Why would God, all knowing, powerful, perfect being care about duty of his creation to himself? Seems again like a petty human trait :chin:. Odd, how God seems so human- almost like humans would invent something like this... — schopenhauer1

Humans and God share common traits. Traits like Wisdom, Justice, and the like are traits of many different agents. If an agent does not have any trait then how she/he/it could interact with reality?

What do you mean, "proper"? — BC

With the aim to the perfection of life.

So, according to some theologians, God is omnipresent, and omni everything else--meaning that God is aware of and present in everything that happens in creation. So, when the first molecules formed the first cell, God is there and is present and is aware of the first cell and the death of the last cell, and everything in between. Time, as creation experiences it, is not a thing God experiences, God being eternal.

God, being eternal and all-powerful after all, gets to do that. — BC

God as an omnipresent agent experiences everything in the present and past. Our experiences are however local in space and time (present only). We can however have access to our past experiences, so-called flashbacks.

You're applying the term "simultaneously" in an absurd way by claiming that event-A is "simultaneous with" event-A. — Relativist

No, I am talking about three different types of processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. A simultaneous process is a process in which all the events occur at the same point.

You're conflating the mathematical concept (of points) with a sequence of temporal durations. These durations are not actually divisible into smaller units - except abstractly, which is irrelevant because you're making an ontological claim. — Relativist

I am not conflating anything. If time is discrete then the points are points of time and the interval between two consecutive points is the smallest duration.

Just curious, why would an all powerful god outsource that? — schopenhauer1

I think God cannot create humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow.

And if the answer is he wants to see some puddly apes play out some vision, why would an all knowing god care to see this? — schopenhauer1

To make sure that the outcome of life is proper.

Isn’t planning and carrying out one’s vision a very human like trait? — schopenhauer1

What do you mean?

Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin: — schopenhauer1

It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter.

Let's go over it again. The world is not fair and just. — Banno

The world is just.

We can make it more fair and just. — Banno

Yes, we can make the world a right place to live. But we don't. That is why the Karam is in place and people are suffering. If any individual gets enlightened then there would be no need for Karma.

Proposing a god who makes the world fair and just both denies the fact of injustice and excuses lack of action. — Banno

That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty.

If there is 0 distance, it is the same point. — Relativist

That is my point. If the distance/gap between two events is zero then events are simultaneous.

Apples/oranges. The cardinality of the set of real numbers is not a member of the set of real numbers. Transfinite math is only relevent to comparing sets (e.g. the set of natural numbers to the set of real numbers). It has zero bearing on the discussion. — Relativist

Are you talking about the power set? It was a mistake on my part to write "c" instead of "R". If we define "R" as the cardinality of the real number lines then this number is the number of members of the set. This number is infinite but it is not the biggest infinity. Therefore, any small interval on the real number line no matter how small is divisible.

If time is discrete, then the smallest unit of time is a duration, and there's no correspondence to points. (More apples/oranges). — Relativist

There are points. The smallest duration/gap in fact separates points from each other. For example, the gap for any immediate points of natural number is 1.

This deserves its own response. Fear of divine judgement is a way of ensuring your conformity. — Banno

There is no other solution to it while not all humans are not all-wise. Could you imagine what our lives would be like if we didn't submit to human-made laws? Some people are wise so they follow the laws with respect and without fear of consequences. But the laws are needed for those who are not wise enough. So, fear should be in place until we educate all people well enough so they act by wisdom rather than fear.

Not sure what this means. Would you be willing to go against divine command, or ought you do as an unjust god demands? — Banno

All-wise God wouldn't demand an unjust action. I wouldn't act according to the demand of an unjust god though.

Is it fear of retribution that keeps you from recognising the injustice in the world? — Banno

No, it is not fear.

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just. — Banno

What evidence do you need? Do you think that all things done in the name of humanity are right?

Non-sequitur, and confused. — Relativist

That is not correct.

If time is continuous, it maps to the real number line. There are no "gaps" in the real number line. — Relativist

If the distance between two immediate points on time is absolutely zero then these points are simultaneous. Moreover, the number of points on the real number line is known to be "c" so-called the cardinal number of the continuum. This number however is not the biggest infinity. This means that you could accommodate more points on the real number line therefore the real number line or any small segment of the real number line no matter how small is still divisivable.

If time is discrete, then each point of time corresponds to an indivisible/unmeasureable duration (relative to the real number line). Still no "gap", as you've described it. — Relativist

Yes, each point of time corresponds to an indivisible duration. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about two consecutive points on time.

Some further problems then: is an unjust god worthy of worship? — Banno

We were not talking about worship. Who said that God needs worship? I said that God can act Unjustly since God is free. That however does not mean that God would act Unjustly since God is all-wise.

And ought you do as an unjust god commands? — Banno

Sure not.

There is either no gap or there is a gap. There is no other option. All events lay on the same point if there is no gap or the gap length is zero.

Change to me is the chronological occurrence of events. You cannot possibly order events chronologically if they occur at one point. Does this make things more clear?

Sorry, I don't buy it. It seems a contrivance to lead to some desired conclusion, or the product of naivetee. But of course, I haven't yet seen your argument that shows it metaphyisically necessary that a gap exists. Got one? — Relativist

I already mentioned that. Could we agree that if all events lay on the same point then we cannot have any change?

If time is continuous, there's no gap. — Relativist

The gap exists in the discrete time as well as the continuous time. The gap however is arbitrarily small in the continuous time. If the gap is zero then all points of time lay on the same point therefore there cannot be any change in time.

If time is discrete, it still doesn't entail a gap, so it's an unsupported assumption. — Relativist

If time is discrete then it entails a gap. That is true since time exists on a discrete set of points with an interval between which there is nothing.

What is "substance"? If the world is a quantum field, evolving over time consistent with a Schroedinger equation, what is the "substance"? — Relativist

The quantum field is the substance.

Looks like we can't move on. — Relativist

Let me know if we can move forward.

Actually, change occurs. What exists is the present, and its propensity to change - arguably because of laws of nature. — Relativist

Well, all I need to start my arguments is that change occurs. What are the laws of nature and how they are enforced in nature is beyond the scope of this discussion.

2) A single substance, let's call this the first substance, cannot undergo a change
What's your basis for claiming there is such a thing? — Relativist

Well, I have an argument for it: Consider a change in a substance. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties (I call the set of properties the state) like the position of a falling apple which is defined by its altitude to the ground. By change, I mean that the state of the substance changes over time so for example the altitude of the apple reduces over time. Now consider a change in the state of a substance, from X to Y, where X and Y are two states of a substance by which Y occurs after X. X and Y cannot lay on the same point in time since otherwise they would be simultaneous and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on two different points of time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y. By gap I mean an interval that there is nothing between. But the substance in X cannot possibly cause the substance in Y because of the gap. That is true since the substance in X ceases to exist right at the point that the gap appears. Therefore, a single substance cannot undergo a change.

3) This means that we need another substance, let's call this the second substance, to cause a change in the first substance
Clearly, you have some metaphysical paradigm in mind, but you're only giving vague references to it. Maybe (just maybe) it's coherent, but you need to show why this paradigm should taken seriously, while explicitly defining it
...
The rest of your argument depends on the above. — Relativist

Let's see if we could agree on (2). We can move forward if we agree on (2).

Nonsense. — Lionino

It seems you are not interested in my argument for each step!

But does not God create humans to have free will? — Richard B

God didn't create humans. We know that human is the result of evolution.

And if so, can choose in such a way to create an unfair and unjust world? — Richard B

God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly but that is not what an all-wise agent does.

So you want to demonstrate that god exists, and that therefore the world must be fair and just. — Banno

I didn't say must. God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly. All I want to say is that excluding you there is also God who can read your thoughts and can experience your feelings. So excluding you, it is only God who can judge you properly. I believe in Karma which is imposed by God so your wrong action is not without consequences.

But the world is not fair and just. — Banno

Prove it.

Therefore you are mistaken. There is no god.

If god exists, then the world is fair. The world is not fair. Therefore god does not exist. — Banno

You need to prove your second premise.

Hence your arguments are all of them faulty. — Banno

Show me what is wrong with my arguments.

Why should we care? — Banno

I have some arguments which provide support for part of my belief. Another part of my belief is based on my spiritual experiences which we cannot discuss here since here is a philosophy forum.

At the least, in a philosophy forum, you might provide some sort of support for your beliefs. — Banno

Ok, let's start from this list: 1)There was a beginning since infinite regress is not possible, 2) Nothing to something is impossible, and 3) Therefore, there was something in the beginning.

I didn't discuss (1) in this forum but I am open to discussing it. If you agree with (1) we can then move into (2).

For (2) I have a thread you can find it from the list of my threads. The essence of this thread however can be explained in two arguments A (A is my argument) and B (B is from Bob Ross).

A:
P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)

B:
P1): If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2): ‘Nothing’ is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1): Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.

P3): Change requires temporality.
P4): ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2): Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.

P5): ‘Nothing’ becoming ‘something’ requires change.
P6): ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.
C3): Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to becoming (something).

(3) Follows from (1) and (2).

If we agree on (3) then it means there was something in the beginning. I divide things into two sorts, changeable and changeless. Changeable substances such as material, matter and energy for example. I call changeless substance the mind. It can be shown that the mind has the ability to experience and cause. It can also be shown that change is not possible without the mind. So reality to me, including the beginning, is a mix of changeable substances and changeless substances. Let's see if can agree on what is stated here. We can move further later on.

Otherwise, we can point out that life is not fair and just, and therefore by reductio, that there is no Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Just God.

Did you come here to prove God does not exist? — Banno

No.

I think that philosophy is a part of the knowledge based on facts while science is a part of the knowledge based on data.

Most Western countries got it wrong when it comes to drugs. Alcohol is among the most dangerous drugs while it is legal. This website provides a list of the top ten dangerous drugs which alcohol sits on the top while marijuana, LSD, and the like are absent in this list!

I believe in a God who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Just (by Just I mean It delivers Good and Evil in the right proportion). Therefore, I think that life is Just.

I can prove the existence of an immortal substance that I call the mind. The argument is very long and complicated though. We need to agree on six facts which each is subject to discussion. These facts are:
1) Change exists
2) A single substance, let's call this the first substance, cannot undergo a change
3) This means that we need another substance, let's call this the second substance, to cause a change in the first substance
4) The second substance must have the ability to experience and cause
5) The second substance must be changeless
6) The second substance, I call it the mind, is immortal since it is changeless

But time exists if space exists independent of whether change exists or not.

You mentioned that time does not exist if change does not exist.

And sometimes those limits are determined by the way in which we choose to assemble the language.

For example, one could just as well say: time is the measure of change rather than a pre-requisite for it. There would be no time in the absence of change. Time is not in the nothing anymore than time is in the something.

And of course we would have a different set of logical implications. — Arne

Time and space are twisted and are parts of a single manifold called spacetime. This means that you have time if you have space.

Spacetime doesn't really exist. It isn't real, in the way matter and energy are. It is theory. It's a mathematical model.
"Spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur." (Wikipedia) — Alkis Piskas

Unfortunately, the wiki references in some cases are not good enough or may be misleading. You will enjoy this article if you want to get involved in the debate of whether spacetime is a substance or not. I am a physicist and cannot understand the article well since it is very technical.

Well, this is debetable. Anyway, it refers to a specific theory: the energy wave theory, where it is considered a medium that allows the transfer of energy of its components. But I believe it is used for descriptive purposes, as I mentioned.
In reality, space and time cannot be perceived as physical things, as matter and enery can.
Neither can space or time produce change or movement. Rather the opposite: change and movement produce the notion of space and time. — Alkis Piskas

Spacetime can affect the motion of objects and light. Massive objects can change the curvature of spacetime as well.

Correct, because you cannot draw 'nothing'. This doesn't negate what I've stated. If you have limits, nothing must be beyond those limits. The only way to avoid there being 'nothing' is if everything is infinite and eternal. — Philosophim

It negates what you have said. I am afraid that I don't see any point to repeat myself.

If 'the whole' is everything and the whole has a limit, then by consequence there is nothing past that limit. If the whole is limitless, then there is no end, thus 'nothing' cannot exist. But one has to prove that the whole of existence is limitless, which we cannot do. — Philosophim

You cannot draw a figure in which the whole has a limit and there is nothing beyond its limit.

Or maybe rather, "we could determine that AI was thinking if we knew how we thought?" But we don't, and therein lies the massive hole at the center of this debate.

But for those who deny the possibility... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Correct. Unfortunately, we don't know how we think so we cannot design an AI that can think.

Yes, AI can think if we know how we think. We can simulate the brain if we know how it works when it comes to thinking. There are three questions that we need to answer before we can design an AI that can think. These questions are:
1) How the new information is classified in the brain?
2) How the related information are linked in the brain?
3) How do we find new information from the linked information?

No, I'm not saying there exists a black area, I'm saying there's nothing. It is the logical consequence of there being a limit. To state there is a limit means there is an end. What is beyond the end? Nothing. The only way to avoid this is to state that the whole is limitless. But this has to be proven, and I'm not seeing anything but a conjecture here. — Philosophim

I know but the very existence of a limit means that there is nothing beyond it! What is beyond the end? It is either something or nothing. Take your pick.

Imagine a grain of sand. Outside is nothing. "Outside" is the direction. — Philosophim

Please check the following figure:

https://ibb.co/nj94LtJ

If by nothing you mean the black area then that cannot be nothing since nothing cannot have a geometry, property, and occupy room.

I think you need to go into the specifics of how Cantor's theorem applies to the argument. This doesn't explain anything by itself. — Philosophim

This was an answer to you when you asked whether the whole is infinite. I answered that the whole is bigger than any infinity you can imagine.

Lets make sure we're not making 'vocabulary reality', a common thing we can do in philosophy. Vocabulary is used to describe reality, it does not create reality.

Nothing does not 'surround' anything in a substantive sense. But if there is a limit to something, does nothing surround it in a directional sense? Yes. Its just words to describe the idea that beyond something, there is nothing. The only way this cannot be is if the entire universe is a thing without limits. This is what we're trying to prove by your philosophy, so it cannot be part of the premises. — Philosophim

What do you mean by directional sense?

This doesn't make any sense. Infinity means 'uncountable', or 'without end'. How can something be larger than something without end? — Philosophim

Georg Cantor showed that there is an infinity of infinities.

As long as you view space as a substance, this is fine. This is why it is not irrelevant. If space is not a substance, it is usually synonymous with 'nothing'. — Philosophim

I don't agree with you that space is synonymous with nothing but for the sake of argument, we can assume that space is a substance. One problem is resolved.

I still don't see why there cannot be nothing beyond the edge of something. I get that you want to define the whole as bounded by something else, but you've given no reason why that necessarily must be. Try to disprove the scenario I'm going to put in front of you. Referring earlier, I have a grain of sand with nothing else in the universe existing around it. Why is that a contradiction under your viewpoint? — Philosophim

Well, this we discussed it. Nothing has no geometry nor can occupy a room therefore nothing cannot surround a thing.

I also do not understand this. Are you saying that the whole is infinite? — Philosophim

The whole is larger than any infinity that you can imagine.

That seems to be the conclusion, so once again we're begging the question. — Philosophim

It is not the begging the question. If the whole has an outside then there is something outside of it therefore what we consider as the whole with an outside is not the whole.

You need to redefine space as being something then. An 'unoccupied' area is seen as 'nothing'. Things occupy. Nothing does not. — Philosophim

Well, that is a matter of definition of things. Could we please agree that the condition in which there is no thing, namely no space, no material objects,.... is nothing?

Its fairly important here because most people see space as 'nothing'. There is an old term for the idea that there really is no emptiness, and that all of space, or nothingness, is filled by a substance called "Aether". Aether was eventually debunked by science, but for your purposes the idea of space being 'something' instead of nothing, can be helpful here. — Philosophim

I still think that that is irrelevant but we can think of space as substance if you wish.

Oh, I see what you're doing here now! Clever! The only problem is you have necessitated that something always be bounded by something else, when it is commonly known that things are not bound by other substances, but the mass of their own matter. — Philosophim

Well, if that was the case, namely if the whole was limited, then it has an edge or it is closed. We already discussed the case the whole is closed. The question which is relevant then is what is beyond the edge if the whole is open. What is beyond the edge cannot be nothing as we discussed so it is something. This means that what we call the whole is not whole but something else.

So while clever if things were bound by other things, its just not the case that they are. Further, that's not really the definition of "the whole" but really, 'a thing'. The whole is generally considered 'everything' which of course is bound by the entirety of its internal parts, and can have no other thing outside of itself. — Philosophim

The whole does not have an outside.

I'm not getting this at all. Whether the universe is limited or unlimited is a matter of physical state. If we conclude that its state is unknown then this discussion is just an attempt at a mental overlay that has no bearing whatsoever. Seems like any mental model we can contrive would be the same. Just a speculation.

So the best we can do is examine the universe we do know and base our models on the known. That could lead to reasonable projections of some of unknowns but still would have a physical basis and not mental abstractions. — Mark Nyquist

As I discussed we cannot have physical access to the whole but a very small part of it. So the only way to understand what its size is is through reason.

I think I see what you mean here. There is always a whole larger than and surrounding sub-wholes. E.g. W2 = W1+B1. And that this goes ad infinitum. Right? — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

But this is not exactly what you said in the OP. You said that "This means that the whole is not W1 but W2 where W2=W1+B1". But W2 is simply a different, larger whole, including W1. W1 is still W1. It has not changed. It has not become W2. This is what I discussed in my previous comment. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, $W_1$ stays the same and does not change. I mean what we consider as the whole $W_1$ which is limited is not the whole but something bigger $W_2$ where $W_2$=$W_1$+$B_1$.

Now, about wholes --or the whole as you say-- going ad infinitum, i.s. being limitless.
If this were the case, then the Universe itself --which includes all the "wholes"-- should be also surrounded by something larger than it. E.g. there could be another Universe, larger than our known Universe .But we don't and can't know that. Or there can be the case of parallel universes. Which remains still to be proved. With our present knowledge the Universe includes everything. (Except if this knowledge has changed and I don't know it.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, we cannot have physical access to the whole so we can never physically confirm that is limitless. But my argument shows that the whole is limitless.