'God exists 'outside' of space and time'

[neonhypoxia]

Maybe you can describe some of these properties to me?

I know you just didn't. And I know we've had this conversation before. Subbed so I can come back to this later as I'm not in the mood to type of a detailed post right now.

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

Yeah, I like to smoke pot too.

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.

Um... No. Multi-verse anyone?

[TheXFactorJoe]

I don't think God can be outside of space. He created a spirit realm so I would consider that space (albeit a very different realm than physical). Time is a mathematical equation that encompasses physical measurements. Therefore, time would be a very different concept with very different passage in a non-physical realm.

[lucious]

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.

The argument doesnt say God was 'before' time as that is meaningless, not meaningless actually, but stupid.



The argument claims that God or whatever is 'behind' time logically cannot be temporal, it must be atemporal. 'Before' time is a stupid thing to say, not what the argument says at all.

The argument is showing how entities that are atemporal, cannot logically be the effect of anything else because having a cause is only something an entity has if its temporal.




Weve already covered the 'things that can still 'be' without space or time', the example was infinite sets. Infinite sets and mathematics are relevant to the universe too but they arent things that have 'causes' nor are they temporal or spatial.

[Bahai.Lifter]

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.

If this were not the case, then He would not be All-Powerful; and He would be inferior. But He is, indeed, not bound by His creation. So He is Supreme over all things. All is but His creation, and subject to His ruling and decree. We are all His servants, and He is the Omnipotent Lord of creation.

[Dismal]

So how does he know that? Because some non special book which does abide by the rules of space and time says so?

[GoJu]

were I to posit a god of some sorts I suppose I would use either the gods of deism or pantheism, I believe deism's god is essentially the god most people talk about but without all the religious baggage and is in a sense far more consistent with reality (no interfering) but the universal going, I agree it would be necessary he be outside the universe to make it but would this imply he is outside the multiverse should their be one? there are alot of tricky questions with this kind of god though I'm not adverse to the idea 100% that there's an intelligence behind the universe and that might be the diestic god but its argument flawas, namely where did he come from? pantheism is the idea that god and nature are the same thing, this is what einstein believed, I think it is even more consistent with reality than diesm, nature and god have all the same qualities and it would make sense to rectify the idea of god by equating nature with the idea of god but carl sagan poked a hole in that argument as well, namely 'what use is it to pray to the law of gravity?'

If this were not the case, then He would not be All-Powerful; and He would be inferior. But He is, indeed, not bound by His creation. So He is Supreme over all things. All is but His creation, and subject to His ruling and decree. We are all His servants, and He is the Omnipotent Lord of creation.

I'm not his or anybody else's servent, he does not get a free card to do whatever he wants with me (or anyone) because he made them, if my parents beat me when I didn't do anything wrong are they in the right to beat me because they 'made' me?

[user5145]

If this were not the case, then He would not be All-Powerful; and He would be inferior. But He is, indeed, not bound by His creation. So He is Supreme over all things. All is but His creation, and subject to His ruling and decree. We are all His servants, and He is the Omnipotent Lord of creation.

Part of me thinks strict theists have an almost sadistic desire to be dominated. Sorry Bahai, your life is in your hands. It is only when you realize the true "pointlessness" of life that you can really enjoy it, IMO

Living with faith in heaven is just living on dead concepts, ideals

[timmy47]

I know you just didn't. And I know we've had this conversation before. Subbed so I can come back to this later as I'm not in the mood to type of a detailed post right now.



Yeah, I like to smoke pot too.



Um... No. Multi-verse anyone?

ummm no. the multi-verse isnt factual. its an idea. even if it was real, the universe by definition is everything that exists. even with multiple realities, they all exist in the universe.

The argument doesnt say God was 'before' time as that is meaningless, not meaningless actually, but stupid.

The argument claims that God or whatever is 'behind' time logically cannot be temporal, it must be atemporal. 'Before' time is a stupid thing to say, not what the argument says at all.
The argument is showing how entities that are atemporal, cannot logically be the effect of anything else because having a cause is only something an entity has if its temporal.
Weve already covered the 'things that can still 'be' without space or time', the example was infinite sets. Infinite sets and mathematics are relevant to the universe too but they arent things that have 'causes' nor are they temporal or spatial.

none of that applies. why? because you again are saying god doesnt exist. infintite sets and math dont atually "exist". they are concepts.

[ONtop888]

ummm no. the multi-verse isnt factual. its an idea. even if it was real, the universe by definition is everything that exists. even with multiple realities, they all exist in the universe.

You're wrong. The universe is a physical reality, metaphysics are not confined or necessarily included in the universe. The 'universe' that you are referring to is what some people call a 'meta-universe,' not the universe that we currently know of.

[timmy47]

You're wrong. The universe is a physical reality, metaphysics are not confined or necessarily included in the universe.

thats just as ridiculous as saying god isnt confined or included in the universe.

The 'universe' that you are referring to is what some people call a 'meta-universe,' not the universe that we currently know of.

again, none of this multi-verse stuff is "real". arguing about it is stupid. its just an idea. right now as we know, existance is the universe. as we know it, saying something exists outside of existance is saying it doesnt exist.

something either exists, or it doesnt. but for arguments sake, lets say something can exist outside of our physical existance. that means it wouldnt have any evidence what so ever for it. there is nothing there to impact our senses or affect the universe around us. so again, you might as well say it doesnt exist. at the very least, there is no reason to believe it does exist. so again, its not a good argument for god at all.

[ONtop888]

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.

Correct, and Aquinas never said that his philosophical argument(s) endorsed any particular version of God, only the possibility of a God that can fit the Abrahamic mold in terms of certain characteristics (omnipotence, etc.).

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.

Not always, but they can become devices of division. My philosophy on life and religious views certainly don't use dogma and love to divide, but to build bridges and unite.

Love only arises when the mind is silent, humble, present.

This is not necessarily true either. While I agree that love does arise during this occasion of serenity and being 'at-one' with the unfathomable beauty and power of the Being that connects us all, it also comes to fruitation when we are faced with a situation that demands an act of love, and in the rawest, most difficult time, we have the opportunities to become something greater than ourselves, and part of something that echoes for eternity, past the grave. Now whether that memory is retained by the Supreme Being, thus giving us existential significance, or whether It allows the virtuous and goodness that we expressed in our lives to actually carry on, that is another matter, and a controversial one, to be sure.

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.

Your sentence should read "if only based on memory." You see, tradition is powerful, and having that connection with a living tradition is powerful, and it can evoke very powerful and real emotions, acts, and transformative experiences. For me, being in the tradition of Jesus is the single most transformative and revolutionary aspect of my life, that has endowed me with the impetus to do that which I was incapable of completing on my own, and to be the man that I know I was called to be.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith - 2 Tim 4:7

[ONtop888]

thats just as ridiculous as saying god isnt confined or included in the universe.

Lulz...why is it so ridiculous...do tell...

again, none of this multi-verse stuff is "real". arguing about it is stupid. its just an idea. right now as we know, existance is the universe. as we know it, saying something exists outside of existance is saying it doesnt exist.

It's an idea with mathematical support behind it, and I don't 'believe' in the veracity of the multi-verse, anyways, but that doesn't preclude me or anyone else from discussing it.....

something either exists, or it doesnt. but for arguments sake, lets say something can exist outside of our physical existance.

Which is what we've been doing until you crashed the party.....

that means it wouldnt have any evidence what so ever for it. there is nothing there to impact our senses or affect the universe around us. so again, you might as well say it doesnt exist. at the very least, there is no reason to believe it does exist. so again, its not a good argument for god at all.

I've already discussed this in another thread, which, to my knowledge, you failed to respond. The Christian teaching has always been that God is paradoxically immanent and transcendent. He is present in every facet of our lives because His Spirit permeates the material universe, as much as it exists outside of our physical universe.

[CaptainGorgeous]

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.

This doesn't look like a sound argument at all.

[Queequeg]

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).

o.k so we don't know if reality is casual or not, we simply percive it as casual

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.

o.k, if God created causality then nothing can be the cause of God

Also impossible to have an infinite chain of causes and effects so somewhere at some stage,

Why? that seems like a unfounded proclaimation to me based on the assumption that causation has been created. What about if the last effect is the first cause for example.

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.

Why must the universe be a collection of causal things? Early the arguement proposes that causality is an illusion yet then requires the universe to be casual in the object sense to justify gods existence.

[lucious]

o.k, if God created causality then nothing can be the cause of God

Correct, this is the force behind the argument. If you are atemporal, you dont rely on there being time for your existence.


Me and you are temporal entities. There was 'time' when we didnt exist, so logically we must be the effect of something else. If your existence does not rely on space or time, you are precluded from cause, or to say you are the effect of something else is meaningless.

Also to address your other point, its impossible to 'cause' causality because that implies causality always just was. Its hard to find a correct word here, but lets just go with the 'force' behind causality and time and space. Whatever it was, couldnt be an act in time or a means to an end because these things didnt exist. The initiation of causality, cannot itself be a cause in the way we understand linguistically. It cannot be the X that brought about Y.


It doesnt say causality is an illusion really, it goes to show that we only imbue causes and effects as an organising principle but it in objective reality, it isnt an all encompassing maxim.

The universe however, is more likely to be causal because itself is space/time, which leads to entities which require causes. Where there is time, there is cause.

As long as things are causal, even if you say something like 'the last effect is the first cause' you sort of end up imprisoned in a maze of pointless circularities and logical necessities. Its hard to see the 'isness' or an ability to 'be' without outside assistance in an argument like this, which is the original point made-an entity which doesnt need acts in time or didnt 'not exist' at some point in time, couldnt fail to 'be' because its 'isness' is its essence, just like 11 cannot fail to be 11. Even if you take out space and time, 11 cannot 'not be'.

[lucious]

This doesn't look like a sound argument at all.

Where do you think it fails? I'd like to know why you dont find it convincing,, rather than just say you dont think its a good argument. Provoke some thoughtful discussion.

[Queequeg]

Lucious I am very intreasted in this I will try and put together a better response when I get in from work

[timmy47]

Lulz...why is it so ridiculous...do tell...

iv already explained that actually. you might as well say it doesnt exist. something either exists or it doesnt. something that exists is defined has something that consists of matter or energy. and the universe is everything that exists. uni being "one" or "unified", its everything. even with multiple realities, its still all the universe. so to say something is outside of that is saying it exists outside of existance. which means, it doesnt exist. pretty simple actually.

It's an idea with mathematical support behind it, and I don't 'believe' in the veracity of the multi-verse, anyways, but that doesn't preclude me or anyone else from discussing it.....

sure but we arent. first of all, it doesnt really matter if it has math behind it. if it cannot be demonstrated, it means little to nothing when discussing the universe we know. second of all, we are discussing the existance of something. in particular, the existance of something we have no evidence for. why bring in more assumptions to try and deal with something like that? you are just making things more complicated then they need to be. deal with what is known first.

I've already discussed this in another thread, which, to my knowledge, you failed to respond. The Christian teaching has always been that God is paradoxically immanent and transcendent. He is present in every facet of our lives because His Spirit permeates the material universe, as much as it exists outside of our physical universe.

so what? none of that has been demonstrated even ONCE. if god cannot be demonstrated, and by definition he never could be, then we have no reason to believe he exists at all. in fact, by the definitions, we have reason to believe he doesnt exist AT ALL.

any assumption about god is invalid until we have one to examine. "god can do this, hes outside of that"....and you know this how? i dont really care if the bible or anything "say so". its making a claim. now you must demonstrate that claim. if you cannot, then we have no reason to take it seriously. once again, there is no reason to believe in god.

As long as things are causal, even if you say something like 'the last effect is the first cause' you sort of end up imprisoned in a maze of pointless circularities and logical necessities. Its hard to see the 'isness' or an ability to 'be' without outside assistance in an argument like this, which is the original point made-an entity which doesnt need acts in time or didnt 'not exist' at some point in time, couldnt fail to 'be' because its 'isness' is its essence, just like 11 cannot fail to be 11. Even if you take out space and time, 11 cannot 'not be'.

yeah....it doesnt work like that im afraid. 11 doesnt exist. as i already told you, numbers are concepts they dont exist. just like a line is a concept and doesnt exist anywhere. same with a circle or a square. you can draw one, but thats just a drawing OF a square. it isnt a square. you can have 11 things, but its just a representation of 11. 11 doesnt exist anywhere.

if you are saying god is something like this, you are saying he doesnt exist.

[lucious]

yeah....it doesnt work like that im afraid. 11 doesnt exist. as i already told you, numbers are concepts they dont exist. just like a line is a concept and doesnt exist anywhere. same with a circle or a square. you can draw one, but thats just a drawing OF a square. it isnt a square. you can have 11 things, but its just a representation of 11. 11 doesnt exist anywhere.

if you are saying god is something like this, you are saying he doesnt exist.

Why are you restricting things that exist to tangible, material objects within space time?


i can think of a few myself that you couldnt be familiar with, yet are completely inexplicable, not tangible and may not depend on space or time

[CaptainGorgeous]

Where do you think it fails? I'd like to know why you dont find it convincing,, rather than just say you dont think its a good argument. Provoke some thoughtful discussion.

I didn't say it's a failure, nor did I say I don't find it convincing--I was simply pointing out that it's not sound (i.e., pretty much every premise in your OP can be challenged).

fwiw, I like the argument..

[ONtop888]

Lucious, what book did you get this argument from?

[lucious]

Lucious, what book did you get this argument from?

I think it had a vs in the title-Atheism vs theism or sometjhing like that.


It was a collection of arguments where one side presented one argument, the other side countered. Covered everything from christianity to pantheism.

EDIT: Book is called Atheism and Theism

"Philosophers Smart and Haldane debate the enduring question of whether or not there is a God. Smart contends that theism is philosophically untenable and seeks to explain metaphysical truth in the light of total science. Haldane argues that the existence of the world and the possibility of our knowing about it depend on the existence of a transcendant entity whom we understand as God. Each responds to the other's argument".

[wildphucker]

Doesnt sound liek you presented the entire argument, only the jist of it.


I've never heard this version of the argument before. Seems like a huge improvement over the first cause argument which i dont find convincing.

Theist: God is the cause of everything

Atheist: What caused God

Theist: Noone caused God, God has no cause

Atheist:Why?

Theist: Because hes God.



I dont find this convincing at all, because it merely begins the chain with an entity that seems to be both spatial and temporal, but just terminates abruptly. Which is why peopl like Dawkins criticise the first cause.

Atheist will usually just accept the universe as the 'thing that just always was' but I dont find this convincing either as the universe is spatial and temporal, and as long there is time, there is cause.


I agree with the arguments premise though. Christianity is wrong to say the Genesis is a 'causative' act as cause, as we understand is an X which acts in a finite amount of time to bring about Y. Its wrong to say 'God created the heavens and the Earth' in a causal sense.


I think the only thing that is able to be without an explanation are things that dont rely on time like youve said. We rely on time for our existence, because there was 'time' at which we failed to be, so naturally our existence is contingent on other entities acting in finite time to cause us. Its possible for us to fail to be.



I'd also like to address the point of 'nothing' as most causal arguments seem to begin with the premise that 'nothing' is the most natural state possible and only some sort of intervention was able to bring about a change to the existence of something. Nothing by definition has no properties or predicates so its impossible for it to be 'natural' because our understanding and use of the word natural, refers to something. Only the existence of temporal entities required some intervention.

[ONtop888]

I dont find this convincing at all, because it merely begins the chain with an entity that seems to be both spatial and temporal, but just terminates abruptly. Which is why peopl like Dawkins criticise the first cause.

He dismantled an argument that is widely used today, the one that you posted in here in your example, but Dawkins did not come close to dismantling Aquinas' First Cause argument.

The real thrust of Aquinas' argument 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.

While there are still problems with the First Cause argument, particularly with the forced acceptance of a priori arguments that neonhypoxia pointed out, it is still a very viable philosophical argument.

[lucious]

Depends which first cause youre talking about


There is a flawed first cause, which merely says God is the beginning of the chain.


The better first cause is one which establishes that 'cause' can only logically be an act in space and time. So if God doesnt need time to exist, he cannot be the effectof something else

[JBDW]

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.

The Big bang by definition cannot be a physical event since the 'physical' did not exist 'before' the Big Bang. So I'd venture to say that the Big Bang can just as easily solve infinite regression because it exists 'outside' of known causality and physicality, being that it was the event which in fact gave rise to causality. Being part of the chain means nothing if causality doesn't apply to you.

[endofdays89]

Space and time only exist in our minds. There is no space time "out there"

[wildphucker]

Though I find this a well thought out and convincing argument, I also have to say its guilty of also using the concept of space/time and gods separation from it to put God in some indescribable realm where hes now safe from counterarguments. This really isnt a good way to argue

[Duckenheimer]

Space and time only exist in our minds. There is no space time "out there"

Most would agree....



















































before 1915.

[user5145]

Most would agree....

before 1915.

He's right...space and time are mental constructs we have developed to help us understand our perceptions. The division between the two is false. There is no space and no time, there is only spacetime. Only our perception of spacetime is still limited. We still think of it as a unity between two things, but it is a unity in and of itself. We cannot really perceive that.