god and time

[Orontes]

See, there you go. Assuming one has control of his thoughts: this pretty much takes care of the whole notion of God as source of damnation or salvation.

Haven't got a clue what this means ??

Who is the 'his' you refer to ?

What are you talking about ???

Sorry, I thought I was clear. The pronoun 'his' refers to the subject 'one' which is a general filler for any agent.

What I'm talking about, or rather was trying to say, is that if God is a mental construct then God is contingent (dependant on the thinker to think Him up, as it were) and if a subject is in control of his thinking and not the other way around (say in the case of a loon) then God as the source of damnation or salvation seems to go away. In short, God as a mental construct doesn't seem very potent.

 

[quatona]

Ok if I say outside the influence of time would that make you happier?

It´s not about making me happy, it´s about forming meaningful statements, or even more: about presenting coherent, understandable concepts. Actually, even with this wording I have no clue what you might be talking about. I hope at least you do.
Please explain what "the influence of time" is, and how things outside the influence of time (whatever that might mean) and inside the influence of time (whatever that might mean) interact.

 

[Telephone]

I did not say there was a period of time before time so your criticism is nonsense.

What you actually said was "If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time."


Both 'before' and 'prior' are temporal terms, my criticism is sound, you have quite clearly claimed that there is a period of time before time.

If you have an understanding of "If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time." that differs from my interpretation could you please share it with me.

I did theorize that something such as God could exist and be unrelated to time and exist without time existing.

Did you really form a theory or even a set of theories about 'before time' to create a theoretical premise or framework to support this idea ? Did you really theorize this ?

Or have you simply stated an idea, completely unsupported by data or theory or logic because your religious belief requires it to be so.

Can you be completely honest and say that your thoughts on this are not in any way free but are curtailed and shaped by an agenda, the need to fit the real world to the views put forward by whatever superstition has gripped your mind ?


Honestly ?

 

[Telephone]

What I'm talking about, or rather was trying to say, is that if God is a mental construct then God is contingent (dependant on the thinker to think Him up, as it were) and if a subject is in control of his thinking and not the other way around (say in the case of a loon) then God as the source of damnation or salvation seems to go away. In short, God as a mental construct doesn't seem very potent.

Apologies, I suspect I lack the word play to even start to understand the point you are making, could you put this over in a simpler form ?

 

[Orontes]

Apologies, I suspect I lack the word play to even start to understand the point you are making, could you put this over in a simpler form ?

OK, the typical meaning of God is something perfect: the culmination of all that is best. Added to this is the idea that God is necessary. This means God could not not be. In short, if God exists then He is not dependent on anything. He is self-sustaining and ever lasting. Now, the other option when discussing existence claims is contingent being. This means a thing that is could be otherwise, including not existing. The created order: trees, bugs, gum etc. would all be examples of contingent being. Nothing requires they exist.

Now, if one says God is a mental construct then the idea of God radically changes. First, God is constructed. This means He could not be a necessary being as a construct is something made. Second, the adjective 'mental' tells us where God is to be found: in the head. This means God is not 'out there' governing the universe and pronouncing judgment on the souls on men, but put in a rather closed format perhaps reduced to a neural firing. If this is the case, then God is not really a force for anything except perhaps on the mind of the person who constructed Him. If this person, is not a loon, whereby he is subject to the whimsy of the mind, then God (the mental construct) could conceivably be held just as potent as any other mental construct: a unicorn, a hobgoblin, the Bee Gees etc. and given just as much attention. Does that help? If not, I can give it another go.

 

[Telephone]

Now, if one says God is a mental construct then the idea of God radically changes. First, God is constructed. This means He could not be a necessary being as a construct is something made. Second, the adjective 'mental' tells us where God is to be found: in the head. This means God is not 'out there' governing the universe and pronouncing judgment on the souls on men, but put in a rather closed format perhaps reduced to a neural firing. If this is the case, then God is not really a force for anything except perhaps on the mind of the person who constructed Him. If this person, is not a loon, whereby he is subject to the whimsy of the mind, then God (the mental construct) could conceivably be held just as potent as any other mental construct: a unicorn, a hobgoblin, the Bee Gees etc. and given just as much attention. Does that help? If not, I can give it another go. [/SIZE][/FONT]

My point that 'God is a mental construct' means little more than he is made up, myth, he does not exist.

 

[Orontes]

My point that 'God is a mental construct' means little more than he is made up, myth, he does not exist.

I thought you were playing off of my earlier statement about turning God into a mental construct.

Of course, if God is a mental construct then He exists as a mental construct.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by: elman

I did not say there was a period of time before time so your criticism is nonsense.

What you actually said was "If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time."

Both 'before' and 'prior' are temporal terms, my criticism is sound, you have quite clearly claimed that there is a period of time before time.

What terms could I use that were not temporal terms? I am talking about something outside of temporat-but you and I are temporal and all we have is temperal terms.

If you have an understanding of "If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time." that differs from my interpretation could you please share it with me.

What existed before the beginning of time may not have been and may not be time as we know it.

Originally Posted by: elman

I did theorize that something such as God could exist and be unrelated to time and exist without time existing.

Did you really form a theory or even a set of theories about 'before time' to create a theoretical premise or framework to support this idea ? Did you really theorize this ?

Yes it is call eternal God, a spirit.

Or have you simply stated an idea, completely unsupported by data or theory or logic because your religious belief requires it to be so.

It is a religious belief but it is supported by data and theory and logic.

Can you be completely honest and say that your thoughts on this are not in any way free but are curtailed and shaped by an agenda, the need to fit the real world to the views put forward by whatever superstition has gripped your mind ?

I can be completely honest and say that we are all given choices of world views. One choice is a loving God who created us for the purpose of loving each other and being with Him forever. Another choice is this universe is all a product of accidental chemistry and no god exists and no creator exists or ever did exist. Neither world view is provable. Both can be logically defended. I chose to believe I was created and exist for a reason.