'God exists 'outside' of space and time'

[ONtop888]

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.

Indeed.

[lucious]

Its a misnomer to say something is 'outside' of space because to be an outside, there must be some...space(i know i said outside in the thread title, only to convey the idea though).

Argument is only meant to provide some outside the box thinking, and certainly doesnt try to prove that an atemporal or an aspacial god is good or loves us or sent jeebus into space/time.


The point is, if something is atemporal, or respnsible itself for space/time, it logically cannot be the effect or 'created' by something else because creation as we understand it, is bringing about a change in time, from a period where time itself existed.

If something relied on time or a temporal transition of events, it wouldnt be able to claim responsibility for time would it since it would rely on there being time and temporal transition for its own existence.

Yes, existence would become wierd indeed in the abscence of time, but still possible. We wouldnt have causality though, or before/after.......atemporal entities would have an 'isness' or a 'thatness' that is their very essence


where did all this jeebus crap come from? this isnt the point. I thought you guys were more mature than this

[ONtop888]

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?

The problem with that argument is that God -- being an immaterial being (spirit) -- is 'needed' (due to His aforementioned properties) to solve infinite regression by existing outside of the series. The Big Bang would just be another physical event in the same series.

However, JBDW, we are probably thinking about two separate issues because I'm not arguing for the preservation of human free will and God's omniscience due to God's existence outside of time/space.

[lucious]

Just another point on Big Bang, there wasnt a 'bang' that exploded out of nothing....lets not go down that old road.

[leafs43]

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

This isn't true.

At t=0 neither exist.

At t=n space is most finite.

[lucious]

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.

I'm not sure if you realised this, but a mathematical analogy fits perfectly here.


Do you think there might be something special about mathematics and the fact it seems to be able to transcend merely the physical? e.g the infinite sets.

the infinite sets cannot logically be an effect of something prior, they simply cannot be caused.


think about the number 11, and the fact its a prime number. Is 11 caused by anything? 11 is 11 whether or not theres a universe here, it is a prime number regardless of whats happening with space/time.

The fact that it is prime, isnt the result of any temporal change or cause.

11s 'elevenishness' is simply, that. It 'is'. I realise 'numbers' are a human construct but mathematics itself models reality so perfectly its hard to think its simply a human mindgame

Mathematics itself might be suggesting more than it initially lets on

[lucious]

also another point about thinking about 'nothing'.


literally impossible, doomed to failure from the get go.


To form a though, the thought must be about 'something', thats the essence of a thought, to refer to something or someone.

To form a thought, you also need the mental projections of space and time for the subject of a thought to appear 'into'.

Without space or time, a thought is impossible. You cannot think about a lack of anything becuse it is utterly meaningless.

[jackal337]

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.

That is the problem for me as well... how can there be nothing outside of space? Absolute nothingness is not even a meaningful concept to me.

Interesting about space having no edges like a sphere though... I did not know that. I don't know anything about physics (as is obvious) but I still have to believe that there is something beyond. Maybe it would not be properly called 'space', but there must be something...

[neonhypoxia]

I'm not sure if you realised this, but a mathematical analogy fits perfectly here.


Do you think there might be something special about mathematics and the fact it seems to be able to transcend merely the physical? e.g the infinite sets.

the infinite sets cannot logically be an effect of something prior, they simply cannot be caused.


think about the number 11, and the fact its a prime number. Is 11 caused by anything? 11 is 11 whether or not theres a universe here, it is a prime number regardless of whats happening with space/time.

The fact that it is prime, isnt the result of any temporal change or cause.

11s 'elevenishness' is simply, that. It 'is'. I realise 'numbers' are a human construct but mathematics itself models reality so perfectly its hard to think its simply a human mindgame

Mathematics itself might be suggesting more than it initially lets on

Mathematics always suggest more than it initially lets on.

And yeah, the entire concept definetly transcends the physical and would have to be uncaused. As you point out the uncountable infinites would be a great example of this, but there's also something to be said about structures that fall under GIT there as well. Plus there is the issue that the very nature of a physical reality, a god, or anything like that would require mathematics as an a priori anyways. The physical reality aspect should be obvious, as for the god issue just think about it this way; how many gods are there? Not just being able to answer that, but even being able to ask it would require the existence of mathematics. And really given the nature of mathematics once you move into the more abstract areas it becomes a self-arising concept anyways.

The whole it suggesting more has been what's bugging for a while though. You seem familair with the area, so I'm hoping you've had this feeling before. You know how sometimes you'll look at a structure and you know there is something going on in there? Something that isn't obvious at first, and you don't really even know how to describe it, just that there is something there. Later you figure out what it is and you have that "how the hell didn't I see that to begin with" moment. I've been having that with QM for a while now. Something just isn't sitting right with me. I'm not sure what it is, but there is something going on with QM on a geometry level. The conversions between matter and energy that always involve 2pi, there being three generations of matter and one generation of bosons, and three dimensions of space and one of time, the very geometry suggestive values that pop up in the relationship between the generations of matter with each other and between them and the bosons. I don't know, just feels like something is going on.

[endofdays89]

interesting thread. Subscribed.

[jackal337]

Yes, existence would become wierd indeed in the abscence of time, but still possible. We wouldnt have causality though, or before/after.......atemporal entities would have an 'isness' or a 'thatness' that is their very essence

But how? Can you even begin to imagine a world without time? I can't. If it cannot be imagined, it cannot be thought about or discussed.

[lucious]

actually this is an answer to those earlier replies that said its impossible to conceive of anythikng not temporal or causal so why even bother.


Well, mathematics is a great example. Mathematics or an infinite set arent temporal, dont rely on time, and dont need to be caused, in fact as weve already pointed out, its impossible to cause an infinite set. Something like eleven, and its prime number status, isnt something that needs a cause.

Also to the post above me....maths is a great way to visualise this concept, didnt occur to me when i first made the thread. If you want something 'conceivable' but yet not something that was 'caused' or the effect of something else, think of maths. Think of the inifinte set.

Imagine if suddenly vaporised the universe, space time and all. 11 is still a prime number. These are things that just 'are' with the infinite sets.....but yet, maths still applies and interacts with our reality, and does so very well.


Also consider this, how is it possible that humans are even able to do maths? This is quite bizarre when you think about it.


Its easy to imagine a universe where humans invented maths but it had absolutely no useful applications to reality at all, because the maths required for physics etc would just be too hard with human brains, and maths would only be theories and mental masturbation. we wouldnt be able to be physicists or engineers because 'actual maths' would simply be too difficult for us.

Why is our maths so applicable and useful to reality? Why is the maths of 'physics' so appropiately fine tuned to human minds? Its certainly tough, but the mathematics behind physics isnt so impossibly difficult that it requires vastly more brainpower than humans possess deflecting them onto easier tasks.

Something seems to be going on here, mayvbe maths is a link between physical and things that might be atemporal or acausal

[neonhypoxia]

But how? Can you even begin to imagine a world without time? I can't. If it cannot be imagined, it cannot be thought about or discussed.

Again, its just one of those issues of a lack of imagination. It does happen, it just doesn't really work if you try and think about it. There are situations in the physical reality around us in which time may stop for an object, or at best simply become nonsensical. How a photon would experience time for example, the concept of it simply breaks down. Or what's going on with time near an event horizon or a singularity. I can't imagine it at all, conceptually it simply doesn't work for me, but its there.

Its really strange in its own way. There are things mathematically that we can deal with, that we can talk about in this abstract way. You can make predictions about what they will do and everytime you go and check it works perfectly. Everything works so well with it. Yet on a conceptual level I just don't get it. Its there, I can work with it, but I'm just not able to understand it in any sort of tangible way.

Our brains simply weren't made for this. Good for hunting a mammoth with a spear. But not for this type of thing.

[user5145]

actually this is an answer to those earlier replies that said its impossible to conceive of anythikng not temporal or causal so why even bother.


Well, mathematics is a great example. Mathematics or an infinite set arent temporal, dont rely on time, and dont need to be caused, in fact as weve already pointed out, its impossible to cause an infinite set. Something like eleven, and its prime number status, isnt something that needs a cause.

Also to the post above me....maths is a great way to visualise this concept, didnt occur to me when i first made the thread. If you want something 'conceivable' but yet not something that was 'caused' or the effect of something else, think of maths. Think of the inifinte set.

Imagine if suddenly vaporised the universe, space time and all. 11 is still a prime number. These are things that just 'are' with the infinite sets

Que? Math is a human invention. The only reason 11 is a prime number because it fits the invented description of what qualifies as a prime number. Numbers don't exist outside of our minds.

[lucious]

Que? Math is a human invention. The only reason 11 is a prime number because it fits the invented description of what qualifies as a prime number. Numbers don't exist outside of our minds.

Well this begs the question of why maths should be so useful and applicable to reality.

We can certainly imagine a universe where whatever laws it ran by were so mathematically complex we just simply couldnt work them out because itd take too long.

Bear in mind our brains arent evolutionary suited for maths or maths problems, or actually digging out the laws the universe runs by. Survival value depends not on knowing the mathematicl constructs, only their manifestations. I.e being able to judge fallin objects, speeds etc....not actually knowing newtons laws etc. We could still 'survive' perfectly well if mathematics was beyond human brainpower.


So i ask, if maths is just all made up, why does our made up maths approximate reality so well? Why is the universe so fine tuned to human minds?

[neonhypoxia]

Que? Math is a human invention. The only reason 11 is a prime number because it fits the invented description of what qualifies as a prime number. Numbers don't exist outside of our minds.

Foundational mathematics disagrees with you, it is not a human invention. It is a very usefull... I guess discovery would be the right word but that doesn't feel appropriate either. And the reason we call it a prime is because we've defined the word that way. However this does not effects its properties which are inherent. It wasn't just decided it would have those properties, they are an aspect of it that does not change. You can change the name, but not the properties. In any counting system, mod or not, 11 will still have the same properties within that system that its always had. Doesn't matter what name it has, doesn't matter if any humans are around, doesn't matter if humans never even existed, its still 11.

[endofdays89]

Well this begs the question of why maths should be so useful and applicable to reality.

We can certainly imagine a universe where whatever laws it ran by were so mathematically complex we just simply couldnt work them out because itd take too long.

Bear in mind our brains arent evolutionary suited for maths or maths problems, or actually digging out the laws the universe runs by. Survival value depends not on knowing the mathematicl constructs, only their manifestations. I.e being able to judge fallin objects, speeds etc....not actually knowing newtons laws etc. We could still 'survive' perfectly well if mathematics was beyond human brainpower.


So i ask, if maths is just all made up, why does our made up maths approximate reality so well? Why is the universe so fine tuned to human minds?

I always thought that was the beauty of nature. Something seems to be going on here, like the universe is in us.....in our minds. Why do monarch butterflies have a GPS system to get them around? Without them they wouldn't be able to live.

it's just one of those crazy things, i guess you could say a little bit of the universe is programmed into us.

[user5145]

Well this begs the question of why maths should be so useful and applicable to reality.

We can certainly imagine a universe where whatever laws it ran by were so mathematically complex we just simply couldnt work them out because itd take too long.

Bear in mind our brains arent evolutionary suited for maths or maths problems, or actually digging out the laws the universe runs by. Survival value depends not on knowing the mathematicl constructs, only their manifestations. I.e being able to judge fallin objects, speeds etc....not actually knowing newtons laws etc. We could still 'survive' perfectly well if mathematics was beyond human brainpower.


So i ask, if maths is just all made up, why does our made up maths approximate reality so well? Why is the universe so fine tuned to human minds?

Math is useful because we created it to help us describe our perception of reality. It is a tool. Asking why math is so useful in describing reality is like asking why scissors are so useful for cutting paper. That is their purpose.

And how could you say they are not evolutionary suited for math? That is an absurd statement. We can do math problems, and we evolved.

We created math to describe our universe.....The universe is not fine tuned to human minds.

This whole question is like you describing your house to me, and then me marveling at how accurate your description was when I finally saw it. It is merely a description.

Foundational mathematics disagrees with you, it is not a human invention. It is a very usefull... I guess discovery would be the right word but that doesn't feel appropriate either. And the reason we call it a prime is because we've defined the word that way. However this does not effects its properties which are inherent. It wasn't just decided it would have those properties, they are an aspect of it that does not change. You can change the name, but not the properties. In any counting system, mod or not, 11 will still have the same properties within that system that its always had. Doesn't matter what name it has, doesn't matter if any humans are around, doesn't matter if humans never even existed, its still 11.

Maybe you can describe some of these properties to me?

[lucious]

Math is useful because we created it to help us describe our perception of reality. It is a tool. Asking why math is so useful in describing reality is like asking why scissors are so useful for cutting paper. That is their purpose.

And how could you say they are not evolutionary suited for math? That is an absurd statement. We can do math problems, and we evolved.

We created math to describe our universe.....The universe is not fine tuned to human minds.

This whole question is like you describing your house to me, and then me marveling at how accurate your description was when I finally saw it. It is merely a description.






Maybe you can describe some of these properties to me?

I say that because there is no obvious evolutionary benefit for mathematics.....you might think there is but survival value comes from knowing the manifestations of mathematical laws not the laws themselves.

We could survive just as well in a universe that ran off utterly impossible mathematics that we could never decipher. But agian, we couldnt be physicists, we could survive perfectly well by Darwinians standards, but the universes laws would remain locked away due to our limited brainpower.

We did invent maths, but why should it work so well? Why should the laws of physics actually be 'there', able to be understood?

We could easily be in any one of trillions of universe that permitted our survival yet ran off laws that were infinitely more complicated.


Evolutionary benefical brainpower has nothing to do with understanding maths or physics.

[user5145]

I say that because there is no obvious evolutionary benefit for mathematics.....you might think there is but survival value comes from knowing the manifestations of mathematical laws not the laws themselves.

We could survive just as well in a universe that ran off utterly impossible mathematics that we could never decipher. But agian, we couldnt be physicists, we could survive perfectly well by Darwinians standards, but the universes laws would remain locked away due to our limited brainpower.

We did invent maths, but why should it work so well? Why should the laws of physics actually be 'there', able to be understood?

We could easily be in any one of trillions of universe that permitted our survival yet ran off laws that were infinitely more complicated.


Evolutionary benefical brainpower has nothing to do with understanding maths or physics.

You are still thinking of math and science as our unveiling of universal truths. Descriptions of the universe as if it could describe itself. All we are doing is manipulating symbols used to represent different configurations of our perception of reality. It is no wonder that mathematics and science are productive avenues of human existence, because they are empirical at their core.

Whether or not learning mathematics is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant. We evolved, and we developed mathematics.

Also, the development of society and culture greatly overrides biological evolution due to the rapidity with which it advances.

[FIVE OAKES]

Although that is one of the best arguments for theism that I've ever seen, it still fails.

Even if you acknowledge that "SOMETHING" could exist outside of time and space, and that thing (or things) was responsible for the beginning of our universe - there is still no reason to assume that thing is sentient or actually made a deliberate decision to design and create the universe.

[lucious]

Although that is one of the best arguments for theism that I've ever seen, it still fails.

Even if you acknowledge that "SOMETHING" could exist outside of time and space, and that thing (or things) was responsible for the beginning of our universe - there is still no reason to assume that thing is sentient or actually made a deliberate decision to design and create the universe.

Well, its actually provoked some intelligent discussion from atheists, so the argument is light years ahead of 'holy book' arguments or pointing to scientific accuracies in the quran.


remember things that are atemporal, not spatial and unable to be the effect of anything prior dont 'design' or 'create' as we understand the words, because designing and creation are acts that take place within temporal transitions between two states, i.e X brings about existence of Y in a previous time period, which necessarily follows that there was a time when Y didnt exist. But an temporal entity doesnt have a /beforeafter aspect to it, like the mathematics we discussed.

There is more likely just an 'is' ness or an essence which doesnt need time or space like these infinite sets, they logically cannot be the effect of something else and just couldnt fail to 'be'. Therefore atemporal, it wouldnt make a deliberate decision since decsiions are temporal/causal things i.e'' ill do X to bring about Y'

If you can sort of grasp the concept of an atemporal non spatial entity, it boils down to whether or not you think such a thing would be sentient or self aware, or repsonsible for what we know as space and time

[Duckenheimer]

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.

A creator that exists outside space of time has no known need to be conscious.

[germanyt]

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.

I think you just convinced me that I'm an atheist and not an agnostic.

[AKR]

The problem with that argument is that God -- being an immaterial being (spirit) -- is 'needed' (due to His aforementioned properties) to solve infinite regression by existing outside of the series. The Big Bang would just be another physical event in the same series.

However, JBDW, we are probably thinking about two separate issues because I'm not arguing for the preservation of human free will and God's omniscience due to God's existence outside of time/space.

I have never seen anyone explain why the material that the universe expanded from needs a creator but god does not. No one has any scientific theories on this, which religious scientists even admit. This should tell you something.

[ONtop888]

I have never seen anyone explain why the material that the universe expanded from needs a creator but god does not. No one has any scientific theories on this, which religious scientists even admit. This should tell you something.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to "religious scientists" discussing this because it is not their field, it is a philosophical argument.

The problem with your question is that you're asking the wrong question. The real thrust of Aquinas' argument, which I've noticed that Dawkins side-stepped, is not that every series must have a beginning, but that every series must depend on something outside of the series in order to have a beginning. It is not a rebuttal to say that everything must have a cause, so who caused God? Aquinas' argument doesn't operate under the premise that everything that exists needs a cause, only that everything that exists in the universe needs a cause. God is an immaterial spirit, He has always been proclaimed as such. Existing outside of the universe, He is not part of the series, therefore, the rules of the series, including causation, don't logically apply to Him

[user5145]

I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to "religious scientists" discussing this because it is not their field, it is a philosophical argument.

The problem with your question is that you're asking the wrong question. The real thrust of Aquinas' argument, which I've noticed that Dawkins side-stepped, is not that every series must have a beginning, but that every series must depend on something outside of the series in order to have a beginning. It is not a rebuttal to say that everything must have a cause, so who caused God? Aquinas' argument doesn't operate under the premise that everything that exists needs a cause, only that everything that exists in the universe needs a cause. God is an immaterial spirit, He has always been proclaimed as such. Existing outside of the universe, He is not part of the series, therefore, the rules of the series, including causation, don't logically apply to Him

I agree with everything Aquinas said (as you paraphrase here), but I do not agree that the conclusion is that the essence of the universe is Yahweh, much less any other sentient being with desires and wishes.




The problem I have with modern religion is that it promotes "love" by jamming the mind chock-full of dogma and belief, but those are nothing more than dividing forces. Love only arises when the mind is silent, humble, present. Religion makes the path of cultivating peace and love one of ambition and tradition. Action within tradition is dead action, only based on memory. It is meaningless.

[illriginalized]

What if time and space exists within God? Or better yet, everything of everything is within God?

[timmy47]

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.

actually, its not a very good one at all. how can you make claims about a being, or anything for that matter, if you dont have a observable, testable, repeatable manifestation of said being?

basically, when someone says that you just have to say "then how do you know that?" they havent proved a single thing. they are just making up a definition that makes it impossible to for us to know anything about it. even if you accept their claim, it doesnt prove god. it only proves we cant know anything about god because he is beyond human experience. so we've gone nowere with that argument.

first of all, the idea of being outside of time and space are ridiculous. time is just a measuring concept between events. if god existed BEFORE anything else, that implies time. in order for time to not apply, he would have to be created at the same time as the universe. so then what makes him so special? he clearly didnt create the universe if thats the case. and space is essentially the distance between to things. if god actually exists and manifests in some way, there is space. you dont create space, you create things and then space and time are basically by-products. it just doesnt really make sense to be outside of them.

"but god is outside of logic"

you might here that next. thats even more ridiculous. logic is very simple. either A is A, or its not. A cannot be B and still be A a the same time. thats logic in a nut shell. to suggest he is outside of this is basically saying he doesnt exist.

EDIT: its also like saying he is outside the universe and isnt bound by the laws in it. this is flawed beacuse the universe IS existance. the universe is everything that exists put together. to suggest something is outside of the universe is saying it doesnt exist. even if he is physically beyond all the matter in the universe, he is still a part of it. it would be like if a star or planet or a single atom was beyond everything else. it doesnt matter.

[Skunk]

The "outside time and space" perk given to a god makes that god and its religion pointless to our existence, and our existence pointless to such a creature. It is a very idiotic subject to bring up.