Then just describe for me how god thinks in a non-temporal fashion. Even a single thought is created in-time...with a beginning and end.
Without any such description of how a "conscious being exists outside of time"...the very notion of a "conscious being existing outside of time" becomes utterly meaningless.
It sounds like you're referring to some version of the cosmological argument in some way that you understand it. If you'd like me to show you where it fails and where you leap to the conclusion that god exists (because even in the cosmological argument you're leaping to that conclusion from the onset), just lay it out how you understand it.
It would be easier if you number it as well, such as...
1. Premise.
2. Premise
3. Premise.
4. Therefore god exists.
I know it probably seems redundant to you, but I've heard so many versions of the cosmological argument that I'm not entirely sure which one you're claiming. So, pretty please, humor me on this.
Why does your definition of God involve the necessity of being "outside the universe" ?All physical reality - everything that one can grasp or experience with the five senses.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe had a cause
4) The best explanation of that cause is God
...and? How does that refute the concept of God? God, by very definition, is outside of the universe. The "Divine Flame," or whatever else, isn't.
Aha! You're thinking in terms of this universe again, according to your own experiences of reality. Remember that God created this universe! Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!
God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.
If you claim that it's possible that a necessary being like God exists then you are claiming that God exists in some possible world. But, being a necessary being, if he exists in some possible world he exists in all possible worlds. Hence, he exists in the actual world.
Any person whom you define as necessary would essentially be God. You're more than welcome to claim that God is a leprechaun. Plantinga's Ontological Argument makes no such claim.
For example, someone could claim that it was an extraterrestrial with super-advanced technology, or a really clever human being playing tricks, and no-one could disprove them. For that reason, any manifestation of God has to be a personal experience where only the person who receives it knows for a fact what has happened. It's outside of the five senses.
What is that difference then if not the passage of time? True we can only experience now, and remember then... but the existence of both seems to prove a change in time.
It's not that I don't get what you're saying about it only being "now"...but if now was all that existed or ever existed, wouldn't we stand frozen... unmoving...stuck in an eternal now?
We understand more about time than we used to, we seem to have a tenuous grasp on its relation to space...but I'm not sure it's a phenomenon we've been able to completely understand yet.
Why does your definition of God involve the necessity of being "outside the universe" ?
Big Bang happens THEN a creative force emerges from that, which then creates life on earth in some form, etc. Why not ? Why can God not be a product of the universe in some fashion ?
What if you asked God, "What created you ?" and God responds with, "Chance." Why not ?
I'd like to know why you think the first premise is true. I'm going to assume for now it's because you believe it based upon what's observable in the universe. If that's the case, I'll explain to you why this first premise fails and therefore so does the rest of the argument. If there's some other reason you believe the first premise is true, let me know.
Let's assume though that 1-3 are all true....why does that lead to conclusion 4? It doesn't. Anything imagined as the cause of the universe, including entirely natural processes, has just as much validity as your conclusion based upon the logic you've used.
All you're telling me is what god is not...you're saying god doesn't exist in time. That doesn't say anything about what god is. If you cannot explain what it is to be "outside of time"....then the very idea of "outside of time" becomes meaningless.
How does having a thought or feeling prove that thought or feeling comes from a god and not simply from normal brain function, super advanced aliens, other humans playing tricks, brain disease, optical illusion, or any number of other non-divine sources?
WHY assume all these characteristics about "God" ?What started the Big Bang? How'd that come about? And how did the Big Bang (something physical) create something non-physical and immaterial, like God?
Who says this is the very definition of God ?Your idea violates the very definition of "God." The very definition of God is that he is the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing.
Why ? And what would God be subject to ?If "God" were created by the universe, then he would be subject to something.
Really ? So such a being coming about in some fashion in a physical world, would be a lesser deity in your opinion, if they would even be recognized as a deity at all ?The only way your idea would work is if you were talking about a lesser god (a "deity") and not really "God" at all.
So the idea that a being could come about in the natural universe, and then usurp some aspect of the universe in order to be deemed "God" in some fashion ... that's a no go ?Your idea violates the very definition of "God." The very definition of God is that he is the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing. If "God" were created by the universe, then he would be subject to something.
The only way your idea would work is if you were talking about a lesser god (a "deity") and not really "God" at all.
OK, explain it to me. I didn't see an explanation in your post.
Because the nature of the universe itself strongly suggests that whatever caused it has a great deal of intelligence. That strongly suggests a Creator instead of something inanimate.
I don't know what it means to be "outside of time," nor do I have to. The only way I perceive and understand reality is through the five senses, like everyone else. That's how I, and everyone else, perceive and understand time. The only thing that's necessary to understand is that the way we perceive reality in this universe doesn't necessarily have to apply to God, who created this universe and time itself.
You can't take concepts within the universe, which the Creator created, and then apply them to the Creator himself and say that he's bound by them. If he's bound by them, then how could he create them?
What started the Big Bang? How'd that come about? And how did the Big Bang (something physical) create something non-physical and immaterial, like God?
Your idea violates the very definition of "God." The very definition of God is that he is the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing. If "God" were created by the universe, then he would be subject to something.
The only way your idea would work is if you were talking about a lesser god (a "deity") and not really "God" at all.
...and? How does that refute the concept of God? God, by very definition, is outside of the universe. The "Divine Flame," or whatever else, isn't.
Again, you're defining God by your ideas of and experiences in this universe. God is outside of the universe, so the realities of this universe simply do not apply to him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?