And that is the reason your argument isn't compelling. — Relativist

Can we make a correct argument without properly defining the terms used?

I see absolutely no reason to think there's a "gap" between instants of time, regardless of whether it's continuous or discrete. — Relativist

If there is no gap between two instants of time then they lay on the same point. Is this correct or not?

What is your definition of change?

You have demonstrated that you argument DEPENDS on assumptions. If I'm wrong, then recast your argument using my definition of time, events, discrete and continuous time. — Relativist

No, my arguments depend on the definitions. So again, consider a change. Is there a gap or isn't? Take your pick.

What is your definition of change by the way?

You seem to be making a number of specific metaphysical assumption that I disagree with, so it's pointless to continue. — Relativist

I don't think that all the arguments that I provided are assumptions. You are free to finish the discussion if you wish.

Change doesn't occur at a point of time. Change entails a passage of time. — Relativist

Correct. Perhaps using the term process is misleading. By process, I simply mean a set of events that occur either in a single timeless point or temporary. The set of events therefore is simultaneous in the first case and temporal in the second case. If you are not happy with the term process then let's call it a set of events or simply S for the sake of discussion.

I get the impression that you are treating time as a metaphysical entity, which I don't agree with. I consider time to be a relation between states. So a passage of time entails transitioning from state to state, while each emerged state is an event. — Relativist

Well, I think that time is a physical entity. This can be shown but it is not fruitful in the current stage of our discussion. I will need to discuss it later so let's wait for the proper time.

Also, what is an event? I view an event as a state that was caused by a prior state. — Relativist

By event, I mean a substance that exists in a specific state.

Describe it. I'll point out that as you make more assumptions, you weaken your case - because each assumption can be rejected (unless you can show it to be logically necessary). — Relativist

By discrete time I mean a time that occurs at certain points each consecutive points are separated by a constant interval.

I don' know if your use of "evolve" is meant to refer to biological evolution, but if so, no we as individuals don't evolve. Species evolve. — wonderer1

By evolve I mean both spiritual growth and evolution which only occur in species.

So do you think it is the case that we simple aren't the species that God wants, and God is waiting for some species to come, and doesn't care about the suffering it takes to get there? — wonderer1

I think humans can enlighten so we can reach a state of harmony and relative peace if each individual puts into practice to achieve enlightenment. I think that humans are subject to further evolution as well. I also think that God cares about the level of suffering that we receive. Too much suffering can lead to the extinction of humans. We won't evolve further if the suffering does not exist at all. So suffering should be in the right proportion.

I don't think that it is necessary that a 'boundless' state of perfection contains suffering. But IMO, why seek it if suffering is literally endless? Seeking an end to suffering seems to be the most natural thing to seek (even if it would be impossible). — boundless

Well, that is unfortunately not completely up to us. If perfection is boundless then we suffer eternally since we cannot possibly achieve it. If perfection is bounded then we can achieve it hence there will be an end to our sufferings.

I see your point, but IMO everyone desires to be from suffering in a very intimate level. Why should I seek a state of perfection if I will still suffer? — boundless

Well, if we achieve perfection we won't suffer anymore. That is the goal of our lives!

I read your long post twice and here you can find my response to it: I think it would be fruitful to discuss the idea of God in the first place since I don't believe in the concept of Jewish God that for example has foreknowledge. Apart from the paradox (the paradox that our fates are fixed) you mentioned there is another paradox that I can summarize in the following. Let's assume that I meet God in Heaven face to face and I can ask questions to God. I can simply challenge God's foreknowledge by asking a simple question of whether I am going to do a certain act. If God answers that I am not going to do then the question is whether I can do the opposite or not. If I cannot then I am not a free agent which is problematic. If I can then God does not have foreknowledge. That is one problem aside: God does not have foreknowledge. The second problem is related to the fact whether God can create God or not. It is against wisdom if God can create God but wouldn't create God, instead creating creatures who must undergo all sorts of troubles and sufferings. Therefore, I believe that God cannot create God therefore the creation, like it or not, looks like the things that it is, people suffering but evolving, and people do wrong so they get punished... So here we are involved in something people call life, like or or not, we have to play it out.

Do you think that this 'evolution' has an 'end'? Or is endless? — boundless

It depends on what the state of perfection is. If the state of perfection is boundless we will ever suffer. If the state of perfection is bounded then we will soon find peace.

Yes, suffering can teach many things but I would hope that life is not an inseparable feature of life. — boundless

Fortunately or unfortunately, suffering is an inseparable feature of life! Fortunately, because we have a way to evolve. Unfortunately, because we have to suffer.

Why should I want to suffer if I have no chance to somehow find an escape from it? — boundless

You need to get enlightened if you want to reach a state of relative peace.

OK, I see your point. However, that approach is vulnerable to objections based on special relativity (see this article). Since we're talking about the metaphysics of time in general, it usually makes more sense to consider the temporal evolution of the universe: the universe evolves from state S1 at time T1 to state S2 at time T2. T1 and T2 are points of time, and also correspond to events. On this global scale, there are no "simultaneous events". Does this work for you? — Relativist

I am familiar with the Relativity of simultaneity but that is not what I mean by simultaneous process. By simultaneous process, I mean a process in which all events occur at a single timeless point. Let me give you an example: A film is made of discrete frames. You can watch frames in order one frame at any given time. What you experience is a temporal change namely the movie. You can also watch all the frames at a single point. That is what I mean by simultaneously.

Yes, you are. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the chronon:

"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model. "

You're trying to divide something that is indivisible, treating time as continuous (that's what you're doing when you consider the chronons divisible into points) - but events are merely advancing in stutter-steps. You can't have it both ways. — Relativist

I am not talking about the quantization of time in which time is made of indivisible units so-called Chronon. I am talking about the classical discrete time.

I think, BC, that this question reveals an even more disturbing question- what kind of god wants his creations to suffer? — schopenhauer1

A God who wants evolution in life. Suffering is an inseparable feature of life, without it we don't learn many things, and without it we don't evolve.

And that is a problem. You are not critical of your own beliefs. It seems you are here to tell us what you believe, but not to listen or think about things in a new way. Not to do philosophy.

Challenge yourself. — Banno

I am critical of my beliefs. I thought you could find a problem with my belief.

The definition of god is of a being that is perfect in every way. All knowing all good all powerful. Perfect in all aspects. — kindred

Cool. The next question that you have to ask yourself is whether such a God can create another God.

These statements suggests that your concept of God is too small. A being who is present in all times--past, present, and future; and in all places, knows all, and has unlimited power can't be contemplated using humanoid traits, like thrift or duty, or by comparing God's omniscience to our measly flashbacks. — BC

I don't know all the attributes of God. I think that humans are not perfect so they don't psychologically have access to all the possible attributes including attributes of God. We have instinct. We can think logically. We have the impression of intuition. I don't know what wisdom is but people talk about it. People talk about meaning too but I don't think that any human has ever experienced it yet. And so on. To complete I don't think that God has access to the future since the future is not decided yet.

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? Or, why didn't God make people who were good from the start and stayed that way? And so on. We look at this unlimited being from our extraordinarily limited being's perspectives, and think we see God's mistakes. Highly presumptuous. — BC

Without suffering no organism can evolve. So suffering is an inseparable aspect of life. Why God didn't create a perfect agent? God couldn't since a perfect agent by definition is God.

Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. It's just that if we want to CLAIM that god is unlimited, then we have to accept that we will never understand such a being, will never understand the Divine plan of Salvation, or anything else about God. We don't have to reject the existence of this unlimited God, but our severe limitations in understanding God put the ball back in our court.

In other words, our problems are our problems. — BC

Yes, our problems are our problems but that does not mean that God is not in charge.

And what do you think are the problems with this view? — Banno

I don't think that there is any problem with this view. If you think that there is a problem then please tell me.

If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. — kindred

A perfect agent is God and not a human with all human limitations. Humans have to get through, evolve further, and grow to become perfect (if that is possible at all). Therefore, humans are not perfect yet. If God can create a perfect agent then God should only create God!

In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. — kindred

As far as I remember from the Bible Adam looks good in the eyes of God and not perfect. I don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't know what image means. Do you? In regards to humans, we know that humans are the result of evolution and humans were not created at once.

Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that? — kindred

Bad Karma from the past life.

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god. — kindred

What do you mean by the perfect creator?

No, it isn't.

But perhaps you can't bring yourself to see that, because your faith depends on it.

If the world is already just, then there could be no "duty" for us to make the world just. Another contradiction in your position. — Banno

I said this to another poster and I think it is proper for our discussion too: "I think God cannot create perfect humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow."

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