If god does exist...what was he doing before we got here? Sitting in nothingness, no light, no planets, no stars. He probably didn’t even know what light was. So if he is real, why the dinosaurs than the long road of evolution. If he existed, why are there billions of sick people. So we all sit on this rock, do what other humans say, suffer greatly and our reward is DEATH...because no one knows what happens after that. Personally, I think god is like a bigger version of Santa Claus where he sees you when your sleeping, he knows when your awake, he knows if you’ve been bad or good so follow my rules, read my biography and be good for goodness sake. Than he gives us our gift of enternal sleep. (None of this was meant to sound aggresive in anyway. It actually sounds funny)

So you'd say that either there's no creation of heaven and earth until humans, as a species, develop consciousness, or that there somehow keeps being no heaven and earth for each individual until they're about five years old? — Terrapin Station

Just as time is relative, so is perception. So why not both, from the perspective of the totality of humanity the first goes and from the perspective of the individual the latter goes. Not saying this is the case, just that that seems the most sensible interpretation I've thought of so far.

Hi Walter Pound,

If I am understanding your question correctly, the argument you are having trouble with takes this form:

1. God is changeless.
2. God is timeless.
3. If God creates the world the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change.
4. Therefore, God is not changeless.

You are right to be questioning this argument as it obviously yields a strong contradiction. When we were looking at arguments for the existence of God in one of my philosophy courses, I also had a hard time understanding how God could remain changeless if he existed outside of time, then created both time and the physical world, and then began existing within time. This seems absolutely bonkers to think about, but the way it was explained to me clarified it all very much and I hope it can do the same for you.

The objectionable premise in the argument you presented is premise 1 that says that God is changeless. This is the most fundamental premise for the argument and directly contradicts the conclusion yielded from the argument we are working with. This is because this premise is false. There is the common understanding among Christians that God is unchanging but there is biblical evidence that refutes this idea. Take for example the many instances in the Bible in which God changes his mind about a certain issue or task at hand. Think about the disparities between the New and Old Testament that are both supposed to the word of God. These many contradictions should be enough to illustrate that God does have the capacity to change.

This makes it totally plausible that God experienced a change when he created time and physical space. He existed unchanged, suspended in the infinity that existed before time, and the first change that occurred in the world as we know it was a change within him when he decided to create the physical world in time. It is incorrect to believe that God does not have the capacity for change, especially because he is all powerful and change is form of power.

Who says that God is timeless? The bible says that God knows time (a thousand years is like a day to Him).

Yes, time is present wherever there is change, and since God knows change, then He knows time - the only real assumption we should make, is that God, being beyond reproach, can not die. Therefore He is endless.

In order to critique this argument, I'll begin by restating it. Essentially, your assertion is that:

1. If God created the physical world along with time, then he experienced a change (from existing alone to existing with time).
2. If God experienced a change, it calls into question his ability to be timeless and changeless.
3. God created the physical world and time.
4. Therefore, we must question his ability to be timeless and changeless.

If we're using this argument with regard to most monotheistic, God-worshipping religions, such as Christianity, God is usually regarded as an eternal deity; God exists within eternity and isn't generally regarded as experiencing, say, aging. One thing that came to my mind when reading this argument was the creation story from the Bible, in which God seemingly experiences time in a linear fashion; first one day, then the next, and so on.

However, if God exists within eternity, it is possible that he could then create "time," as we know it, while continuing to exist within the separate, unchanging eternity. Traditionally, the belief is held that eternity has always existed, and God has always existed within it. Therefore, God could have created "time" without being altered by its creation. I recognize that these are broad statements, but I wanted to introduce this idea before I explain it below.

I believe that one issue with your argument is P1's implication that God would be changed by the mere introduction of time. If, as you're stating in this argument, God created time, it does not necessarily follow that he would be changed by it, or that he would "exist with time" at all. I'll elaborate on this point by addressing P2, which further proposes that God could be changed by time.

An issue with P2, which is an extension of my comments regarding P1, is that God is traditionally not regarded as existing within time. He is viewed as being timeless in that he is outside time altogether, completely separate from it. If this is the case, it seems reasonable to infer that he could create time without being affected by it. I saw this concept referred to in other replies to your post: people used phrases such as “a different dimension,” and “a different plane,” when describing the idea of God’s separation from time. In this view, God could avoid the "change" that you reference because he does not have experiences in an order that our idea of time could explain, and we wouldn't be able to determine a point at which his experience shifted and he changed. This concept of God as existing outside of time can be a difficult one to understand, and I freely admit that there is a bias present, because it hinges on beliefs that many religions hold about the eternal nature of God’s existence. Nonetheless, it has the potential to pose a problem to this argument.

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way.

However, if one were to use some sense of reasonableness, I could stand corrected but I believe the popular Holographic Principle in physics today, posits storage of information (unchanging) at the horizon of black holes all at the speed of light (eternal/timelessness). Even Stephen Hawking admitted his mistake... .

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way. — 3017amen

When something is logically impossible, it means it is something that cannot exist. Something cannot be both true and false. Consciousness is not an impossible attribute. It is clear consciousness exists. We could have contradictory ideas of how consciousness exists, and these can be thrown out. But consciousness itself must operate on some logical means, because consciousness is not both true and false at the same time, its very much true.

Not true. I use the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming, crashing and killing yourself. Was it true you were driving yet not driving? (Was it your consciousness driving or your subconsciousness driving at the same time daydreaming that caused your death?) In either case, that's logically impossible to do (explain).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So the question to you is, how is it logically impossible? — tim wood

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM. — 3017amen

If you run into a contradiction when constructing words, then you should examine your words more closely.

Driving the car could mean many different things depending on context. Let us define it your way however, that a person needs to be actively paying attention. If that is the case, when you are daydreaming you ceased driving the car. You may have been holding the wheel, but you were not paying attention. Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming.

But lets say driving the car means being behind the wheel in a conscious or subconscious state. In that case, daydreaming meant you were driving the car in a subconscious state.

If there is one thing that is incontrovertible, is that you cannot have something both true and false.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

but when does it happen? Example, please? — tim wood

The philosophy/psychology/phenomenology of the dialectics of love, paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, you know, stuff you have no interest in... .

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming. — Philosophim

But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, I wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I know what you mean. I experienced the same frustration in the Kant thread.

One is forced to conclude you do not know what the LEM is, how it works, or what it is for.

It's 'for' a priori formal logic. And what is your consciousness 'for'?

LOL

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Non sequitor, evasion, deflection. Just think a bit and write down a coherent example that will serve to answer the question. — tim wood

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM. — 3017amen

If you noticed, I gave you two definitions and noted that what "driving" is depends on context. You are saying, "I 'was' driving the car". What is your particular definition of driving? Is it that you are conscious? Your full attention at the wheel? Can you drive while daydreaming? If you break down what it means to drive, I'm sure you'll find its impossible to both drive and not drive at the same time.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. — 3017amen

Are you saying that it is impossible for a person to do two things at the same time? I know I can. I can both drive and day dream at the same time. Of course, this is not a safe thing to do - but that is a separate issue.

What is your particular definition of driving? — Philosophim

Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled.

Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled. — 3017amen

Alright, what is your definition of controlled? Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling?

I can both drive and day dream at the same time. — EricH

But how is driving and not driving possible?

But how is driving and not driving possible? — 3017amen

That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention.