Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

That's why I asked too.

I vacillate between agnosticism and atheism myself. I think you're doing a good job of outlining the "metaphysical" basis for agnosticism (if I read you right).

Anyway, depending on which 1st "possibility" one thinks more likely, you end up with arguments for Leibniz's God (prescriptive) , Godel's God (creative), Spinoza's God (descriptive), or Aristotle's God (directive), it seems to me. Kind of interesting.

Sorry if my questionable wording suggested entrapment; it just comes out that way sometimes.

Sorry as well.

I did momentarily think of entrapment as a second possibility but, primarily, I was trying to avoid a repeat of the situation I've experienced with Belz, who never seems to want to commit himself to anything, and is perfectly happy just to respond with endless questions, one liners, and meaningless retorts and distorts, all of which seem designed to avoid having to expose and defend his own views.

Yes, you, Belz.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, there you are, Belz, top of the page.

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe, I must say I am fascinated by your apparent ability to assign a non-arbitrary 'beginning' to cyclic time.

I was wondering if, in your infinite wisdom, you might locate for me the non-arbitrary beginning of the following circle:

 

[volatile]

You will note, by analogy with the lesser dimensional examples, that we need to posit a 4th spacial dimension into which our 3D universe curves: Just as the one dimensional creature does not see the second dimension into which his one dimensional world curves, and just as the two dimensional creature does not see the third dimension into which his two dimensional world curves, we three dimensional creatures do not see the fourth dimension into which our three dimensional world curves.

So, we have an explanation for the universe being all there is, with nothing lying beyond it, but the explanation is at the expense of having to introduce a fourth dimension about which we have absolutely no clue and which becomes our new puzzle searching for a solution.

Therefore, I would say our 3D curved space explanation progresses our understanding a little, but I would not say we have solved the puzzle.


And I don't immediately see how time fits into this scenario.

Ummm... the forth dimension is time. That's what we're talking about, BJ. You wanted an explanation as to how your false "time without a beginning / something out of nothing" dichotomy might be overcome, and the one above is one perfectly cogent, lucid and simple way in which it might be. If we can have space without end, so too it might be possible with time.

Your answer above is just incomprehensible, frankly. What are you getting at?

 

[Paulhoff]

Why do people have a problem with a universe coming from so-called nothing, but have no problem with a so-called all-powerful and all-knowing god always existing.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe, I must say I am fascinated by your apparent ability to assign a non-arbitrary 'beginning' to cyclic time.

I'm fascinated that you apparently think that I think that I have done so.
Really, Mobyseven, to avoid confusion you should take the time to at least quote and respond.
I have no idea what you are referring to.

I was wondering if, in your infinite wisdom, you might locate for me the non-arbitrary beginning of the following circle:

I don't know, MobySeven, where did you start drawing it.
Seriously.

 

[BillyJoe]

Ummm... the forth dimension is time.

You have never heard of curved space-time???
The idea, dear Volatile, is that the three spacial dimensions are curved into a fourth spacial dimension.
It is an attempt to explain how space is closed and, hence, without end.
Please try to reply in context.

That's what we're talking about, BJ. You wanted an explanation as to how your false "time without a beginning / something out of nothing" dichotomy might be overcome, and the one above is one perfectly cogent, lucid and simple way in which it might be. If we can have space without end....

So you do know about the fourth spacial dimension.
How disingenuous of you then.

Well then, if it is perfectly "cogent, lucid and simple", perhaps you could explain for me this fourth dimension - cogently, lucidly and simply. In doing so you might like to ponder the implications of the fact that, in order to explain "space without end" (meaning "three dimensional space without end"), we have had to conjure up a fourth dimension which - and this is the kicker - lies entirely outside the three spacial dimensions of our cosy little universe.

As I said, we may be fumbling towards a solution to the puzzle, but we are not yet there.
Not by a long shot.

....so too it might be possible with time.

And I take it you are not about to show me how this is possible.
Well, thanks for sharing.

BillyJoe.





PS:

Hey, bright idea!
Perhaps there is a second time dimension into which real time is curved in upon itself.


PPS:

Hey, second bright idea!
Perhaps god occupies these unseen fourth and fifth dimensions.
Yeah. No proof. Sorry.
(I mean I agree)

 

[BillyJoe]

Why do people have a problem with a universe coming from so-called nothing, but have no problem with a so-called all-powerful and all knowing god time always existing.

Hey, Paul, I know your posts are just punctuation marks in this long thread but, please, keep up.

 

[Paulhoff]

Hey, Paul, I know your posts are just punctuation marks in this long thread but, please, keep up.

There is nothing to keep up with, nothing that is earth shaking here, no poof of a so-called head up the a-- god. Also I write the way I want THANK-YOU.

Paul

 

[The Grave]

I agree... all this waste of time!

And still no proof.....

I quess that means there is none....

 

[The Grave]

The Faither's logic defies all...

Ho, ho, ho merry Xmas!

This guy is truly bananas:Dustin Kesselberg vbmenu_register("postmenu_2680130", true);

"This leads to another and in my opinion the most convincing solution to the omnipotence paradox. “Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it?” Yes and No. Without removing his omnipotence, God can make a stone so heavy that he can not lift and then he can lift it. How? Remember the definition of omnipotence? It means “All powerful” which means that God can do “anything”. Not simply “anything logically possible” but “anything logically impossible” as well. God can create a stone so heavy he can not lift and then he can easily lift it. This is logically impossible however what’s stopping being who can “do anything” by definition from…Doing anything? God could even microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it!”

This is like saying:

Can IT be black and white at the same time?

Can IT have IT's mouth open and closed at the same time?

Well thankfully for the faithers {nutcases}; why, yes of course!

So are there any faithers out there, with a masters in physics that can come up with an explanation of how a white god can be black, while shouting at us with IT's mouth closed?

Fair-doos, I've met and debated some fruit cakes in my time but this guy who started this thread....

Griff...



Actually I think the person who started this thread should explain how god could be both black and white.

Bust-a-gut.................

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm fascinated that you apparently think that I think that I have done so.
Really, Mobyseven, to avoid confusion you should take the time to at least quote and respond.
I have no idea what you are referring to.

In your response to Z you seemed to be suggesting that cyclical time could be assigned a non-arbitrary 'beginning'.

I'm just asking you to do the same with my circle!

I don't know, MobySeven, where did you start drawing it.
Seriously.

Doesn't matter. That would be an arbitrary beginning, and I want you to find a non-arbitrary beginning.

 

[cyborg]

Those who naively wish to make god the infinite without understanding what that entails are going to get themselves into trouble.

 

[DiskoVilante]

God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient"...but I think that god, whatever it is, would have no desires whatsoever since it knows all and can do all...except there might be one thing it doesn't know: what happens when it ceases to exist. So I conclude that god is trying to commit suicide or already has. Well, since god is omnipotent it must have succeeded in committing suicide.
Ergo, god doesn't exist.

I said this in half jest and half seriousness to illustrate some problems with omniscience and omnipotence. Do I make a little sense? It's past 6am and I haven't slept yet, so please forgive me if I don't make enough sense.

 

[Z]

Unfortunately, Billy really really wants there to be a metatime that overlies the concept of cyclic time as well. However, this just goes to illustrate that he has no real grasp of the concept of time. And with no grasp of the concept of time, how can he come to understand much of anything else, on the metaphysical? So of course, as men have done for millions of years, in the absence of understanding, he finds God.

Maybe that's what it all boils down to - God is the manifestation of incomprehension.

 

[cyborg]

The problem is with inventing metatime is that there's nothing to stop me producing metametatime and screwing up your nice system all over again.

 

[Robin]

And I did not say there was ever nothing (and hence that something came from nothing).
I said that there are two alternatives and this is but one of them - that, if it's not something from nothing, then its time without beginning.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.

I don't think anybody else knows why you keep repeating this either. It does not matter how many times you say it, it is still wrong, as I keep pointing out.

Also, if you have a proof that there was never nothing (that there is at least one thing that had no origin), I'd be happy if you shared it with me.

You need to think about this sentence for just a little longer.

"At least one thing had no origin" does not imply "there was never nothing".

If something "came from nothing", then it would have no origin ("nothing" isn't an origin). If something had no beginning then it would also have no origin.

Either way at least one thing must have no origin.

But there is nothing about time that requires it, as you seem to think, to fall into either of those categories.

 

[Robin]

Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just point out where I have confused the two meanings.

You have posted the sentence so many times, do I need to cite every time you have repeated it?

Or perhaps do you know the sentence I am talking about? If is simply not clear from the context which meaning of "beginning" you are using.

By analogy, the "beginning" of a ruler is the bit that has the "0" written on it. The origin of the ruler is the ruler factory, (or the tree it was made from).

You might imagine a ruler created in a circle with ticks but no numbers. There you would have a ruler without a beginning. But it still has an origin.

Similarly you might imagine an eternal ruler (and all the worlds religions simply misunderstood the word to mean something else) or a ruler that came from nothing.

Thus you could have a ruler with a beginning but no origin.

 

[Robin]

It's called logic.
Things happen over time. No time. Nothing happens.

Actually that is not called logic, that is called assumption. In order for it to be logic you would have to include some actual logic.

 

[BillyJoe]

In your response to Z you seemed to be suggesting that cyclical time could be assigned a non-arbitrary 'beginning'.

I'm just asking you to do the same with my circle!

Perhaps I just don't have a clear idea of what he means by time cycling.
Perhaps he doesn't either.
Do you?

From his description, I imagined time cycling like the universe expanding and contracting between big bangs. If time cycles like that, does it mean time goes into reverse as the universe contracts?
If so, clearly there is a beginning and end to each cycle.
If not, we still have the big bangs marking the beginning and end of each cycle.
If time cycles independently of any expanding and contracting of the universe, does this mean we keep going over old time, that events keep repeating themselves?
Or do different events occur in the same old repeated time?
And what could that mean?
And, if time curves in on itself like 4 dimensional curved space, haven't you just solved one probelm but created another - the extra dimension into which time curves (whatever that can mean)?

Perhaps you can explain to me what he means, because he doesn't seem able to do so.

What I am trying to say it that it is insufficient just to day that time cycles, you have to have some idea of what that actually means.
It is also insufficient to say you understand but can't explain it as Z has done.

Doesn't matter. That would be an arbitrary beginning, and I want you to find a non-arbitrary beginning.

Certainly, the point where you started drawing your circle was arbitrary.

....unless you always start your circles at the top and work around clockwise like I do.