Well, I figure that this is how they will respond to your objection: God's thoughts are eternal and unchanging and therefore timeless; all of God's thoughts are not occurring in time in the way our thoughts occur, but instead they have always been.

However, even this response doesn't make sense if God is the creator of time. The very act of creating space and time, ex nihilo, is a change; even if God is eternally creating time and space, then God should be described not as unchanging, but as eternally changing. — Walter Pound

Exactly. How does an unchanging thing cause change?

However, this objection would not explain why God chooses to remain timeless as opposed to entering in time. It doesn't sound like a logical contradiction to say that a timeless being can enter into time so if God is omnipotent, then the issue remains: why is God timeless instead of temporal? — Walter Pound

That last question doesn't make sense.

A changeless thing would be like numbers in mathematical Platonism. Numbers literally do nothing and thus are timeless in the fullest sense of the word, but God is not timeless in the way numbers are in mathematical Platonism so it is a weird description to call God changeless if God is eternally creating time and space. — Walter Pound

Which number? There are an infinite amount of numbers (infinite change).

Once again - for those making assumptions or claims about the nature of God, what such a being could or could not do, be or not be, etc.

Do you have a reasoned argument that we have the ability to make such claims, or assumptions. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems an important concept that we should all understand. That if we make any proposition at all about the nature of God, we have no real basis to justify that claims.

Including gods existence itself.

there is a reasonable case that at least at one time there was an un-created creator - or put another way, a necessary being. All other God claims are IMO completely faith based.

A first cause maybe, but being not so much.

Also faith has no explanatory power, it isnt a good reason for believing in anything. Its the answer people give when they have no reason, and then act like they have given a good reason.

I think necessary being is fine, and there is a reasonable case for it. Both for factual necessity and causal necessity.

How could we possibly know if the first cause is a being?

think we have definition issues.

Let me define necessary being - A necessary being is a being ( some identifiable entity) who's existence is not contingent on anything. And who's existence is necessary for the existence of all contingent beings.

Right, but how do you get to a being or entity?

doesn't matter - to me just semantics - have to call "it" something - being is the most used label for this idea - but it is just a label - not material to my point at all

I understand your point, I just dont understand why you use “being” or “entity” rather than “cause” or simething similar.

It is definitely not just a semantic point. “Being” is very different in its meanings and implications.

because the argument I was alluding to that started this argues it is a being and not a cause -

Yes, in asking why.

Im

have less than zero interest in a discussion of cause vs being - that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the point I was making.

Im not asking you to discuss cause vs being. You said a case can be made for being, Im asking you to explain it. Typically a person who says they can make a case for something is willing to do it. Well, alright, carry on with whatever you were doing I guess.

Sorry - made an assumption it was evident that was the cosmological argument. I was not making an argument. I was making a factual statement there is a reasonable argument.

That last question doesn't make sense.

I highlight that God is claimed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything logically possible, and since there does not seem to be anything illogical about changing from one state to another, then God should be able to enter into time and become temporal; thus, if God can do this, then we are still left with a question as to why God does not enter into time?

therefore everything would be part of God, not separate. It wouldn't have created 'us' as there would be no us (or them) — TWI

A non-religious example might be space. Everything is overwhelmingly made of space. There may be some hidden property of space which causes it to generate what we call "things" in space. Thus, it might be said that we are both created by space and made of space. We are space. Space and we are one, and the divisions we perceive between "us" and "space" are inventions of the observer, not a property of what is being observed.

Funny old thing 'space', I would describe it as the absence of anything, that would of course include light, therefore space is nothing - non existent. As we are 'something' we wouldn't be in that nothing, if we were it would cease to be nothing and become something!

I highlight that God is claimed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything logically possible, and since there does not seem to be anything illogical about changing from one state to another, then God should be able to enter into time and become temporal; thus, if God can do this, then we are still left with a question as to why God does not enter into time? — Walter Pound

Changing from one state to another is a changing entity! What is illogical is no change causing change.

What is illogical is no change causing change. — Harry Hindu

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you.

GODS: Proposals about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

LOGIC: The poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

You seem to insist that we accept the infinite ability of human reason as a matter of faith as you do. Sorry, this is a philosophy forum, so, you're outta luck.

Please note that this is the exact same challenge which you reasonably apply to holy books, prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. You have a good methodology, but you aren't loyal to it, applying only to the other guy's chosen authority.

PS: How many times do I have to type this?

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you — Jake

I am not even asking for proof ( whatever that is for such a concept ) just asking if someone can make a reasonable argument that we humans have a basis for saying anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God.

There are just so many If --- Then God arguments that propose as true the "if" and then propose as false the "then" with some kind of truth assumption on our ability of know as even close to true any of it.

This includes the argument from evil, and every God paradox you have ever heard.

I am not even asking for proof ( whatever that is for such a concept ) — Rank Amateur

Good point!

just asking if someone can make a reasonable argument that we humans have a basis for saying anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God. — Rank Amateur

Yes, there is such a basis. Our need to know, or failing that, pretend we know.

Whether we can say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God is obviously true, because we say such things all the time. Whether we can say anything meaningful and credible is another story.

However, by asking the questions and trying to provide answers we can learn more about ourselves and our relationship with this place we find ourselves in. If we can learn enough, and successfully address that relationship, the question of God may resolve itself without being answered.

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you. — Jake

I don't have to prove anything. It is your responsibility to prove that God exists in the first place to then go on to say that we can never understand a god. How you can prove the existence of something for which you claim we can never understand - I have no idea, but good luck.

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound

Yes, God can. Ask Her. :up: :wink:

I don't have to prove anything. — Harry Hindu

Ah, I see, we're supposed to believe in the qualifications of your chosen authority on faith. Like you do. Hmm, that sure sounds familiar...

It is your responsibility to prove that God exists in the first place — Harry Hindu

I haven't claimed there is a God. Thus, I take no responsibility to prove any of that.

Harry the discussion starts with an If - then statement - concerning the nature of God. These are quite normal - If God is X then God cant be Y - therefore there is no God. It is a very fair question to all of these arguments for someone to ask those making the claim to support the basis for their proposition they can say anything at all about the nature of God.