone knows it, they know it too, and yet they keep on practicing their art, these philosophy charlatans, the theologians.

All my respect to the theologians, but they have their failings, much like I do. I have a poor rote memory; they have a mindset in which the scriptures supercede reason, logic and reality.

[-1-]

Obviously, another proponent to this is the idea that god created time when he created the universe.

I assume your starting point in explanation is the scriptures. The scriptures say " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " It does not say God created time. God existed before creating the heaven and the earth; and he could only exist before that point in time if there were preceding points in time prior to creation.

I mean, if you want to stick with the bible, then stick with it, don't stray from it. Moving goal posts is not kosher in these parts.

[bahman]

This paradox can be explained by knowing the shape of the logarithmic exponential funcionon of Y = n**X where you can choose n to be any real number.

So once you see in front of your imaginary eyes this curve, you notice that each value of Ya that is right of Yb is more complex than Yb. That is, where Ya=n**a, and Yb=n**b, and b<a and b and a are both real.

In this case no matter what arbitrary point on the x scale you choose, the values of Y will be always larger to the right of X than to the left of X.

Imagine now two things: that 1. this function describes the complexity of thought that god has given himself to before creating the world and 2. at one point (for instance, where x=0 or ex equals zero) the thought became reality and creation occurred.

In this picture, the thought has never started; it has existed forever; it has become more and more complex, as thoughts are wont of doing; and it became so complex, that creation occurred, when the thinker god decided the thought was complex enough to create a physical representation of his mental model of this complex thing.

So yes, to us it seems that if the world started at one point, then the creation can't be placed on a scale of an infinitely long timeline; that is what our intuition has told us. But the mathematical model of a logarithmic function can alter our intuitive insight, and tell us that yes, there is possible for a though which constantly increases in complexity to have existed in the past forever.

===================

I am an atheist, and a reasonable thinker. I don't say this is the case; I don't believe this is the case; but as a logical thinker, I have come to the conclusion that the creation of the world as a finite event on an infinitely long timeline is possible when thinking purely in terms of philosophical possibilities.

You cannot wait from now to infinite future. You cannot wait from infinite past to now.

[bahman]

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

It certainly is ming-boggling why the creation happened when it did, since god has had an infinite amount of time to decide when to go for it.

But it did happen, and it happened whenever it happened.

This cuts through the polemification and pondering and speculation when god decided to do this creation. That is not an issue any longer when you think that this is when it happened.

You actually can't say "it was impossible for god to do the creation" when you are a creature of creation.

You are referring to temporal God (bold p art). This is the second argument related to timeless God.

[bahman]

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

Ah. If you think that creation's time is problematic, then you must believe in creation, which is a tenet described in the Bible. So you do believe the bible, so as far as you are concerned, the creation happened 6000 years ago (give or take a few).

However, if you dispute the 6000 years, you are disputing the bible, in which case you can throw away the creation story as well.

THAT is your paradox. To cherry pick things you believe in the bible. I think it ought to be an all-or-nothing thing. But you theists move the goal posts of belief like you wouldn't beleive, only an outsider can properly see how ridiculous you theists are in proving one thing and disproving another both in the bible.

This I said in terms of the bible, but you can migrate the logic to other religion's scriptures, gods and creation stories.

I don't believe in Bible. :-S

[bahman]

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

There's no time stamp of when it happened, because there is no time, and that is sort of the point. It's just that by proxy, it must have been 'before' time, for lack of a better word.

Obviously, another proponent to this is the idea that god created time when he created the universe.

You have nothing+God then creation+God. You need time for that and time is a part of creation. That is contrary.

[-1-]

You cannot wait from now to infinite future. You cannot wait from infinite past to now.

Why not? can you substantiate your position?

[-1-]

I don't believe in Bible. :-S

Fair enough. so what's your guide to know god's qualities, the properties of god the "specs" if you want to put it that way?

Why do you believe in creation? What is your reason for it?

Why do you even insist that god has properties, such as timelessness or being temporal?

What is your reference to what qualities god has?

[-1-]

I was not talking about progressing. I was talking about the act of creation which happens in one instant. The problem in here is that there is no time reference to say when God created the universe. Therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is problematic.

It certainly is ming-boggling why the creation happened when it did, since god has had an infinite amount of time to decide when to go for it.

But it did happen, and it happened whenever it happened.

This cuts through the polemification and pondering and speculation when god decided to do this creation. That is not an issue any longer when you think that this is when it happened.

You actually can't say "it was impossible for god to do the creation" when you are a creature of creation.

You are referring to temporal God (bold p art). This is the second argument related to timeless God.

This has become moot. Your god is not defined. It's not the god of the bible. So I have no clue what attributes you believe this god to have.

This entire argument hinges upon some assumptions, and I don't know the source of your assumptions. It would be easier if your god was assumed to be the Christian god, but you deny that.

I can't really make an argument against air. Your god just went up in a POOF, it became dematerialized, at least inasmuch as it is impossible for others on this page to grasp what you believe god is. Since you have no comprehensive reference as to what it is that entails god.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Progression is not necessarily excluded. Please see my immediately previous post.

I don't entirely understand your argument; It sounded like you were trying to give an analogy that doesn't actually demonstrate the possibility of infinite regression. If you were to give a logical equation that exactly showed the possibility of an infinite past, that would be one thing, although I'm not sure how you would do that.

I think I showed you what you demanded to be shown: an infinite regression of complexity from infinite past. The only reason I can think of why you are a bit baffled by my explanation is that you are not familiar with the shape of the exponential function f(x)= a^x where a is a real number.

Without this knowledge my explanation does not make sense. However, I maintain that that is not the weakness of my explanation. I've given an analogy that clearly and elegantly demonstrates the possibility of infinite regression of complexity.

I think I'm a baffled, because infinite can't quite be fit into a standard logical equation, especially when we are trying to figure out if a true 'infinite' can actually exist.

All my respect to the theologians, but they have their failings, much like I do. I have a poor rote memory; they have a mindset in which the scriptures supercede reason, logic and reality.

..Well apparently, you don't have much respect to give them because you think what they're doing is stupid. Anyway, if you're the type of atheist who thinks that all religious people are stupid for what they believe, you probably aren't going to make many friends in your life.

I have my disagreement with theologians, but I concede that a lot of the ideas they present from a philosophical standpoint, are very interesting. It's not to say that I agree with any of their arguments, because obviously I don't as an atheist.

I assume your starting point in explanation is the scriptures.

My starting point, is what theologians have made the case for; Again I'm not a christian myself, I'm just laying out a position for the sake of discussion.

You have nothing+God then creation+God. You need time for that and time is a part of creation. That is contrary.

...Or you could just repeat yourself, but phrased in a different way; What you're saying doesn't actually demonstrate anything, it's just a statement of what you believe has to be the case without showing exactly why. Theologians have specifically addressed why the act of creation differentiates from actions which do need time, and I would say they have sufficiently explained it. It's not where I would personally object to the cosmological argument.

[-1-]

All my respect to the theologians, but they have their failings, much like I do. I have a poor rote memory; they have a mindset in which the scriptures supercede reason, logic and reality.

..Well apparently, you don't have much respect to give them because you think what they're doing is stupid.

Actually, I think my respect is greater for theologians, because you at least enjoy their theories, while I don't, and I STILL respect them. It comes easy for you to respect them; for me it's not so easy, and yet I still have a lot of respect for them.

Only because they are stupid, based on that alone, I ought not to, and indeed I do not, disrespect them. It is a quality of theirs, not their essence, not their humanity. To err is human. Goodness knows, I have made a lot of stupid moves in my life, and some people still respect me.

Calling somebody stupid COULD be a sign of disrespect, but not in this case with me with the theologians. It is simply calling a spade a spade. There is nothing disrespectful about the truth. In fact, it would be disrespectful to me and to them to NOT call them stupid.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

k