Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics.
The laws of normal space-time could not exist within a singularity.
That is why, as I understand it, physics can 'rewind the tape' of the Big Bang to within an infinitesmal of the singularity, but never to it - even in principle.
Many years ago things were much denser. — jorndoe
This paper, for example, is about t=0 and it has 487 citations!
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848 — tom
The classical depiction of deity in the Western tradition is as simple - not composed of parts - — Wayfarer
So rather, a humble acknowledgement of our cause, even if done in ignorance. — Punshhh
That claim might be difficult to defend. God is one, but first and foremost, "one" signifies unity rather than simplicity. Surely the Christian God is understood to be a trinity, and I don't see how a trinity could be simple. — MetaphysicianUndiscovered
The point I am labouring to make is that the frequent criticisms directed at classical theism - 'Who made God? Mustn't God be more complex than what he creates?' - are based on no understanding whatever of the nature of the question. — Wayfarer
I am not saying these are interchangeable or synonymous, but that the idea of the 'one which is three' is not unique to Christian doctrine to perhaps it denotes a deeper truth. — Wayfarer
I am not saying inconceivable in principle, rather from our humble vantage point. Yes ts true that folk perceive divine beauty, meaning, or perhaps something of the nature of God, but it is always understood that they are relating to an entity far greater, the part of the iceberg you cannot see. — Punshhh
This is what happens with the word "God". We can proceed through any one of a number of different versions of the cosmological argument, and conclude a first actuality, as I suggested, or a causeless cause, as suggested by another version, or even an eternal cause, and claim this is "God". Someone else might say "God" refers to an omnipotent, omniscient, being, so we are wrong to use the word "God" in reference to what is implied by the numerous different conclusions of the different versions of the cosmological argument. If we quit at this point, and concede, "God" is inconceivable, we will have succumbed to the irrationality of "that which is difficult is impossible". — Metaphysician Undiscovered
But aside from this title, there is an elaborate literature on the 'way of unknowing' which is central to Christian mysticism (and also has parallels in other faith traditions). — Wayfarer
The gist of this is not that simply one throws up one's hands - 'eh, what do we know?' - but one enters into the 'cloud of unknowing' through meditative silence. The biblical precedents are such verses as 'the lord sees in secret'. I think, from the viewpoint of a modern depth psychology, what is happening in these meditative states is the mind is actually becoming directly aware of its hidden depths, through non-verbal and non-analytic awareness. — Wayfarer
I don't think the apophatic approach is characteristic of the kind of theology that developed such ideas as the cosmological argument, it is considerably more reticent, for obvious reasons (although the inconcievability of the divine nature is basic to Aquinas, as I understand it.) But I think it's a mistake to say that recognition of the 'divine mystery' or the fact that Deity transcends human reason and sense, is simply 'succumbing to the irrational', so much as a recognition of the limits of rationality, in respect of that which is superior to it. — Wayfarer
But I think it's a mistake to say that recognition of the 'divine mystery' or the fact that Deity transcends human reason and sense, is simply 'succumbing to the irrational', so much as a recognition of the limits of rationality, in respect of that which is superior to it. — Wayfarer
This is why I accept that any cosmological argument cannot conclude God, because what is it concluding? — Punshhh
Aquinas doesn't say that the divine nature is inconceivable... — Metaphysician Undiscovered
God is greater than all we can say, greater than all that we can know; and not merely does he transcend our language and our knowledge, but he is beyond the comprehension of every mind whatsoever, even of angelic minds. — Aquinas
There is no point from which the knowledge of the Infinite can begin, other than the Infinite itself. From the start, we are in the disconcerting position of setting out to understand something which has no beginning, which cannot be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference. This is perhaps inconvenient and confusing, but the truth remains that one cannot work oneself up to the subject of metaphysic by easy stages. A million to the power of a million is no nearer to infinity than is one. ...
[Accordingly], almost without exception the sacred writings begin the exposition of the ultimate Reality without preface, argument, or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to adopt the existence of the Infinite or of God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science. But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape, the reality of the Infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. — Alan Watts
An example which I experienced was that of transcending time... — Punshh
there is some sense—easier to feel than to state—in which time is an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality. Past and future must be acknowledged to be as real as the present, and a certain emancipation from slavery to time is essential to philosophic thought. The importance of time is rather practical than theoretical, rather in relation to our desires than in relation to truth. A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realise the unimportance of time is the gate of wisdom.
The point is that in all the Semitic religions - Jewish, Christian, Islamic - the Lord is literally unknowable or inconceivable in some fundamental way. — Wayfarer
I would suggest though that the use of the word "infinite" doesn't seem as appropriate as the use of the word eternity would be, to my eyes.
There are problems with the concept of infinity, which I have pointed out from time to time. — Punshhh
I agree with your conclusion that there must be an abosolute prior actuality and if for you this has equivalence with your concept of God, then it does conclude God, I agree. But what is this God(what is its nature), do we know, does anyone know? — Punshhh
I don't think we can conclude that time is prior to temporal existence, the issue might be more subtle than that. Time external to temporal existence might be orthogonal to it, of another form of existence or an eternal moment of some kind. Even in physics they entertain the idea of events occurring outside time as experienced in our world. There might be an ooze, in which both time and space are distorted/extruded across dimensions.The point being that the argument deals with the nature of temporal existence. When we understand, from the cosmological argument, that there is necessarily an actuality which is prior to the actualities of temporal existence, this necessitates that time itself is prior to the actualities of temporal existence.
Agreed, we are in ignorance. I don't mean in the sense of stupid, but rather that the truth of the matter is concealed/veiled from us.From my perspective, when I started to develop an understanding of the nature of time, I realized just how little we, as human beings, actually know about temporal existence. If God is what brings us to this realization, then "God" is something which we must maintain
According to the first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to exist, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam)...
In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.
First seeing mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers means seeing them as fixed and solid entities in and of themselves.
Later seeing them as not mountains and not rivers means we understand that neither mountains nor rivers exist in and of themselves, that they are empty of inherent existence and made up of other beings that are also empty of inherent existence. For instance, there is nothing within a mountain that we can pull out and say, "this is mountain," or, "this is what makes a mountain a mountain." Mountains are made up of rocks, trees, grass, snow, water, rivers, ponds, lakes, insects, birds, animals, etc., etc., etc., and all of these things are made up of other things. So, there are no mountains and no rivers.
When we continue to practice, and our wisdom eye is fully opened, we realize that mountains are indeed mountains, and rivers are indeed rivers, for there is a mountain there and a river over here. However, we deeply understand that both "mountain" and "river" are merely words that we use to describe the conditioned phenomena in front of us. Neither phenomena is a fixed nor permanent entity that exists in and of itself and possesses inherent existence as "mountain," or "river." In other words we experience and understand their true nature, and the true nature of all beings.
I don't think we can conclude that time is prior to temporal existence, the issue might be more subtle than that. — Punshhh
Time external to temporal existence might be orthogonal to it, of another form of existence or an eternal moment of some kind. Even in physics they entertain the idea of events occurring outside time as experienced in our world. There might be an ooze, in which both time and space are distorted/extruded across dimensions. — Punshhh
I think that the term 'object' is being used metaphorically in all of those examples. I don't think Deity is ever really 'an object' in any sense but the metaphorical. — Wayfarer
And the fact that the text then goes on to say that this knowledge 'cannot be obtained by a living human being, because so long as we live, the soul has its being in corporeal matter, so the intellect cannot be united to God in this way, while the human being is living', makes the point that I was pressing about 'unknowability'. — Wayfarer
But the key thing is the fact that higher knowledge carries with it a change in perspective, meaning that one who has it, sees things so differently, that he or she might as well be seeing a different world altogether. (Maybe this is the inner meaning of 'new heaven, new earth'.) So what we take to be knowledge, from our perspective, really might not be knowledge at all from a higher perspective. ('The things you think are precious I can't understand'.)
Normally, our sense of what we know is embedded in a matrix of understanding, supported and buttressed by all kinds of suppositions and previously-formed ideas. I think that what happens on the path is that this structure is always being challlenged and changed, so that we realise that what we thought we knew, no longer seems certain. Then you come upon a new perspective which throws what you thought you knew into a new light. 'Ah, I thought that this meant that, but now I suddenly see it means something different'. All the things you thought were real and solid, suddenly appear inconsequential. — Wayfarer
This is not "unknowable" in any absolute sense. The "unknowability" is due to a deficiency in the particular intellect which is attempting to know, not due to the Deity itself being unknowable. The Deity is actually supremely knowable... — Metaphysician Undiscovered
The Angelic Doctor may well be...the most agnostic theologian in the Western Christian tradition—not agnostic in the sense of doubting whether God exists, but agnostic in the sense of being quite clear and certain that God is a mystery beyond any understanding we can have” (Faith Within Reason, McCabe, p. 96). Yet despite our incomprehension, we talk about God all the time. Here is one of the oddities of our liturgical and theological discourse: we do not know what the word “God” means. We have a well enough grasp of the grammatical rules for intelligible use of the term (even militant atheists know how to use it in a sentence), but Christians standing within the Catholic tradition readily admit their ignorance of its referent. Writes McCabe: “For we do not know what we mean by ‘God’. We use this word just as a convenient label for something we do not understand. For Aquinas, only God understands what God is” (p. 97). Even divine revelation, insists Aquinas, does not give us to apprehend God in his essential reality but “joins us to know him as if to an unknown” (ST I.12.13).
McCabe's sermons were carefully prepared and delivered with great intelligence and wit. A major theme was a caution against making God a god, of reducing the Creator to an object within this world, and thus committing idolatry.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.