Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why your god and not nothing?

Cue more incoherent gibberish about a "necessary entity"....

Bad debating technique to answer a question with a question. I think you might have slipped up and suggested that the space time manifold necessarily existed but here's your opportunity to deny or retract.

What we are agreed on is an ultimate uncreated entity for which there is no external reason.
You say it is the space time manifold. That is a positive assertion and you therefore have a burden.

If time is dependent on a space time manifold then space, time and their ''manifoldness'' are dependent on themselves and your argument is a tautology. Cue Stranger with a courtiers reply.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a straw man argument.

Nobody here has said theoretical physics is the basis of the concept of existence. What they have said is that the space-time manifold which necessarily is not time based, because time is only one component of it, is a counter example to your claim that existence is time based.

If time is one component of the space time manifold then that manifold is dependent for it's existence on time.

Being made of components isn't a very good look for an uncreated ultimate entity

[Stranger]

Bad debating technique to answer a question with a question.

Don't see why. I was simply pointing out that you could ask the exact same question about any god you postulate.

I think you might have slipped up and suggested that the space time manifold necessarily existed but here's your opportunity to deny or retract.

I have never once suggested that the space-time manifold might necessarily exist. You really should brush up on reading English for comprehension.

What we are agreed on is an ultimate uncreated entity for which there is no external reason.

When did we agree that?

You say it is the space time manifold. That is a positive assertion and you therefore have a burden.

Since I didn't make the claim, there is no reason to justify it.

If time is dependent on a space time manifold then space, time and their ''manifoldness'' are dependent on themselves and your argument is a tautology.

You're just making shit up again.

[Stranger]

If time is one component of the space time manifold then that manifold is dependent for it's existence on time.

Misunderstanding. Space-time is a single manifold. The direction through it that an observer sees as time varies between observers. If we move relative to reach other, then, even in special relativity ('flat' space-time), our time directions and what we regard as space (simultaneity) will differ. Gravity ('curved' space-time) complicates things even further, and in extreme cases, like black holes, the ideas of space and time can be opposite. Once you cross the event horizon, the 'distance' to the centre becomes timelike; it would literally be in your future.

Being made of components isn't a very good look for an uncreated ultimate entity

Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody has made the claim that it is, and that space-time isn't made of components, why not?

[Maeght]

Who else but God would have the authority to forgive sins?

The Son of Man. And the apostles. And the Jewish Priests after performing a sacrifice.

'As the Father has sent me, I am sending you'

Oh, and Jesus doesn't say 'I have forgive you' but that 'Your sins are forgiven' just as priests say today.

John represents Jesus claiming to be God - 'I am', 'If you've seen my you've seen the Father' - this seems a very important thing and a strong claim, so why don't Mark, Luke, Matthew or Paul include this?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This says that beliefs are useful, and whether or not they are true is not the primary concern.  I get that people gain peace of mind and a centering and re-balancing of mind and the continuity of these beliefs represents something steadfast and unchanging in a world otherwise subject to constant disconcerting change.

That is certainly one possible reaction to the concept of God. There is some peace of mind gained from not questioning why good and bad events happen and instead focusing on trying to deal with the obstacle or challenge or good fortune as best you can.

There is some continuity in religion but religion is also constantly changing because it is practised by individuals in different cultural, social and geographical environments who change over time due to their nature/ nurture. I suspect that me realising that a religion (or at least the text in the Quran) acknowledged that religion is in a constant state of change but there seemed to be some constants in human psychological reactions could be one of the reasons I stopped being an atheist.

However most western religions (at least) are based on truth claims.  It's in their DNA so how do you disentangle the value of religious practice from the objective truth of the claims that the practices are founded upon ?  I put it down somewhat to the fact that all humans are mildly schizophrenic, having essentially two brains, left and right hemispheres, which have different agendas and different ways of understanding the world. Maybe people who gain benefit from religions are those who are successful in quietening their left hemisphere that constantly seeks to rationalise what the other hemisphere believes.

As we have not been presented with any objective method to discern the truth about the existence of "God" (whatever that concept means or represents - it's different for different people) I think my brain just parks the objective existence of God to one side as being unanswerable. Whatever I feel or believe about it, my feelings and beliefs are not objective evidence so why worry about the truth of it is my approach.

If God really exists or doesn't exist, I can't see how it changes anything for me day to day - as the main influence on my outlook and behaviour would be how much time and effort I spend on thinking about my concept of God. So unless there is a God who is going to be like a universal policeman or superhero righting or preventing all wrongs in the world, stopping earthquakes and floods, preventing anyone from being ill or dying ever etc (which doesn't seem to be the case) not really sure why the truth about the existence of God matters.

People may claim objective truths about all kinds of things that they cannot provide objective evidence for, but as a theist I haven't felt any obligation to take any other theist's claims seriously. Any more than I feel obliged to take seriously someone else's claims about truths in relation to capitalist or communist philosophy or gender beliefs. 

My experience of religion living in Britain is that it is a voluntary undertaking - I can pick and choose whether I follow the rules sometimes, don't follow the rules other times, become conscious of the interesting effects that following different rules have on my perspective, emotions and behaviour. If I lived in another culture with less freedoms or a harsher geographical environment or more social or political instability, quite obviously this would influence my perspective and behaviour and approach to religion. Which is why presumably theists have such varied approaches and perspectives and religious practices and why their perspectives and approach may alter over time if their environment changes.

[jeremyp]

If time is one component of the space time manifold then that manifold is dependent for its existence on time.

No it isn't.

Being made of components isn't a very good look for an uncreated ultimate entity

You mean like God? You know: the being that you claim is made of three components.

[SteveH]

Seems to be based on what you personally conceive of as existence, rather than anything objective. Pure logic cannot be based on a point of view or what is conceivable from it. Clearly existence and non-existence without time are conceivable by human beings as the mathematics (rather than physics) directly shows. It's your personal point of view that is irrelevant.

I don't think timeless existence is conceivable. When theists such as CS Lewis who believe in a timeless God try to explain how such a God can act, often by picturing time as a railway line with the present as a moving train which we are on while God, looking down from above, sees the whole of the line, they smuggle in a sort of super-time for God to act in, so that God is outside our time, but not completely timeless. As has been argued by others on this thread, if God is to act, God needs time to act in.

[jeremyp]

I don't think timeless existence is conceivable.

Just because you can't conceive of something, doesn't mean it is not possible. This is the argument from personal incredulity and it is fallacious.

When theists such as CS Lewis who believe in a timeless God try to explain how such a God can act, often by picturing time as a railway line with the present as a moving train which we are on while God, looking down from above, sees the whole of the line, they smuggle in a sort of super-time for God to act in, so that God is outside our time, but not completely timeless. As has been argued by others on this thread, if God is to act, God needs time to act in.

A being that has agency - i.e. can do things - can't exist without time, because doing implies change and change implies time.

[SteveH]

Just because you can't conceive of something, doesn't mean it is not possible. This is the argument from personal incredulity and it is fallacious.

As I pointed out, a strictly timeless agent is inconceivable, because people who think they can conceive it always smuggle in a sort of "supertime" for the agent to act in. Personal incredulity has nothing to do with it; a timeless agent is inconceivable because it is logically contradictory, just as is, for example, a square circle, which is also inconceivable.

A being that has agency - i.e. can do things - can't exist without time, because doing implies change and change implies time.

My point exactly, so why are you arguing with me?

[Stranger]

As I pointed out, a strictly timeless agent is inconceivable...

Yes, but nobody (apart from Alan) has claimed a timeless agent is possible. Existence is not the same as agency.
 

[jeremyp]

As I pointed out, a strictly timeless agent is inconceivable, because people who think they can conceive it always smuggle in a sort of "supertime" for the agent to act in. Personal incredulity has nothing to do with it; a timeless agent is inconceivable because it is logically contradictory, just as is, for example, a square circle, which is also inconceivable.My point exactly, so why are you arguing with me?

Because you did "I don't believe timeless existence is possible". If you meant "I don't believe timeless existence is possible for a being with agency", fair enough.

[Sriram]

I don't think timeless existence is conceivable. When theists such as CS Lewis who believe in a timeless God try to explain how such a God can act, often by picturing time as a railway line with the present as a moving train which we are on while God, looking down from above, sees the whole of the line, they smuggle in a sort of super-time for God to act in, so that God is outside our time, but not completely timeless. As has been argued by others on this thread, if God is to act, God needs time to act in.

In Hinduism, we picture this as a series of concentric circles one within the other. In this system the center is pure existence and can be seen as timeless with no change what so ever.... but in every other circle outside that, time flows faster and faster as we move to outer circles.

Each outer circle has greater rate of change and therefore faster time than the one inside.  Each circle is seen as a celestial world.....with earth based life being in one of the outermost circles.

If a person from earth goes to any of the higher worlds (inner circles) for say, one day....when he comes back to earth, many thousands of years would have passed here. 

[Sriram]

Some people during NDE's seem to experience the past present and future all at once. Though there is a sequence....they seem to mesh in. It is impossible for us to imagine that. Refer Bruce Greyson interview in the Brain and Mind thread.

[Stranger]

In Hinduism, we picture this as a series of concentric circles one within the other. In this system the center is pure existence and can be seen as timeless with no change what so ever.... but in every other circle outside that, time flows faster and faster as we move to outer circles.

Each outer circle has greater rate of change and therefore faster time than the one inside.  Each circle is seen as a celestial world.....with earth based life being in one of the outermost circles.

If a person from earth goes to any of the higher worlds (inner circles) for say, one day....when he comes back to earth, many thousands of years would have passed here.

Not sure what the point of this is. You didn't address the point Steve made and you provided no hint of a reason to think it might be true, rather than just baseless superstition.

[SteveH]

Because you did "I don't believe timeless existence is possible". If you meant "I don't believe timeless existence is possible for a being with agency", fair enough.

To be clear, I don't think strictly timeless existence is possible, with or without agency. Time, like space, is the necessary context for exitance. Something may exist outside our time and space, but they must exist in their own time and space.

[Stranger]

To be clear, I don't think strictly timeless existence is possible, with or without agency. Time, like space, is the necessary context for exitance. Something may exist outside our time and space, but they must exist in their own time and space.

Well there you have a problem with current science. General relativity tells us that time and space are observer dependant directions through a four-dimensional manifold. Quite clearly the manifold itself cannot be embedded in time or space because it is time and space.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Misunderstanding. Space-time is a single manifold. The direction through it that an observer sees as time varies between observers. If we move relative to reach other, then, even in special relativity ('flat' space-time), our time directions and what we regard as space (simultaneity) will differ. Gravity ('curved' space-time) complicates things even further, and in extreme cases, like black holes, the ideas of space and time can be opposite. Once you cross the event horizon, the 'distance' to the centre becomes timelike; it would literally be in your future.

Leaving aside the minor detail that nobody has made the claim that it is, and that space-time isn't made of components, why not?

This reply has flaws though firstly it was not I who first suggested time was a component but Jeremy 2:The science of the space time manifold here gives no clue as to the uncreated nature of the space time manifold. In other words could a created space time manifold fit exactly the same science you give here. 3:space time not made of components? You seem to be on your own here. In any case you need to justify your assertion that it isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't.You mean like God? You know: the being that you claim is made of three components.

No, he isn't.I make no such claim. Ice, water and steam are not components of H20 since the same H20 can be any of the three states.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I pointed out, a strictly timeless agent is inconceivable, because people who think they can conceive it always smuggle in a sort of "supertime" for the agent to act in. Personal incredulity has nothing to do with it; a timeless agent is inconceivable because it is logically contradictory, just as is, for example, a square circle, which is also inconceivable.My point exactly, so why are you arguing with me?

Not sure event one isn't timeless since it acts as the reference point for all other events.........and that's before we get to the temporal nature of ''agency 1''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why why? What's nothing?

Non existence of course. The non existence of everything.

My own view is that there must be a reason and if that reason which as we all know exists, exists then it has always existed. Stranger says it is the space time manifold I call it God

[jeremyp]

This reply has flaws though firstly it was not I who first suggested time was a component but Jeremy

The science of the space time manifold here gives no clue as to the uncreated nature of the space time manifold. In other words could a created space time manifold fit exactly the same science you give here. 3:space time not made of components? You seem to be on your own here. In any case you need to justify your assertion that it isn't.

Time is a component in the sense that it is a direction in four dimensional space-time.

[jeremyp]

No, he isn't.I make no such claim.

You refute the Trinity?

Heretic!

[Nearly Sane]

Non existence of course. The non existence of everything.

My own view is that there must be a reason and if that reason which as we all know exists, exists then it has always existed. Stranger says it is the space time manifold I call it God

You seem to have elided your belief in a 'reason' to everyone knowing there is a 'reason'.


The non existence of everything is then the existence of nothing which is a paradox.

[Stranger]

This reply has flaws though firstly it was not I who first suggested time was a component but Jeremy

Well, it isn't, not literally anyway. As I already pointed out, it is defined entirely with reference to a single observer.

2:The science of the space time manifold here gives no clue as to the uncreated nature of the space time manifold. In other words could a created space time manifold fit exactly the same science you give here.

Of course it could have been created, although we have zero evidence for it and you would need some sort of meta-time (again something we have no evidence of) for the act of creation to take place in. My point was in response to Alan's claim (#48293) that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created."

The manifold does not exist in time (because time is an observer dependant direction within it), so take it up with him.

3:space time not made of components? You seem to be on your own here. In any case you need to justify your assertion that it isn't.

Do you think three-dimensional space or a two-dimensional surface are made of components?

Mathematically space-time is one single four-dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold. As I explained before, and you seem to have ignored, a particular observer will identify one direction through the manifold as time, but that will not in general correspond what some other observer will see as time. How then can you call time a component?

Locally (i.e. at one point in space-time) you can divide it into timelike and spacelike regions but, again, these will not extend indefinitely in the general case beyond the local region. I mentioned black holes before, and, in that case, the space and time coordinates seen by a distant observer (and in fact the whole spacelike and timelike regions they see) will completely break down at the event horizon (a coordinate singularity) but the actual manifold at that point is still smooth and has finite curvature. It you were actually there (and somehow avoided getting ripped apart by the tidal forces) you would notice nothing. You would still have your own local version of time and space. Once inside the horizon, your time coordinate will point towards the centre. What is space to the distant observer would become time to an observer inside the horizon.

This is all far better defined and more coherent than any explanation I've seen for the bizarre claims of a triune god and hence I'm on far more solid ground in claiming space-time is not made of components.