Answering an Atheist Chestnut

[Donnadogsoth]

On 9/15/2017 at 3:17 PM, Goldenages said:

If God were - literally - timeless and would not change, he would not be able to act or even think. His impact on reality could only be exactly zero. Acting or thinking is change and is time. 

regards

Andi

You're making the mistake of conceptualising God as being just another object inside space-time.  He is outside of it all, existing in a single unchanging instant that acts as Prime Mover against all created things.  Do not visualise God as a perfectly smooth circle against which creation impinges.  Rather, view him as a jagged surface that we can wilfully change our approach to--approach one way, something bad happens, approach another, something good--sort of like with people.  But the motion is ours, not God's.

[Donnadogsoth]

On 9/24/2017 at 4:17 AM, Philociraptor said:

In which case God cannot change and therefore cannot exist. Also realize that if the universe changes and cannot be timeless, it is therefore going to not change one day, and therefore be timeless? If there is no timeless universe, then when the universe "ends" it becomes timeless and unchangeable? If this is inevitable this proves the existence of an eternal universe that has always existed.

No.  You are falsely defining "exists" to imply "changes".  The principle of A=A exists but does not change.

Who says the universe will cease to change one day?  But, if it did, who says God will not destroy it rather than make it timeless?  That is to say, the souls of men will be made timeless but the rest of the universe does not need to be.

[Donnadogsoth]

11 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

If it were possible to destroy the universe then it can be timeless as well therefore. If the universe fundamentally changes, then it can change into something timeless according to your logic. If you say that the universe has any SINGLE property that never changes but all of it's other properties DO change...then what you are saying is that that property could never be destroyed therefore making it impossible to destroy the universe.

 

So if the only "constant" of the universe is that it is not timeless, then that is a logical circle. It can't be both constant and NOT timeless. What's worse is that you're saying it will forever be  NOT timeless but in the same breath you say it can be destroyed, meaning the "universe as we know it" could change into something timeless.

The fact that the universe constantly changes is a constant that exists, like A=A, in aeternity.

[Sir Exotic]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:23 AM, Donnadogsoth said:

You don't know that.  But if it makes it easier then consider A=A, which also exists independently of particular instantiations.  The other ideas of colour and banana, etc., exist in God's toolkit when creating the world.

Did you just assume a God into existence to respond to a reasonable comment with "You don't know that."? 

A=A is different, because A=A is not a thought, idea or object/physical manifestation. A=A is a logical rule that states that A cannot be not A, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. The Universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You don't need minds to conceive of this for it to be true.

[Donnadogsoth]

10 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Did you just assume a God into existence to respond to a reasonable comment with "You don't know that."? 

A=A is different, because A=A is not a thought, idea or object/physical manifestation. A=A is a logical rule that states that A cannot be not A, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. The Universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You don't need minds to conceive of this for it to be true.

I've already talked about the temporal lacking sufficient reason to exist, which means its existence flows from the aeternal.  In other words, from an aeternal Creator.  That's not an assumption, that's a deduction.

A=A is a principle which does not strictly apply to God.  It is not that God obeys A=A, it is that A=A expresses his nature.  Consequently the universe he creates likewise conforms to his nature.  That's not the last word on God and logic, or the universe and logic, but that's what's relevant here.

[Donnadogsoth]

7 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

If the universe could be destroyed then it isn't truly a constant. It's a temporary. If the universe could be destroyed, then it could be "remade" into something timeless. Destruction of a finite COULD mean creation of a timeless.

No, the universe isn't a constant, the principle of change is a constant.  "Creation of a timeless" contradicts.  Creation is a creation of a temporal.  The timeless already exists, as the Platonic ideas, principles, etc., existed in the mind of God timelessly and were only crafted into a universe during its creation.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Philociraptor said:

But if the universe being a finite is a constant, yet the universe constantly changes, then it can change into something timeless, according to your logic.

How could something timeless have an ancestor?

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

I was only pointing out the fallacy in your logic. Of course, the universe has always existed. But once we discover the technology to destroy all evil, prevent all war and live forever, that would answer your question. And the answer is "because we wanted to live forever".

You are confusing phenomena (temporality) with principle (aeternity).  Phenomena come into existence and go out of existence.  All that is constant is the existence of the principled realm.  When you say "Of course, the universe has always existed" you are conflating these two realms.  Of course, the phenomenal universe has NOT always existed, just as, of course, the principled realm HAS always existed.

[Sir Exotic]

On 10/9/2017 at 9:02 AM, Jos van Weesel said:

Did you just assume a God into existence to respond to a reasonable comment with "You don't know that."? 

A=A is different, because A=A is not a thought, idea or object/physical manifestation. A=A is a logical rule that states that A cannot be not A, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. The Universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You don't need minds to conceive of this for it to be true.

Philociraptor, he is assuming his god into existence to form his argument, but then rejects things that are already real, because they contradict the god he assumed into existence.

8 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

No you're confusing the two realms. You believe god has always existed.  A human-shaped being with a white beard created the universe. When it's just so much easier to believe that the universe was just always there. Existence was just always there.

Donnadogsoth, you have to realize that your assumption of god is not required for our universe to work and function how it does. Therefore adding the assumption is unnecessary and unprovable. 

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Philociraptor said:

No you're confusing the two realms. You believe god has always existed.  A human-shaped being with a white beard created the universe. When it's just so much easier to believe that the universe was just always there. Existence was just always there.

If the "phenomenal universe" hasn't always existed, then obviously when I say "the universe has always existed" means that the "principled realm universe" has always existed. The universe, therefore, has always existed.

Stop lying.  If you're going to lie and say that I believe God is "a human-shaped being with a white beard" then we're done.

Presuming you've stopped lying, then no.  The principled realm is aeternity and therefore God, or Truth if you prefer.  You as a materialist have no choice but to locate the existence of "the universe" with the material, sensuous elements that make up the phenomenal world.  And that's where I locate the universe as well as an idealist.  The principles are shards of the Truth, imperfect human perspectives on Truth.  We discover principles as if they are parts of the phenomenal universe, but ultimately they are facets of the divine jewel which exists timelessly.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Philociraptor, he is assuming his god into existence to form his argument, but then rejects things that are already real, because they contradict the god he assumed into existence.

Donnadogsoth, you have to realize that your assumption of god is not required for our universe to work and function how it does. Therefore adding the assumption is unnecessary and unprovable. 

The aeternal Creator is not an assumption, it is a deduction from realising that the universe is flux, flux cannot be timeless, and therefore the universe cannot be timeless.  Only something outside of the universe, namely something timeless and creative, could have generated the universe.

[Donnadogsoth]

Have fun stroking your fallacy.

[Sir Exotic]

Since there is no real discussion to derail, let me do just that.

Donnadogsoth you have a cross in your profile picture, which tells me you're a christian.

1. Did you come up with this understanding for the necessity for a god before or after you were a christian?

2. If you came up with it before you were a christian, and then it led you to christianity, how did a necessity of a god prove the christian god?
3. If you came up with it after you were a christian, don't you think it was merely to justify your presupposed beliefs in christianity?

4. How does a mere necessity of a god to create the universe prove that it's the christian god, and not any of the other thousands of gods? And if god is a christian god, how did you determine which specific god it was in christianity, among the thousands of christian denominations? How did you make that determination in your finite life? What if the only real god doesn't even have a concept yet, so why are you not a deist? Suppose you are completely right in your specific christianity, how is that not the greatest miracle of all?

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Since there is no real discussion to derail, let me do just that.

Donnadogsoth you have a cross in your profile picture, which tells me you're a christian.

1. Did you come up with this understanding for the necessity for a god before or after you were a christian?

2. If you came up with it before you were a christian, and then it led you to christianity, how did a necessity of a god prove the christian god?
3. If you came up with it after you were a christian, don't you think it was merely to justify your presupposed beliefs in christianity?

4. How does a mere necessity of a god to create the universe prove that it's the christian god, and not any of the other thousands of gods? And if god is a christian god, how did you determine which specific god it was in christianity, among the thousands of christian denominations? How did you make that determination in your finite life? What if the only real god doesn't even have a concept yet, so why are you not a deist? Suppose you are completely right in your specific christianity, how is that not the greatest miracle of all?

1.After, except that it represents a personal tradition of thought that has its roots in my attempts at being an atheist. In other words, the specific formulation of proof of God's necessity were the post-conversion attempts at justifying an hypothesis in my consciousness that I had already known but lacked the philosophical adeptness to explain.

2.n/a

3.No, because the justification I am giving here is for the philosopher's God, not the Christian God.

4.(a) Consider A=A, principle, population density. We are capable of consciously reflecting the fundamental nature of existence, the fact that existence exists necessarily (A=A). We are capable of discovering other principles, as well—every principle in fact is open to being discovered by us, in principle. Only antihuman pessimism blocks us on that count. And population density demonstrates the truth of our discoveries by allowing us to rise to a 600-fold increase of population density over a hunter-gatherer economy. So, there, we have the essence of the Logos, or ability of the human reason, combined with human communication/speech to change the world for the benefit of man. That puts us on the trail of the Greek and Christian Logos, which John said was incarnated as Christ. It doesn't prove Christ was Christ per say, but it puts us thinking in that tradition.

(b) When in doubt, consider the cult with the strongest connection to the original, which would be the Apostolic succession of the Catholic and to a good but lesser extent the Orthodox Church. There is where we should locate “Christianity” as a source. The Protestant sects, including Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, represent different spiritual disciplines which are disconnected from the Apostolic succession and are all premised on the failure of Christ.

(c) The concept of God is already in kernal described above. It is not incompatible with deism, but I have reasons to believe that deism is wrong.

(d) It is a miracle of insight, of course. I cannot claim credit for that, but would add that if such insight is given to me it behooves me to refine it and share it with others.