Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

Technically speaking, no. God is seldom conceived of as being temporal at all, so there is no infinite temporal regression. There's just eternity. If God is thought to be a being like others, something that "possesses" actuality like everything else, there are serious issues, but step beyond that into the ontotheological and most of them resolve. (Granted, it's still almost impossible to conceptualize.)

I wasn't speaking of actual infinites only in a temporal sense, and I don't think they were either.

 

[Silmarien]

I wasn't speaking of actual infinites only in a temporal sense, and I don't think they were either.

Temporal, no, but it seems that they do mean it quantitatively.

Here, I've tracked down a video by Craig about actual infinities and God. It's short, but at least addresses this particular issue:

 

[Chriliman]

Hmmm... A book seems like a good analogy. But I want to point out that I wasn't saying there's no distinction between the pages, I was saying that any one given page isn't more significant than another. I can imagine a book that has infinite pages in it. So you couldn't look back to a "beginning" page or an "end" page, but all of the moments exist. You wouldn't have to "wait" for a page to exist, which was the original problem I was asking about.

I wonder if it's actually possible for us to imagine an infinite book? I notice when I try to think of it, I can't help but put limits on it, which to me means it's not actually infinite. However, I do understand the point you're making about it.

It's not as though page one is really linked to it's creation anyways. Moby Dick doesn't start, "I picked up parchment at the store today." It's just a moment like all the other pages. I don't see a reason there has to be a page one at all.

Even if we can imagine infinite books, if we want to bring them into reality for others to enjoy, we have to begin actually writing. So, maybe an infinite book can exist in our imaginations, but as soon as we express it in anyway, it becomes finite.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, I’ve already explained to you that appeal to scientific consensus is not a bandwagon fallacy, twice now. You ignored it both times, of course, but you’re not getting away with it.

your too funny.

it's obviously is the band wagon fallacy.

Just because they are scientists does not make them perfect in every way.

and that is why it is a fallacy to assume just because a majority of scientists believe something, that it is true. There are many who do not believe it.

your view of science is dangerous...

This is what is called "scientism"
"
Scientism is the belief that the scientific method has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship science its rituals, and its results.[1]

Strict scientism as a worldview is self-refuting since the scientism cannot be proven to be true through science.[2] For other significant problems with scientism as far as its unworkability, please see William Lane Craig's commentary on scientism entitled Is scientism self-refuting.

According to Discovery Institute scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds.[3] C.S. Lewis was sceptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to reduce everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.[4] He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself.[3]"

Scientism - Conservapedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Temporal, no, but it seems that they do mean it quantitatively.

Here, I've tracked down a video by Craig about actual infinities and God. It's short, but at least addresses this particular issue:

I wonder if it's actually possible for us to imagine an infinite book? I notice when I try to think of it, I can't help but put limits on it, which to me means it's not actually infinite. However, I do understand the point you're making about it.



Even if we can imagine infinite books, if we want to bring them into reality for others to enjoy, we have to begin actually writing. So, maybe an infinite book can exist in our imaginations, but as soon as we express it in anyway, it becomes finite.

God does not have mass, therefore according to general relativity, God is not subject to time. He does not exist in a place with lots of time, infinite. He exists outside of time all together. Instead of using terms that refer to time, infinite, it's more accurate to say something like "eternal."

 

[Chriliman]

God does not have mass, therefore according to general relativity, God is not subject to time. He does not exist in a place with lots of time, infinite. He exists outside of time all together. Instead of using terms that refer to time, infinite, it's more accurate to say something like "eternal."

I'm fine with using the term 'eternal' instead of 'infinite'.

Do you think God ever enters time?

 

[gaara4158]

Just because they are scientists does not make them perfect in every way.

No, but it does make their collective opinion more reliable in their area of expertise than a mere group of random people. Thus not a bandwagon fallacy. So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.

And scientism isn't applicable here, since we're not trying to answer non-scientific questions with science. In fact, the position you're resisting is one that states we don't know for sure what's required for intelligence to arise in the universe because no one, scientist or otherwise, has demonstrated any specific answer to be true. You're the one claiming to know something that people who study that subject their entire lives haven't figured out. We're not saying you're necessarily wrong, but your explanation isn't going to be granted just for argument's sake. You have to explain yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm fine with using the term 'eternal' instead of 'infinite'.

Do you think God ever enters time?

God entered time through the manifestation of His son. Also God's presence entered localities in the old testament, God existed in the tabernacle in between the charibums on the mercy seat of the arc of covenant. God decended on a mountain to talk to moses. So I don't know if all of God was in the time domain, but he definately penetrated it on those occasions. I would say more so in the manifestation of Jesus, He existed in time, but He still knew the future, and prophecied (regarding the temple of His body), and other prophecies. So again I don't know if Jesus manifested all of his entire being, there was still part of Him that was God, every where at once. I suppose because of the triunity.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, but it does make their collective opinion more reliable in their area of expertise than a mere group of random people. Thus not a bandwagon fallacy. So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.

And scientism isn't applicable here, since we're not trying to answer non-scientific questions with science. In fact, the position you're resisting is one that states we don't know for sure what's required for intelligence to arise in the universe because no one, scientist or otherwise, has demonstrated any specific answer to be true. You're the one claiming to know something that people who study that subject their entire lives haven't figured out. We're not saying you're necessarily wrong, but your explanation isn't going to be granted just for argument's sake. You have to explain yourself.

so ultimately it was a wrong statement.

thank you for confirming that using a collection of scientists oppinion should not be considered truth.

 

[gaara4158]

so ultimately it was a wrong statement.

thank you for confirming that using a collection of scientists oppinion should not be considered truth.

Scientific consensus should not be granted belief uncritically, sure, but it also cannot be dismissed by virtue of being a consensus. This is directly in opposition to the position you’re expressing, so I don’t know why you’re acting as though I confirmed something for you.

Which statement are you saying was wrong?

 

[Silmarien]

God does not have mass, therefore according to general relativity, God is not subject to time. He does not exist in a place with lots of time, infinite. He exists outside of time all together. Instead of using terms that refer to time, infinite, it's more accurate to say something like "eternal."

"Infinite" does not only refer to time. Nicholas was correct to point out that that actual infinities need not be temporal. For example, can there be a multiverse of infinite universes, or is this impossible? Whether or not God is another type of actual infinity is a good question.

That said, yes. Eternal is the preferable term, which is precisely why I have been using it, except specifically when discussing whether or not God is an actual infinity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

so ultimately it was a wrong statement.

thank you for confirming that using a collection of scientists oppinion should not be considered truth.

More accurately, a consensus among scientists is to be seen as "provisional truth," not absolute truth. If we could just keep these seemingly simple concepts apart, it would work toward resolving other issues. (I'm so glad we have adjectives so we can tidy up our various comparative concepts as they relate to our human articulations about Reality.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God entered time through the manifestation of His son. Also God's presence entered localities in the old testament, God existed in the tabernacle in between the charibums on the mercy seat of the arc of covenant. God decended on a mountain to talk to moses. So I don't know if all of God was in the time domain, but he definately penetrated it on those occasions. I would say more so in the manifestation of Jesus, He existed in time, but He still knew the future, and prophecied (regarding the temple of His body), and other prophecies. So again I don't know if Jesus manifested all of his entire being, there was still part of Him that was God, every where at once. I suppose because of the triunity.

...for whatever it's worth, we might also want to consider that Jesus, upon His initial advent, didn't "know" ALL of the future.

 

[Chriliman]

God entered time through the manifestation of His son. Also God's presence entered localities in the old testament, God existed in the tabernacle in between the charibums on the mercy seat of the arc of covenant. God decended on a mountain to talk to moses. So I don't know if all of God was in the time domain, but he definately penetrated it on those occasions. I would say more so in the manifestation of Jesus, He existed in time, but He still knew the future, and prophecied (regarding the temple of His body), and other prophecies. So again I don't know if Jesus manifested all of his entire being, there was still part of Him that was God, every where at once. I suppose because of the triunity.

Yea, I like to think of God as encompassing all time, rather than purely timeless. This allows for encounters with God in time, like the instances you mentioned. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of any specific passages in the Bible that describe God as timeless, can you?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yea, I like to think of God as encompassing all time, rather than purely timeless. This allows for encounters with God in time, like the instances you mentioned. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of any specific passages in the Bible that describe God as timeless, can you?

I think it can be inferred from 2 Peter 3:8
Also, a lot of people consider time to have come into existence at the Big Bang, so it's inferred that God created time itself. I don't think it's safe to assume time came into existence though, in my opinion.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm fine with using the term 'eternal' instead of 'infinite'.

Do you think God ever enters time?

It depends on what you're talking about. I'm fine with saying that God is eternal if He is outside of, and not constrained in any way, by time. However, I think that God would have had to create an infinite amount of time, which we're in, and that's different from being eternal.

 

[Moral Orel]

Even if we can imagine infinite books, if we want to bring them into reality for others to enjoy, we have to begin actually writing. So, maybe an infinite book can exist in our imaginations, but as soon as we express it in anyway, it becomes finite.

I'm thinking about an eternal, timeless God creating us, who are not eternal and timeless. Since an eternal God doesn't "wait" for something to come to pass, all moments that will exist already do exist from His perspective. Since you good folks are supposed to continue to exist infinitely into the future, an infinite number of moments exist from God's perspective. That would be an actual infinite, even if it doesn't "stretch infinitely into the past" which is what people seem to think is impossible.

 

[Chriliman]

I think it can be inferred from 2 Peter 3:8

I wouldn't interpret that as God being timeless(not experiencing time at all), rather I interpret it as God experiencing time differently than we do.

Also, a lot of people consider time to have come into existence at the Big Bang, so it's inferred that God created time itself. I don't think it's safe to assume time came into existence though, in my opinion.

You're right, it doesn't make sense for time to be created. However, if God encompasses all time, then He could make time for others.

 

[HitchSlap]

God does not have mass ...

Things without mass have no energy. A 'being' with no mass or energy is feckless.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, but it does make their collective opinion more reliable in their area of expertise than a mere group of random people. Thus not a bandwagon fallacy. So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.

And scientism isn't applicable here, since we're not trying to answer non-scientific questions with science. In fact, the position you're resisting is one that states we don't know for sure what's required for intelligence to arise in the universe because no one, scientist or otherwise, has demonstrated any specific answer to be true. You're the one claiming to know something that people who study that subject their entire lives haven't figured out. We're not saying you're necessarily wrong, but your explanation isn't going to be granted just for argument's sake. You have to explain yourself.

Bad science, a few hundred years ago the majority of scientists believed God created science, does that make popular opinion correct?