Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What was before God?

EdwardHaigh
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:30:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!


Before came into being at the creation, therefore God existed before "before".. lol
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:52:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:30:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!


Before came into being at the creation, therefore God existed before "before".. lol

So, gods for the land before time? Is he a dinosaur?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:55:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:52:26 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:30:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!


Before came into being at the creation, therefore God existed before "before".. lol

So, gods for the land before time? Is he a dinosaur?


Lmao.. Hi-Oh!
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 7:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

Super God. Super God created God.

Where did Super God come from ? well that's a question for another day.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 7:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 7:25:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

Super God. Super God created God.

Where did Super God come from ? well that's a question for another day.

Super god is just another name for Chuck Norris. And everyone knows that Chuck Norris is the mutant butt baby of Liam neeson, Morgan freeman, and GBF(also know as Garret Bobby Ferguson, or giant bearded face).
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 9:51:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most monotheistic religions ascribe eternality or atemporality to God, so the question of something existing "before" God is nonsensical.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

So to say what was before God is just a meaningless question.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

What existed before God? I'm sure any theist would tell you that question makes no sense.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:48:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:46:03 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

What existed before God? I'm sure any theist would tell you that question makes no sense.

That question makes no sense.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:54:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:46:03 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

What existed before God? I'm sure any theist would tell you that question makes no sense.

That question makes no sense.

You don't have to tell me. lol
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:17:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

If by your premises, you mean "God exists and there is an absence of any existing temporal universe" and "God exists and there is a presence of some existing temporal universe" I would agree they contradict each other; however, if you are merely trying say "God is present in this universe" and "God is present elsewhere besides this universe" are contradictory, I think you'll have a tough time getting a theist to agree.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.

S1) Aperion does not exist
S2) Aperion does exist

Both claims can't be absolutely true, but it can be resolved by having S1 be true in a time before S2.

Even with all that said you are still left with two propositions that contradict each other if applied absolutely....

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Haveing S1 in a different time or before S2) to resolve the contradiction isn't an option here.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this raises the issue of what theoretical advantages God could give us over a suitably defined initial state of the universe. Just as there'd be no point in time before God existed, there'd be no point in time before the initial state existed.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:47:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.

S1) Aperion does not exist
S2) Aperion does exist

Both claims can't be absolutely true, but it can be resolved by having S1 be true in a time before S2.

OK?


Even with all that said you are still left with two propositions that contradict each other if applied absolutely....

Right, and so one or the other must be contingent, and it doesn't seem God is more contingent than the universe.

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Haveing S1 in a different time or before S2) to resolve the contradiction isn't an option here.

Of course it is, but I didn't even mention time yet. Recall that Leibniz considered the universe as infinite in time, just as Newton viewed absolute space as "an eminent effect of God's very being." (Newton, Principia)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:59:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:50:23 PM, Pwner wrote:
I think this raises the issue of what theoretical advantages God could give us over a suitably defined initial state of the universe. Just as there'd be no point in time before God existed, there'd be no point in time before the initial state existed.

Explanations don't always have theoretical advantages, that's a uniquely scientific methodological request that wouldn't apply to a state of affairs in which a personal explanation is sufficient to answer. But in fact God DOES give us theoretical advantages, we learn that the cause has certain properties such that miracles become possible. See my posts here,

http://www.debate.org...

By definition if there was an "initial state" of something then there was a state in which it didn't exist. So to suggest that the universe created itself is non-sense.

Nothing creates itself, there's always a cause to a beginning, even virtual particles have a cause from the false vacuum.

So you can't compare this initial state to God since God has no initial state, as said before God is timeless sans creation and so only his will to create time and space has an initial state, not his very being, that's just silly.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:04:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:52:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:47:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.

S1) Aperion does not exist
S2) Aperion does exist

Both claims can't be absolutely true, but it can be resolved by having S1 be true in a time before S2.

OK?


Even with all that said you are still left with two propositions that contradict each other if applied absolutely....

Right, and so one or the other must be contingent, and it doesn't seem God is more contingent than the universe.

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Haveing S1 in a different time or before S2) to resolve the contradiction isn't an option here.

Of course it is, but I didn't even mention time yet. Recall that Leibniz considered the universe as infinite in time, just as Newton viewed absolute space as "an eminent effect of God's very being." (Newton, Principia)

Even with the added caveat of God being the cause of the universe you still get....

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

More abstractly....

S1) X exists without Y
S2) X exists with Y

Where X is timeless.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:16:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:04:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:52:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:47:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.

S1) Aperion does not exist
S2) Aperion does exist

Both claims can't be absolutely true, but it can be resolved by having S1 be true in a time before S2.

OK?


Even with all that said you are still left with two propositions that contradict each other if applied absolutely....

Right, and so one or the other must be contingent, and it doesn't seem God is more contingent than the universe.

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Haveing S1 in a different time or before S2) to resolve the contradiction isn't an option here.

Of course it is, but I didn't even mention time yet. Recall that Leibniz considered the universe as infinite in time, just as Newton viewed absolute space as "an eminent effect of God's very being." (Newton, Principia)

Even with the added caveat of God being the cause of the universe you still get....

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

More abstractly....

S1) X exists without Y
S2) X exists with Y

Where X is timeless.

Yup, this proves that one or the other is contingent still... also what you've got to do is first justify why God's causing the universe isn't a way out of the dilemma. And second justify why we should ignore my formalism from the LCA.. both of these arguments are old and largely discussed, so I would see no reason for why we ought to ignore it just because we can play a game of "ignore all this and accept this" ... anything can be made incoherent if you set up an axiom like that... but nothing interesting is being said.

Just look at McTaggart's paradox that shows time is unreal, and Zeno's paradox that change is impossible.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:19:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

Being that God transcends time, there is nothing either before or after God, insomuch as God is timeless.
Tsar of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:32:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:16:30 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:04:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:52:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:47:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:26:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:59:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:50:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:01:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:21:52 PM, EdwardHaigh wrote:
I'd love to hear the views from religious members of this website! I don't mean this to be a debate, I'd just love to see your views! Thankyou!

It makes no sense to ask what came before God since it seems that God must have been in a timeless state sans creation and entered into time subsequent to his free act of creating the world.

How do theists define time? I was under the impression that time is change; a timeless state is one with no change or movement, because there cannot be either without time. So how could God enter into time after creation?

I meant subsequent in the pickwickian sense since we're talking about this in simple prose. No technical language. So yes it's a misnomer to call it "after" just like it's a misnomer to call it "before" creation.

God's action of creating the universe from a timeless state would simply simultaneous with his free act. Time would exist simultaneous with God's free choice to bring the universe into being.

Let me throw a spanner into the works.

Let's consider two states of reality...

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Both claims can't be true in the absolute sense. Maybe the different states refer to different time. But that can't be true, cause under this view there is no "before" the universe, so S1) doesn't exist before S2).

So if both 1 & 2 are true that leads to a contradiction.

Haha, not much a spanner- all this would show is that the universe is contingent, which is what theists and atheists alike have always affirmed. In fact this point supports the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, consider,

L1) If there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true, then God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist.

L2) God isn't dependent upon the universe to exist

L3) If there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true, then God must have chosen to enter into time

L4) God chose to enter into time

C1) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true (from L1 & L2)

C2) there is a state of affairs in which S2 is true (from L3 & L4)

Therefore,

C3) there is a state of affairs in which S1 is true and a state of affairs in which S2 is true.

S1) Aperion does not exist
S2) Aperion does exist

Both claims can't be absolutely true, but it can be resolved by having S1 be true in a time before S2.

OK?


Even with all that said you are still left with two propositions that contradict each other if applied absolutely....

Right, and so one or the other must be contingent, and it doesn't seem God is more contingent than the universe.

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

Haveing S1 in a different time or before S2) to resolve the contradiction isn't an option here.

Of course it is, but I didn't even mention time yet. Recall that Leibniz considered the universe as infinite in time, just as Newton viewed absolute space as "an eminent effect of God's very being." (Newton, Principia)

Even with the added caveat of God being the cause of the universe you still get....

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with a universe

More abstractly....

S1) X exists without Y
S2) X exists with Y

Where X is timeless.

Yup, this proves that one or the other is contingent still... also what you've got to do is first justify why God's causing the universe isn't a way out of the dilemma. And second justify why we should ignore my formalism from the LCA.. both of these arguments are old and largely discussed, so I would see no reason for why we ought to ignore it just because we can play a game of "ignore all this and accept this" ... anything can be made incoherent if you set up an axiom like that... but nothing interesting is being said.

Just look at McTaggart's paradox that shows time is unreal, and Zeno's paradox that change is impossible.

I don't think you get my objection here, my objection here is that you end up with two propositions that contradict each other. As such one of them has to go.

Even add the causation cavet....

S1) God exists without a universe
S2) God exists with the universe and is the case of the universe

Both S1 and S2 contradict each other cause of the existence and non existence of the universe. And you can't resolve this by having S1 being true before S2.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cyrano
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 4:25:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about wording it like this:

X existed in a temporal stasis. Suddenly 'pop' - the universe, including a time dimension, burst into being.
But if pre-pop there was no time dimension, then how could it (pre-pop) NOT exist simultaneously with the pop event?
Since, by definition, they must exist simultaneously, how is it possible that pop and pre-pop exist simultaneously?

It seems to me that this dilemma is not a question of god (to whit: does the pop event necessarily need to be caused by a deliberately acting mind, or could it be by a natural event) as much as it is a question of our understanding of time; or more specifically - our understanding of a reality WITHOUT time.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 5:54:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:51:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, there is no "before" God. So the question, makes no sense.

Not necessarily true.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 6:26:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 5:54:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:51:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, there is no "before" God. So the question, makes no sense.

Not necessarily true.

Actually, yes it is. If God exists, then everything but God, is dependent on God. This would include a "before".
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 6:35:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 6:26:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:54:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/22/2013 5:51:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, there is no "before" God. So the question, makes no sense.

Not necessarily true.

Actually, yes it is. If God exists, then everything but God, is dependent on God. This would include a "before".

I think what muzebreak was getting at was that contingent deities like Zeus certainly have a "before" ... but I also think we're right in assuming the question refers to the Abrahamic deity.

If muzebreak was assuming the Abrahamic deity, then I'm not sure what he meant.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.