Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What change did God go through when the universe was created?If you saw my other post, it depends on what time is. If time is merely a dimension of spacial relationships the "start" of time is when the first sequential change occurred. I.e. God can't be "before" or "outside" of time as he changed when he created the universe.
This is however, just one view of time.
While this is the Christian rhetoric, it simply doesn't work with many views of time. Time (in the above view) isn't a "state" or a "thing" you can be in or out of. If you change in anyway, you would then be part of time.What change did God go through when the universe was created?
Regardless if your view of time is a measurement of change or like a dimension in space; there was no time for God to exist before the beginning of the universe. You can't say God changed from point A to point B if point A doesn't exist.
^ Like the above statement, this would be the change. You say that point A doesn't exist, but that would mean that God would create the Universe immediately as soon as he came into existence, meaning the universe would have to be created an infinitely long time ago. Your claims about God just aren't logically coherent in some of the differing views on time.If change is involved the actor necessarily is subject to change, as well - if only from someone who is planning to act to someone who has acted.
It works with the main two I know of. Maybe you have an understanding of time you would like to share but that it is a measurement of change or it is like a dimension in space are the prevailing two opinions.While this is the Christian rhetoric, it simply doesn't work with many views of time. Time (in the above view) isn't a "state" or a "thing" you can be in or out of. If you change in anyway, you would then be part of time.
Could you please explain why you think God changed? What changed exactly?
How could time pass between when there is God and before the universe is created?^ Like the above statement, this would be the change. You say that point A doesn't exist, but that would mean that God would create the Universe immediately as soon as he came into existence, meaning the universe would have to be created an infinitely long time ago. Your claims about God just aren't logically coherent in some of the differing views on time.
I didnt understand the universe being created an infinitely long time ago bit. The concept of God is pushed because the idea of an infinitely long time ago is logically impossible.
I just got deleted from a thread because the rules only allow one atheist per thread! How come there's so many non-believers on this one?
Yeah I watched that too. I guess they think he has a spectacular voice. At any rate, I believe time as having a beginning, that is, finite in the past. Yes scieticts are divided on the nature of time but I would say most accept that time had a beginning and is not eternal.It depends entirely what time is. Scientists are still very divided on the issue. (and yes, I just saw it explained by Morgan Freedman)
This assumes that God can only interact in the created world through direct contact, yet this is not the case. There are multiple ways that God is able to communicate and interact with mankind without actually directly intervening Himself. God could therefore remain timeless while these various agents facilitate on God's behalf.If it is simply relationships between the movement of objects then it makes not sense that God is outside of time, because any interference into our universe would violate his claim to timelessness.
I wouldn't define time as that as I cannot make sense of what it even means.If time is some absolute mysterious standard that just is, then God could exist (theoretical) outside of it.
Hmm. I would think if all the objects in the universe were stopped and did not change it would definitely be an indication that time has 'ceased.' As change requires time and as something would not change or be immutable, it would be timeless.A better question would be: "If you stopped all the objects in the universe, have you stopped time, or will it still tick on?
No. If you don´t understand what I mean by A, and if someone explained it as being B (which you either don´t understand), and then would explain B as A there would be no progress in your understanding, either.Yeah but that is your personal issue.
Words don´t do anything. You are the one who defines them.The reality of how words are used is that they define each other, often in a circular fashion.
I´m not surprised to find it there (among others). In the given case, it was the only explanation given, though.If you ask for a definition of one word (A)within the definition of another word(B), dont be surprised to find the word (B) within the definition of the other word (A).
An ongoing, continuous change, of course.And if there is no planning to act, to acting but the action is continuous? If the act of creation is ongoing from beginning to end, what change is necessary in that actor?
Im sure there is reasoning behind your beliefs, but is that reasoning sound?No, there is reasoning behind it.
Both those ifs are unproven. Your argument isnt sound unless its premises are true. You need to prove that the Christian God created the universe and that it is still active. If you cant then this isnt sound reasoning.If the universe had a beginning (God) and if that beginning was still active it would have to be because it is constant.
So you think it is irrational and conceptually impossible for the universe to be eternal, but Im guessing you dont think it is irrational or conceptually impossible for the Christian God to be eternal despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isnt sound reasoning at all.Its not a rational position to think the universe goes back without end. It is conceptually impossible to me. So at that point God being real is the only logical solution, since the alternative seems impossible.
No I don't. Their use defines them. The most common of which are recorded in a dictionary.Words don´t do anything. You are the one who defines them.
Were you hoping for a different definition? Maybe you should tell me which definition of these words you think we should use since you didn't like the ones I provided from the dictionary.I´m not surprised to find it there (among others). In the given case, it was the only explanation given, though.
What kind of change? Please explain what changes you think God is going through and why.An ongoing, continuous change, of course.
Feel free to point out where you think it isnt sound.Im sure there is reasoning behind your beliefs, but is that reasoning sound?
The other possibility to the ifs cant be proven either. Its just about what is the most reasonable position, not where there is proof. Can you explain your position reasonably or is the limit to this discussion going to be I need to offer you proof or you are right and Im wrong? Without you ever explaining your position?Both those ifs are unproven. Your argument isnt sound unless its premises are true. You need to prove that the Christian God created the universe and that it is still active. If you cant then this isnt sound reasoning.
Poor guess. To clarify the problem isn't being "eternal" in that it won't last forever... it's stretching back infinitely into the past that is the problem.So you think it is irrational and conceptually impossible for the universe to be eternal, but Im guessing you dont think it is irrational or conceptually impossible for the Christian God to be eternal despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isnt sound reasoning at all.
What does that mean? Ive heard many theists make that claim as if time has parameters or something, and its never made sense to me. Time is simply a system humans came up with to measure one moment to the next. To exist outside of time sounds as ridicules as claiming something exists outside of miles, gallons, or numbers; if something exists, the concept of time can be applied to it; and it doesnt matter if you are talking about the physical world, the spiritual world, the imaginary world, or whatever; it seems to me nothing can exist outside of time because there are no parameters to time. Am I wrong? If so please explain.
What does that mean? Ive heard many theists make that claim as if time has parameters or something, and its never made sense to me. Time is simply a system humans came up with to measure one moment to the next. To exist outside of time sounds as ridicules as claiming something exists outside of miles, gallons, or numbers; if something exists, the concept of time can be applied to it; and it doesnt matter if you are talking about the physical world, the spiritual world, the imaginary world, or whatever; it seems to me nothing can exist outside of time because there are no parameters to time. Am I wrong? If so please explain.
Ken
Like an image on a paused video recorder would be the closer example. There is nowhere for God to move to, we move within God. There is no other function for God to do other than the function God did from the start.
I would go with something like this. I certainly wouldnt take it literal and assume it means God changes (unsure of your point) or has a face, back and speaks like a man.(reply) So how do you explain Exodus 33:22-23
Ken
I would go with something like this. I certainly wouldnt take it literal and assume it means God changes (unsure of your point) or has a face, back and speaks like a man.
"Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou shalt not and the meaning of this is, that all the things which are behind God are within the comprehension of a virtuous man, but he himself alone is incomprehensible; and he is incomprehensible by any direct and immediate access (for by such means it is only explained what kind of being he is), but he may be understood in his subsequent and consistent faculties; for they, by means of the works accomplished by them, declare not his essence, but his existence. Philo, On Prosperity of Cain
Christian God. Just not an understanding based on taking allegorical writings literally. That is for the uneducated and the opposition.So you dont believe God made man in his own image as the bible says? You don't believe God spoke to Moses as the bible says?
Are you Christian who worships the God of the Bible? Or do you worship some other God.
K
Yes, your use of a word defines what you mean by it.No I don't. Their use defines them.
Undisputed - doesn´t solve the problem, though.The most common of which are recorded in a dictionary.
Any definition that´s not tautological will do.Were you hoping for a different definition? Maybe you should tell me which definition of these words you think we should use since you didn't like the ones I provided from the dictionary.
Depends on the changes his acts are supposed to cause. God changes along with those changes - from not having caused those changes to having caused those changes.What kind of change? Please explain what changes you think God is going through and why.
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?