I'm a Theist

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pm

As far as I am aware, yes - and to the level of Christ's suffering...and more.
In a sense, this is exactly what I think also.
Oh.. how should I tread now?
In regards to what exactly?

Do you NOT 'tread' the same way ALWAYS?

What makes 'you' 'tread' differently?

The ones I KNOW that have Truly 'suffered' learn to BE, and 'tread', the SAME WAY for and with Everyone.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmIf yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pmNo you stupid c@nt - Christ IS God.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pmOh okay. So, that human being who was walking and talking about 2000 years ago what God, Itself, to you, correct?
Er yes.
Okay.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmAlso, is EVERY one who does NOT see things EXACTLY the SAME way that you do, like for example see "christ" IS God, then are ALL of them also "stupid cunts" as well?
If they didn't suffer for the know_ledge of the Truth to become SAGE....er yes. C@NTS all the way to the blocks.
So, to you, ONLY the ones who have suffered are NOT (that word), but the ones who have NOT suffered are (that word), correct?

How does a child choose to suffer and NOT be (that word) and/or choose to NOT suffer and therefore be (that word)?

Also, is NOT (that word) just another word for 'vagina'?

If yes, then how does that relate to a human being and what they have gone through?

If no, then what is (that word) exactly, in the way you are using that word here in relation to human beings what they have gone through or not gone through?

Also, were you implying before that 'you' have the knowledge of the Truth, and so have become a SAGE "yourself"?

If no, then okay. What were you saying or implying there?

If yes, then WHY are 'you' NOT BEING a SAGE and NOT DOING what SAGE's DO?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4194
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:03 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pm

In a sense, this is exactly what I think also.
Oh.. how should I tread now?
In regards to what exactly?

Do you NOT 'tread' the same way ALWAYS?

What makes 'you' 'tread' differently?

The ones I KNOW that have Truly 'suffered' learn to BE, and 'tread', the SAME WAY for and with Everyone.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmIf yes, then does one HAVE TO 'suffer' more to understand God, or is the same amount of 'suffering' NEEDED to understand both of "them"?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pmNo you stupid c@nt - Christ IS God.
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:28 pmOh okay. So, that human being who was walking and talking about 2000 years ago what God, Itself, to you, correct?
Er yes.
Okay.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:55 pmAlso, is EVERY one who does NOT see things EXACTLY the SAME way that you do, like for example see "christ" IS God, then are ALL of them also "stupid cunts" as well?
If they didn't suffer for the know_ledge of the Truth to become SAGE....er yes. C@NTS all the way to the blocks.
So, to you, ONLY the ones who have suffered are NOT (that word), but the ones who have NOT suffered are (that word), correct?

How does a child choose to suffer and NOT be (that word) and/or choose to NOT suffer and therefore be (that word)?

Also, is NOT (that word) just another word for 'vagina'?

If yes, then how does that relate to a human being and what they have gone through?

If no, then what is (that word) exactly, in the way you are using that word here in relation to human beings what they have gone through or not gone through?

Also, were you implying before that 'you' have the knowledge of the Truth, and so have become a SAGE "yourself"?

If no, then okay. What were you saying or implying there?

If yes, then WHY are 'you' NOT BEING a SAGE and NOT DOING what SAGE's DO?
Wot does a sage do?

...find your own answers...SAP
This Tree of Knowledge has no answers for U, u just ain't quest_ion_ing in a way that is sufficient to your bark.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:13 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:03 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm

Oh.. how should I tread now?
In regards to what exactly?

Do you NOT 'tread' the same way ALWAYS?

What makes 'you' 'tread' differently?

The ones I KNOW that have Truly 'suffered' learn to BE, and 'tread', the SAME WAY for and with Everyone.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm




Er yes.
Okay.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:36 pm
If they didn't suffer for the know_ledge of the Truth to become SAGE....er yes. C@NTS all the way to the blocks.
So, to you, ONLY the ones who have suffered are NOT (that word), but the ones who have NOT suffered are (that word), correct?

How does a child choose to suffer and NOT be (that word) and/or choose to NOT suffer and therefore be (that word)?

Also, is NOT (that word) just another word for 'vagina'?

If yes, then how does that relate to a human being and what they have gone through?

If no, then what is (that word) exactly, in the way you are using that word here in relation to human beings what they have gone through or not gone through?

Also, were you implying before that 'you' have the knowledge of the Truth, and so have become a SAGE "yourself"?

If no, then okay. What were you saying or implying there?

If yes, then WHY are 'you' NOT BEING a SAGE and NOT DOING what SAGE's DO?
Wot does a sage do?
Would a so called "sage" really need to ask this?

A 'sage' expels wisdom, like what wise ones do.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:13 pm...find your own answers...SAP
This Tree of Knowledge has no answers for U, u just ain't quest_ion_ing in a way that is sufficient to your bark.
But I just asked 'you' very simple clarifying questions directly in regards to 'you', so obviously only 'you' could be able to answer them.

Unfortunately though you did not or could not.

I posed eleven very simple clarifying questions directly to 'you', of only 'you' would KNOW the answer to, but if 'you' are some sort of 'sage', then WHY did 'you' NOT answer even one of them?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4194
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:24 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:13 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:03 pm

In regards to what exactly?

Do you NOT 'tread' the same way ALWAYS?

What makes 'you' 'tread' differently?

The ones I KNOW that have Truly 'suffered' learn to BE, and 'tread', the SAME WAY for and with Everyone.



Okay.



So, to you, ONLY the ones who have suffered are NOT (that word), but the ones who have NOT suffered are (that word), correct?

How does a child choose to suffer and NOT be (that word) and/or choose to NOT suffer and therefore be (that word)?

Also, is NOT (that word) just another word for 'vagina'?

If yes, then how does that relate to a human being and what they have gone through?

If no, then what is (that word) exactly, in the way you are using that word here in relation to human beings what they have gone through or not gone through?

Also, were you implying before that 'you' have the knowledge of the Truth, and so have become a SAGE "yourself"?

If no, then okay. What were you saying or implying there?

If yes, then WHY are 'you' NOT BEING a SAGE and NOT DOING what SAGE's DO?
Wot does a sage do?
Would a so called "sage" really need to ask this?

A 'sage' expels wisdom, like what wise ones do.
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:13 pm...find your own answers...SAP
This Tree of Knowledge has no answers for U, u just ain't quest_ion_ing in a way that is sufficient to your bark.
But I just asked 'you' very simple clarifying questions directly in regards to 'you', so obviously only 'you' could be able to answer them.

Unfortunately though you did not or could not.

I posed eleven very simple clarifying questions directly to 'you', of only 'you' would KNOW the answer to, but if 'you' are some sort of 'sage', then WHY did 'you' NOT answer even one of them?




.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:53 pm Are you absolutely STUPID...
We're done.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes
So far, so good...I don't know anyone who would contest that.
Great.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
and 2) Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
I'm not sure about that, because I don't quite know why you say it. Not that I think time does not have a beginning, but it doesn't look to me like my reasons for saying so are the same as yours might be. So I'l take you up, if you don't mind, on your generous offer to explain your arguments on that.
I don't really need to offer the argument for the beginning of time if you believe that time has a beginning. But for sake of clarity (I need this argument to show that the act of creation leads to regress as it is discussed in the last comment), I am going to offer it anyway: Basically, the eternal time means that time exists no matter how far you go to past from now. That is basically the definition of infinite past. This means that if one starts from infinite past then he could not reach now too. Therefore, time is not eternal or in other word it has a beginning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
I have an argument that shows the act of creation is temporal, my previous post in this thread.
That's obviously problematic, though. If "time" is the thing being created, how can it take "time" to do it? Because that would mean that time had to exist before time existed...which seems tautological. So again, perhaps you'd be so good as to spell that out better for me.
You basically get the idea but you need to note that the time for the act of creation has to be different from the time in the universe. The act of creation is temporal. Time is an element of creation. Therefore, you need time for the creation of time which is problematic and this leads to regress as it is explained in the next comment.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?
Yes. The act of creation is temporal. Time has a beginning. Therefore, you need time for creation of time.
But where's the "regress" there? I'm not seeing it yet. I perceive a contradiction, but no regress.

Thanks for anything you can add to clear this up for me.
The regress is unavoidable once you accept that the universe is created. Why? Because you need time (let's call this time former time which is different from time in the universe) in the first place to create the universe. Time cannot be eternal so the former time, the one which was needed for the act of creation has to be created too. The act of creation of former time is temporal so the only way to create former time is to have another time and so on.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:07 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am
So let's see if I can figure out how you find this argument to work.

You suppose that a) time is a feature of creation...I'm not sure how you come to that, but okay.
I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes and 2) Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
Can I see these two "arguments"?
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
I have an argument that shows the act of creation is temporal, my previous post in this thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?
Yes. The act of creation is temporal. Time has a beginning. Therefore, you need time for creation of time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:42 am Maybe you could fill that out a bit for me...it seems like a possible critique of Unitarianism, if it were fixed up a bit. But I'm not even quite sure about that...I'm going to have to wait for the clearer explanation before I could comment.
I hope it is clear now. I would provide my arguments on each part if you wish.
Please see my former post for proof that time has a beginning or it cannot be eternal. I already offered my proof for the necessity of time in another thread (in the thread entitled "we have been here before").
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:19 pm Basically, the eternal time means that time exists no matter how far you go to past from now. That is basically the definition of infinite past. This means that if one starts from infinite past then he could not reach now too. Therefore, time is not eternal or in other word it has a beginning.
This is the problem: the term "time" cannot be used to refer to the eternal "past," as you call it, because you're trying to also say that "time" had a beginning...which then means that whatever came in the situation of that "past" portion, it cannot be called "time."

"Time" can't both be a thing with a beginning, but also the word you use to describe the eternal (i.e. beginning less) past.

That's what needs clearing up.
...the time for the act of creation has to be different from the time in the universe. The act of creation is temporal. Time is an element of creation. Therefore, you need time for the creation of time which is problematic
Well, yes...but only for your terminology. As I say, you need to speak of whatever came "before time" as something quite different, not as "time."
and this leads to regress as it is explained in the next comment.

The regress is unavoidable once you accept that the universe is created. Why? Because you need time (let's call this time former time which is different from time in the universe) in the first place to create the universe.
Okay, but here's the problem again: you're using "time" to refer to that which we normally call "time" (i.e. what's going on now, for example) and also to refer to the situation as it was PRIOR TO "time" existing at all (i.e. to eternity past). But that's incoherent. And the problem is not in "time" itself, but in the explanation you're giving. You're amphibolizing the word "time."
Time cannot be eternal so the former time, the one which was needed for the act of creation has to be created too.
Ah. Now I see the alleged regress. But it's not a real regress, unfortunately, because in order to create it you have to assume that "time" now and "time" then refer to the same thing...which means that "time" was both created and never created, which is incoherent.
The act of creation of former time is temporal so the only way to create former time is to have another time and so on.

Ah! Eureka! I've found your problem!

In a strange way, you've stumbled on the right problem, namely that infinite regress of causal relations is impossible. But you've just moved the problem over to "time," and that's causing you to confuse your language. We can simplify that, and make the problem much clearer and much more pressing, if you move to speaking about "causes" not of "time."

The weakness of your argument is that a) "time" is merely a human metric, and b) you're amphibolizing it, making it speak of two modes of being at the same time. And your opponent can wiggle right out of that problem by pointing out that if you say "time was created," then you cannot be using "time" also to refer to the past-eternal state. And so he can say it's your explanation that's confused, not the idea of "time."

But if you switch to speaking of causal chains, instead of "time," then your argument is quite secure. Causal regress cannot be infinite: but before "time," we don't really know what existed, and can't speak knowingly of time passing, or of such a thing as "time" even existing.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:19 pm Basically, the eternal time means that time exists no matter how far you go to past from now. That is basically the definition of infinite past. This means that if one starts from infinite past then he could not reach now too. Therefore, time is not eternal or in other word it has a beginning.
This is the problem: the term "time" cannot be used to refer to the eternal "past," as you call it, because you're trying to also say that "time" had a beginning...which then means that whatever came in the situation of that "past" portion, it cannot be called "time."

"Time" can't both be a thing with a beginning, but also the word you use to describe the eternal (i.e. beginning less) past.
No. I am saying time has a beginning since it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now. Why is it true? Because you cannot reach infinite past from now too, the reverse process.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm That's what needs clearing up.
What is missing?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
...the time for the act of creation has to be different from the time in the universe. The act of creation is temporal. Time is an element of creation. Therefore, you need time for the creation of time which is problematic
Well, yes...but only for your terminology. As I say, you need to speak of whatever came "before time" as something quite different, not as "time."
Do you agree that the act of creation is temporal? There is only God then there are God and creation. This is a temporal act. Non-temporal act does not exist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
and this leads to regress as it is explained in the next comment.

The regress is unavoidable once you accept that the universe is created. Why? Because you need time (let's call this time former time which is different from time in the universe) in the first place to create the universe.
Okay, but here's the problem again: you're using "time" to refer to that which we normally call "time" (i.e. what's going on now, for example) and also to refer to the situation as it was PRIOR TO "time" existing at all (i.e. to eternity past). But that's incoherent. And the problem is not in "time" itself, but in the explanation you're giving. You're amphibolizing the word "time."
It is incoherent if there could be only one time. It leads to regress if there could be more than one time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
Time cannot be eternal so the former time, the one which was needed for the act of creation has to be created too.
Ah. Now I see the alleged regress. But it's not a real regress, unfortunately, because in order to create it you have to assume that "time" now and "time" then refer to the same thing...which means that "time" was both created and never created, which is incoherent.
I am talking that there are at least two different points, 1) God only and God and the creation. One point follows another one. This is a temporal act. These two points are logically and timely related. By timely related, I mean that the act is temporal, as it is defined.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
The act of creation of former time is temporal so the only way to create former time is to have another time and so on.

Ah! Eureka! I've found your problem!

In a strange way, you've stumbled on the right problem, namely that infinite regress of causal relations is impossible. But you've just moved the problem over to "time," and that's causing you to confuse your language. We can simplify that, and make the problem much clearer and much more pressing, if you move to speaking about "causes" not of "time."

I am saying that any cause is temporal, there is a before and after, otherwise, there is no change. The act of creatin is a cause hence it is temporal. That leads to a regress if you introduce God in the picture and if the act of creation of time is possible so God could create many times. That leads to incoherence if there was only one time. In both cases, we are dealing with a logical problem which leads to the fact that there is no God, the creator.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm The weakness of your argument is that a) "time" is merely a human metric, and b) you're amphibolizing it, making it speak of two modes of being at the same time. And your opponent can wiggle right out of that problem by pointing out that if you say "time was created," then you cannot be using "time" also to refer to the past-eternal state. And so he can say it's your explanation that's confused, not the idea of "time."

The events in our reality are not laying at one point since the events are not simultaneous. They are laying on a logically and timely related points, so-called time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm But if you switch to speaking of causal chains, instead of "time," then your argument is quite secure. Causal regress cannot be infinite: but before "time," we don't really know what existed, and can't speak knowingly of time passing, or of such a thing as "time" even existing.
Do you think that God created the universe and if this act is temporal?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:23 pm
Age wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:53 pm Are you absolutely STUPID...
We're done.
WHY?

Because;

You do not know how to answer this clarifying question?

You do not know what that word means?

You have absolutely no idea how I am using that word?

You do not understand the actual question I am asking? Or,

For some other reason?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes
So far, so good...I don't know anyone who would contest that.
Just so you are AWARE.

No one has PROVEN 'time' allows changes, AND, I say 'time' has NOTHING whatsoever in relation to 'allowing changes'.

So, now you do KNOW some one.
Last edited by Age on Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:44 am No. I am saying time has a beginning since it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now. Why is it true? Because you cannot reach infinite past from now too, the reverse process.
That's not quite the right explanation, I would suggest. While it is true you can't reach the infinite past from the present, it's also true that you can't reach last week from the present...but last week was, presumably, real.

The real reason is if time is viewed as a necessary and causal sequence, meaning "X must happen before X1 can happen," and "X1 must happen before X2" can happen, and so on. If that's the sequence of time, then X - ∞ is lost in the infinite past, and can never have actually happened, because infinity () isn't any point in time, but is an infinite regress into the past. If that's how things were, no X actions can ever take place.

So, to illustrate, you could not be born, because your parents weren't born before you, because your grandparents weren't born, because your grandparents weren't born...because the "being born" point for anything is lost in the infinite past, --- IF indeed the past is infinite. :shock:

But it's not. And the absolute proof is that you are here.
What is missing?
That kind of explanation.
Do you agree that the act of creation is temporal?
Well, it cannot possibly be, if, as you insist, "time" is a created entity. There cannot, then, have been anything like "time" before this point at which "time" was created.

If what you're saying is right, then the act of time coming into being cannot "take any time," because there's nothing yet in existence for it to "take."
Non-temporal act does not exist.
Not for human beings, of course. However, we don't quite know what to say about the state (if it was anything we can call a "state") that existed prior to the creation of "time" -- if, as you say, time is a created entity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm Okay, but here's the problem again: you're using "time" to refer to that which we normally call "time" (i.e. what's going on now, for example) and also to refer to the situation as it was PRIOR TO "time" existing at all (i.e. to eternity past). But that's incoherent. And the problem is not in "time" itself, but in the explanation you're giving. You're amphibolizing the word "time."
It is incoherent if there could be only one time. It leads to regress if there could be more than one time.
I suggest you clear up your language, then. If "time" is a created property, then what came before "time" is not "time" at all, but something else, something not imaginable to human beings from within "time."

I suggest the old placeholder "eternity past," as the most easily grasped option, but you can call it something else, if you like, like "the pre-chronological," or something.

Just don't call two very different things by the same name, "time." That just confuses any logic, because it makes what's called "the fallacy of the shifting middle term" in any syllogism you try to create from it.
I am talking that there are at least two different points, 1) God only and God and the creation. One point follows another one.
But this is the problem. You're treating both situations as "points," as "times" as governed by the same kind of chronology and the same kind of existence. You're generalizing from your own point within time, to a situation in which the concept "time" simply does not exist or apply, as if things were always the same...but it's got to be quite evident that they're not, because in this pre-chronology situation, there is no "time" yet!
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm
The act of creation of former time is temporal so the only way to create former time is to have another time and so on.

Ah! Eureka! I've found your problem!

In a strange way, you've stumbled on the right problem, namely that infinite regress of causal relations is impossible. But you've just moved the problem over to "time," and that's causing you to confuse your language. We can simplify that, and make the problem much clearer and much more pressing, if you move to speaking about "causes" not of "time."

I am saying that any cause is temporal, there is a before and after, otherwise, there is no change.
Right, that's what you're saying. But it contains a mistake, namely, that the term "change" implies the pre-existence of something, the thing-changed-from, and the later existence of another thing, the thing-changed-to. Biblically, we speak of creation as having been produced "ex nihilo," from the Latin meaning "out of nothing." This implies that there was no pre-existing "substance" out of which the universe (and with it, time) were formed. And no time passed in the doing of it, because it was a creation-ex-nihilo, NOT a "change" at all.
In both cases, we are dealing with a logical problem which leads to the fact that there is no God, the creator.
The opposite is actually true: it means that without a creation-ex-nihilo, nothing would exist. In other words, only a First Cause capable of doing what is traditionally attributed to God would be capable of making it so that anything existed.

But stuff exists.
The events in our reality are not laying at one point since the events are not simultaneous.
Right: in our created, time-bound reality, that's what is the case. But that already accepts the existence of time, which you have said had a beginning -- so therefore, there was a pre-chronological situation of some kind. That you cannot find ways to describe it doesn't even surprise; let alone count as a reason to think no such situation could exist. (Here, we have to be very careful even how we use the word "exist," since all "existence" that we happen to understand is causal and temporal...but God is not bound by these things, since they are created states.)
Do you think that God created the universe and if this act is temporal?
Yes to the first clause, and no to the second. By definition, this "act" has to have been pre-temporal and transcendent of time, not subject to it or governed by it. If it were not, then we could not speak of "time" being created at all. But then, neither would anything post-time and post-causality exist at all.

Yet it does.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4194
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by attofishpi »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:22 pm I have two arguments here: 1) Time is real and allows changes
So far, so good...I don't know anyone who would contest that.
Great.
I contest. (it's ok we don't know each other)

Time does not 'allow' change...change IS time. Events ARE time.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:44 am No. I am saying time has a beginning since it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now. Why is it true? Because you cannot reach infinite past from now too, the reverse process.
That's not quite the right explanation, I would suggest. While it is true you can't reach the infinite past from the present, it's also true that you can't reach last week from the present...but last week was, presumably, real.

The real reason is if time is viewed as a necessary and causal sequence, meaning "X must happen before X1 can happen," and "X1 must happen before X2" can happen, and so on. If that's the sequence of time, then X - ∞ is lost in the infinite past, and can never have actually happened, because infinity () isn't any point in time, but is an infinite regress into the past. If that's how things were, no X actions can ever take place.

So, to illustrate, you could not be born, because your parents weren't born before you, because your grandparents weren't born, because your grandparents weren't born...because the "being born" point for anything is lost in the infinite past, --- IF indeed the past is infinite. :shock:

But it's not. And the absolute proof is that you are here.
I understand what you are trying to say and I agree with it. What I am trying to say is that if we could possibly travel to the past still it is impossible to reach eternal past.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
Do you agree that the act of creation is temporal?
Well, it cannot possibly be, if, as you insist, "time" is a created entity. There cannot, then, have been anything like "time" before this point at which "time" was created.

If what you're saying is right, then the act of time coming into being cannot "take any time," because there's nothing yet in existence for it to "take."
Well, what I am saying that the act of creation is temporal. Why? Because there are two states of affair in the act of creation: 1) God only and 2) God and creation. These two states of affair cannot lay at the same point therefore they are laying on different points. Moreover, the second state of affair must logically come after the first one. In the end, it should be possible to reach from the first state of affair to the second one, or from the first point to the second one and for that, you need duration, the duration being time between two points. The duration cannot be zero since two states of affair lay at the same point. Therefore, duration is finite which means that two states of affair lay on different points and one can reach from one state of affair to another one. As you see there is no way to escape temporality when it comes to the act of creation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
Non-temporal act does not exist.
Not for human beings, of course. However, we don't quite know what to say about the state (if it was anything we can call a "state") that existed prior to the creation of "time" -- if, as you say, time is a created entity.
Can we agree that only God existed prior to act of creation and God and the creation after the act of creation? If yes, then it follows that the act of creation is temporal. This is discussed in the previous comment.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm Okay, but here's the problem again: you're using "time" to refer to that which we normally call "time" (i.e. what's going on now, for example) and also to refer to the situation as it was PRIOR TO "time" existing at all (i.e. to eternity past). But that's incoherent. And the problem is not in "time" itself, but in the explanation you're giving. You're amphibolizing the word "time."
It is incoherent if there could be only one time. It leads to regress if there could be more than one time.
I suggest you clear up your language, then. If "time" is a created property, then what came before "time" is not "time" at all, but something else, something not imaginable to human beings from within "time."
Could God create times={time1, time2, time3...}?

If yes, He needs to create time1 to create the creation. Why? Because the act of creation is temporal. This leads to regress since God needs time2 to create time1. Regress is not acceptable therefore the premise that God created the creation is false.

If no, then we are dealing with a dilemma with no answer. Therefore, the premise that God created the creation is false.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm Just don't call two very different things by the same name, "time." That just confuses any logic, because it makes what's called "the fallacy of the shifting middle term" in any syllogism you try to create from it.
I already call them former and later time. But we can call them time= "the time within the creation", time1= "time which is needed to create the creation since the act of creation is temporal", time2="time which is needed to create time1", etc. This is the regress.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
I am talking that there are at least two different points, 1) God only and God and the creation. One point follows another one.
But this is the problem. You're treating both situations as "points," as "times" as governed by the same kind of chronology and the same kind of existence. You're generalizing from your own point within time, to a situation in which the concept "time" simply does not exist or apply, as if things were always the same...but it's got to be quite evident that they're not, because in this pre-chronology situation, there is no "time" yet!
Was there a point that only God existed?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:02 pm Ah! Eureka! I've found your problem!

In a strange way, you've stumbled on the right problem, namely that infinite regress of causal relations is impossible. But you've just moved the problem over to "time," and that's causing you to confuse your language. We can simplify that, and make the problem much clearer and much more pressing, if you move to speaking about "causes" not of "time."

I am saying that any cause is temporal, there is a before and after, otherwise, there is no change.
Right, that's what you're saying. But it contains a mistake, namely, that the term "change" implies the pre-existence of something, the thing-changed-from, and the later existence of another thing, the thing-changed-to.
No, the change doesn't only mean something to something else. It also means nothing to something.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
In both cases, we are dealing with a logical problem which leads to the fact that there is no God, the creator.
The opposite is actually true: it means that without a creation-ex-nihilo, nothing would exist. In other words, only a First Cause capable of doing what is traditionally attributed to God would be capable of making it so that anything existed.

But stuff exists.
Well, for that you need to show that the act of creation is logically possible. What I am showing is that it is logically impossible. Why there is something rather than nothing is the subject of another thread.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
The events in our reality are not laying at one point since the events are not simultaneous.
Right: in our created, time-bound reality, that's what is the case. But that already accepts the existence of time, which you have said had a beginning -- so therefore, there was a pre-chronological situation of some kind. That you cannot find ways to describe it doesn't even surprise; let alone count as a reason to think no such situation could exist. (Here, we have to be very careful even how we use the word "exist," since all "existence" that we happen to understand is causal and temporal...but God is not bound by these things, since they are created states.)
The act of creation is temporal. God is bounded to this fact. As we show that leads to regress which is not acceptable. Therefore, the premise God created the creation is false.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:58 pm
Do you think that God created the universe and if this act is temporal?
Yes to the first clause, and no to the second. By definition, this "act" has to have been pre-temporal and transcendent of time, not subject to it or governed by it. If it were not, then we could not speak of "time" being created at all. But then, neither would anything post-time and post-causality exist at all.

Yet it does.
Okay, now we are in the point that you need to answer this question: Was there a state of affair that only God existed?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:46 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:30 am
So far, so good...I don't know anyone who would contest that.
Great.
I contest. (it's ok we don't know each other)

Time does not 'allow' change...change IS time. Events ARE time.
Change by definition is an act or process through which something becomes different. Event is a thing that happens or takes place.
Post Reply