'God exists 'outside' of space and time'

[lucious]

Heard this argument recently in an atheist vs theist pihlosophy book I found at uni.


Theist argues that causal events, and causes/effects are just things we dont apply to God, and argues that 'causality' isnt some objective phenomena in the universe but just one of the minds organising principles we use to help us understand things we perceive(Kant wrote on this to actually).

The argument goes, that if God did create space and time, he isnt bound by it, and cannot logically be the effect of anything else. Also impossible to have an infinite chain of causes and effects so somewhere at some stage, there must be an escape from causality which has to be something completely foreign and unknowable altogether because we have only ever experienced causal things. The usual counter argument is that the universe can simply be this entity, but of course the universe is a collection of causal things itself and isnt more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, God, experiences no time nor space. Thats as far as he goes to try and explain because its quite tricky to visualise something like this, but God experiences no 'before' or 'after'. There is a level of existence where 'isness' just "is" because it could not fail to be, its essence is existence.



I dont really find myself convinced by any arguments but this is a good one, and is philosophically sound. What do y think of this argument? Only one I heard that gives theologians any sort of credibility.

[user5145]

I agree with the argument in its suggestion that the essence of reality is something completely beyond our current understanding, but I 100% disagree with anyone using that as an argument for Yahweh or any other crude anthropomorphic hero.

[lucious]

I agree with the argument in its suggestion that the essence of reality is something completely beyond our current understanding, but I 100% disagree with anyone using that as an argument for Yahweh or any other crude anthropomorphic hero.

well this was actually a really good argument.


The guy was someone who believed in diety but only defined it as 'the reason or force behind the universe' not some religious figure or deity like yahweh. More like conscious or self aware input to existence.

The force of his argument pretty much did away with it anyway since anthropomorphism implies features were familiar with. Also the concept of 'creation' as christianity implies is inconsistent since creation is a causal act in a temporal sequence, and thus anything creating or affecting entities is still part of a temporal chain, hence not solely responsible for the entirety of existence.


I also think the argument from self awareness is good as wel, I have difficulty in self awareness having a non self aware cause.

[leafs43]

If god was outside our time and space he would be completely irrelevant to our universe.


/thread

[lucious]

If god was outside our time and space he would be completely irrelevant to our universe.


/thread

but god is defined as the entity responsible for space/time, but didnt 'create' it as we understand linguistically.

[leafs43]

but god is defined as the entity responsible for space/time, but didnt 'create' it as we understand linguistically.

Time and space is only conceivable after the occurrence of the big bang, not before.

[lucious]

Time and space is only conceivable after the occurrence of the big bang, not before.

well there was no before


'before' time is a completely meaningless thing to say, north of the north pole thing.

Why are we confining 'relevance' to our universe as those things which are temporal and causal? Thats putting an extreme restriction on existence

[leafs43]

well there was no before


'before' time is a completely meaningless thing to say, north of the north pole thing.

Why are we confining 'relevance' to our universe as those things which are temporal and causal? Thats putting an extreme restriction on existence

There was a before. It is only meaningless to us and our universe for reference.

It could have been an infinite amount of failed universes for all we know.

[st_jimmy]

What about this outside of space and time thing makes it a god

[lucious]

What about this outside of space and time thing makes it a god

well god is defined for the discussion as a conscious entity that is responsible for the universe, and if its responsible for space and time it mustnt be within its parameters, and may not experience time or exist in a temporal before/after type fashion which were accustomed to.

Also since theres no such thing as 'objective' causality, its a mental organising principle we imbue into objects. If something is atemporal it logically cannot be an effect of anything else otherwise itd have to be temporal

[zoina21]

What about this outside of space and time thing makes it a god

Good point. If its outside of space and time how do we know anything about it? We don't.
So calling that God is just a replacement for the word unknown .

[lucious]

Good point. If its outside of space and time how do we know anything about it? We don't.
So calling that God is just a replacement for the word unknown .

Its not really a proof of God, thats just impossible.



But it does of course make the idea of God much easier to understand and accept and I think this was a very convincing counter argument to the whole 'who created god' thing.

Its because alot of atheists(not all) usually lack belief because of this causality problem or the idea that God needs a cause for some reason. never heard a good reply to it that made philosophical sense until now

[zoina21]

Its not really a proof of God, thats just impossible.



But it does of course make the idea of God much easier to understand and accept and I think this was a very convincing counter argument to the whole 'who created god' thing.

Its because alot of atheists(not all) usually lack belief because of this causality problem or the idea that God needs a cause for some reason. never heard a good reply to it that made philosophical sense until now

Outside the space and time its the unknown, there are infinite possibilities to explain it, we can't prove any. So the value of each one, like God for example, is one in infinite, 1 dividing by infinite is zero, so the value of God in the unknown is zero.

[user5145]

Its not really a proof of God, thats just impossible.



But it does of course make the idea of God much easier to understand and accept and I think this was a very convincing counter argument to the whole 'who created god' thing.

Its because alot of atheists(not all) usually lack belief because of this causality problem or the idea that God needs a cause for some reason. never heard a good reply to it that made philosophical sense until now

Causality is an illusion. The causality problem is useless, and I am still an atheist. I don't believe there is any level of reality that is intentionally 'doing' anything. There is no almighty father who rules us, blesses us, loves us, what have you. That is a complete joke in my mind.

The true nature of reality, whatever there is, is far more inconceivable, so I cannot speak of it.

[zoina21]

The true nature of reality, whatever there is, is far more inconceivable, so I cannot speak of it.

Yes, we cannot say we know what we don't know. Thats what theists do.

[user5145]

Yes, we cannot say we know what we don't know. Thats what theists do.

I agree, and that is why I feel theism is completely absurd.

[lucious]

I agree, and that is why I feel theism is completely absurd.

Why just sit on the fence though? Why just leave it out completely and not inquire to it just because it transcend our daily experiences


Basically what the argument is trying to convey is that reality shouldnt be restricted to temporal, the before/after, the cause/effect.

Whether or not you want to ascribe properties or whatever to atemporal entities, we can still wonder if theyre conscious/unconscious. Doesnt need to be familiar to us in my opinion.

Basically we have entity A, which is atemporal and logically unable to be the effect of something else because it does not exist within a temporal chain of before/after. Would it you have more trouble believing it is self aware than not?

[lucious]

Yes, we cannot say we know what we don't know. Thats what theists do.

well not exactly.....


a gnostic theist would. Which is absurd.


But how about we redefine a deity to be something responsible for space and time which is self aware, and form a belief based on this?



I think having a 'belief' in said entity, without proving it or giving it properties, is less absurd.

[user5145]

Why just sit on the fence though? Why just leave it out completely and not inquire to it just because it transcend our daily experiences


Basically what the argument is trying to convey is that reality shouldnt be restricted to temporal, the before/after, the cause/effect.

Whether or not you want to ascribe properties or whatever to atemporal entities, we can still wonder if theyre conscious/unconscious. Doesnt need to be familiar to us in my opinion.

Basically we have entity A, which is atemporal and logically unable to be the effect of something else because it does not exist within a temporal chain of before/after. Would it you have more trouble believing it is self aware than not?

Leave what out?

I said that causality is an illusion.

It is absurd to speculate on an incredibly inconceivable "thing" and then worship those speculations and all of their idiocies.

What are you talking about? Causality is an illusion, why are you talking about before/after?

And what are you discussing self-awareness of?

[jackal337]

Space and time are infinite, therefore nothing can be 'outside' of these.

[jackal337]

I said that causality is an illusion.

Nonsense. Everything is caused. Nothing can be uncaused.

[Wussy]

Causality is an illusion. The causality problem is useless, and I am still an atheist. I don't believe there is any level of reality that is intentionally 'doing' anything. There is no almighty father who rules us, blesses us, loves us, what have you. That is a complete joke in my mind.

The true nature of reality, whatever there is, is far more inconceivable, so I cannot speak of it.

Why is causality an illusion? I think that causality is as real as all the points in between A and B in any of the 3 spacial dimensions. (but I don't agree with jackal, just because causation exists doesn't assume things can't be uncaused)

Clearly without on God. A being without, space, time, energy. Started at least nearly all powerful/knowing and alive. It's one thing for life to form on its own in the universe with space, time, energy and being of extremely limited power/knowledge and even that is miraculous to us to the point that we need to think that it had to be created. God is far more complex, so the need to be created should seem far greater. . .can't even imagine the traits of a being that would create god.

[user5145]

Nonsense. Everything is caused. Nothing can be uncaused.

Causality is an illusion because nothing arises independently. All things arise mutually. Birth and Death arise at the same time. What is born is guaranteed to die. What dies is certain to have been born.

One implies the other, just as up implies down.

All "things" are just the result of our mental fragmentation of a process.

Why is causality an illusion? I think that causality is as real as all the points in between A and B in any of the 3 spacial dimensions. (but I don't agree with jackal, just because causation exists doesn't assume things can't be uncaused)

Clearly without on God. A being without, space, time, energy. Started at least nearly all powerful/knowing and alive. It's one thing for life to form on its own in the universe with space, time, energy and being of extremely limited power/knowledge and even that is miraculous to us to the point that we need to think that it had to be created. God is far more complex, so the need to be created should seem far greater. . .can't even imagine the traits of a being that would create god.

[neonhypoxia]

Err... what's going on in here guys?

I already hit up the causality issue in the thread you made for it. As for the rest of this thread, I'll just hang back. Except of course for this post:

Space and time are infinite, therefore nothing can be 'outside' of these.

You know I'm going to have to get all NAZI on this one. First off neither time nor space are infinite. I have no idea where people are getting this from. Second off just because something is infinite does not mean that something cannot exist outside of it. For example the Whole Numbers form an infinite set. Does that mean there can't be anything outside of the Whole Numbers? Hell no. What about all those negative Intergers? The Rational Numbers? The Irrational Numbers? The entire set of Natural Numbers? And are we going to forget about the Complex Numbers?

So no, just because something is infinite does not mean there cannot be something outside of it. Infact we see exactly that all the time.

[jackal337]

You know I'm going to have to get all NAZI on this one. First off neither time nor space are infinite. I have no idea where people are getting this from. Second off just because something is infinite does not mean that something cannot exist outside of it. For example the Whole Numbers form an infinite set. Does that mean there can't be anything outside of the Whole Numbers? Hell no. What about all those negative Intergers? The Rational Numbers? The Irrational Numbers? The entire set of Natural Numbers? And are we going to forget about the Complex Numbers?

So no, just because something is infinite does not mean there cannot be something outside of it. Infact we see exactly that all the time.

I got the idea that space and time are infinite because I cannot conceive of an end to either. Can you tell me, where is the end of spacetime, and what is beyond?

[Slavich]

If God is outside space and time how does he interact with us?

Why did he put jesus just 2000 years ago? Why not earlier why not later?

Why did he even need jesus at all if he was outside space and time?

[neonhypoxia]

I got the idea that space and time are infinite because I cannot conceive of an end to either. Can you tell me, where is the end of spacetime, and what is beyond?

Its a topological space, not euclidian. This isn't a direct comparison, just an example that might give you and idea and help out. Think of the example of a 2D surface instead. Normally how we think of it it would either have to be infinite or have edges. This isn't the only option though. You could say bend it into a sphere. In that cause you still have a finite 2D space, but there are no edges. It would pretty much be like being stuck to the surface of the Earth. Its a finite area, but you'll never encounter an edge. Instead if you go far enough you'll just end back up where you started. That's what the universe is like, but 3D instead and big as hell.

As to what's outside of it, nothing. And I don't mean nothing as in empty space because space is still something. I just mean nothing. Err... well most likely nothing. Some physicist like the concept of a "hyper-space" or whatever it is that String Theory is pushing this week. But most likely nothing.

Geometry can do some very strange things if you let it. The whole no edges thing works fine for me, but the nothing still mind = blown for me. Its works absolutely fine in terms of the geometry, but conceptually I still don't know what to make of it. Limits of the imagination man, limits of the imagination.

[ONtop888]

If God is outside space and time how does he interact with us?

Not being constrained to the boundaries of His creation does not mean that He can't manifest Himself in various ways within His creation.


YOur other questions have been answered before, except the third one which was kind of odd.

[JBDW]

If God is outside of space-time, what's stopping someone from arguing that the Big Bang is something also existed outside of space-time, since the Big Bang never existed IN space time?

[neonhypoxia]

YOur other questions have been answered before, except the third one which was kind of odd.

The third one does make sense if you think about it. Assuming god isn't constrained by space and time then its simply an issue of why would he even need a corporeal existence to communicate with us through. Dude is magic, why would he need a nonmagic little physical counter-part (that maybe he's the same as) to communicate with us?

Granted you don't take the approach that god is omnisceint or omnipotent, but for those who do it would be a valid question.