Infinite regress.

[Teallaura]

They're at an impasse, OB. To Jim 'timeless' means 'eventless' because, presumably, there's no interval for events to occur in. (I think I'm following Jim correctly - am I, Jim?). Leo's view of timeless seems to be in the sense of 'without the boundaries of time' (Leo? Did I get this right?) which is closer to my understanding of how time relates to the eternal (personally, I think there are issues with the use of timeless at all but that's another discussion). Until they resolve what exactly 'timeless' means they aren't gonna get anywhere - because both are reasoning correctly but in very different frameworks.

[OingoBoingo]

They're at an impasse, OB. To Jim 'timeless' means 'eventless' because, presumably, there's no interval for events to occur in. (I think I'm following Jim correctly - am I, Jim?). Leo's view of timeless seems to be in the sense of 'without the boundaries of time' (Leo? Did I get this right?) which is closer to my understanding of how time relates to the eternal (personally, I think there are issues with the use of timeless at all but that's another discussion). Until they resolve what exactly 'timeless' means they aren't gonna get anywhere - because both are reasoning correctly but in very different frameworks.

Yeah, I think you might be right.

[JimL]

Leonard didn't say that God doesn't think. He said that he doesn't think in the same way that we do, with thoughts that are processed moment by moment. Reread post #27 to see how he lays that out.

He said that God doesn't have to think, that whatever realization there is, God already has it. But again, one could claim the same for an eternal universe, which isn't a mind at all, and also has no need to think. In other words an omniscient mind is not necessary in order for all information or all knowledge of whatever realization there is to exist. Such information, or knowledge if you will, can just as well be applied to the nature of a mindless universe, so why posit such a mindless mind when a mind is not necessary as an explanation.

[Teallaura]

He said that God doesn't have to think, that whatever realization there is, God already has it. But again, one could claim the same for an eternal universe, which isn't a mind at all, and also has no need to think. In other words an omniscient mind is not necessary in order for all information or all knowledge of whatever realization there is to exist. Such information, or knowledge if you will, can just as well be applied to the nature of a mindless universe, so why posit such a mindless mind when a mind is not necessary as an explanation.

Er, no, that's not what Leo said at all. Basically, he said God doesn't 'think' in the way that we consider 'thinking' - God's 'thoughts' are so different in character from our own that it's probably not useful to call them 'thoughts' in the traditional sense. God is not only eternal, He's of a completely different order/nature/category/insert approximation here from us - hence when we talk about Him in our terms, it's more analogy than accurate description.

Now, he did say God doesn't have to think per se, that's true - but Leo's speaking of necessity, not capability. God knows everything at all times so it's questionable that He would ever have to add 2 and 2 to get 4 - He'd automatically know. I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it, but you did get that right.

However, the same cannot be said for nature which lacks cognition, will and sentience. The universe can't 'realize' anything - it isn't transcendent - it truly has no mind at all. There's a big difference between not having thoughts in the same way we do and not being cognizant - you're assuming the latter when Leo is not.

[shunyadragon]

They're at an impasse, OB. To Jim 'timeless' means 'eventless' because, presumably, there's no interval for events to occur in. (I think I'm following Jim correctly - am I, Jim?). Leo's view of timeless seems to be in the sense of 'without the boundaries of time' (Leo? Did I get this right?) which is closer to my understanding of how time relates to the eternal (personally, I think there are issues with the use of timeless at all but that's another discussion). Until they resolve what exactly 'timeless' means they aren't gonna get anywhere - because both are reasoning correctly but in very different frameworks.

I would not say this is necessarily an impasse. Both concepts are a part of different 'multiverse' models. The concept of timelessness is firmly established in Quantum Mechanics Theory, and beginning with the Theory of Relativity going back to works of Einstein. No boundary proposals have also been proposed by different physicists and cosmologists.

[JimL]

Er, no, that's not what Leo said at all. Basically, he said God doesn't 'think' in the way that we consider 'thinking' - God's 'thoughts' are so different in character from our own that it's probably not useful to call them 'thoughts' in the traditional sense. God is not only eternal, He's of a completely different order/nature/category/insert approximation here from us - hence when we talk about Him in our terms, it's more analogy than accurate description.

If it isn't what we consider to be "thinking" then it isn't "thinking" simply because someone calls it "thinking."

Now, he did say God doesn't have to think per se, that's true - but Leo's speaking of necessity, not capability. God knows everything at all times so it's questionable that He would ever have to add 2 and 2 to get 4 - He'd automatically know. I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it, but you did get that right.

Comprehension is not the same thing as thinking, I believe you are confusing the two.

However, the same cannot be said for nature which lacks cognition, will and sentience. The universe can't 'realize' anything - it isn't transcendent - it truly has no mind at all. There's a big difference between not having thoughts in the same way we do and not being cognizant - you're assuming the latter when Leo is not.

Cognition, will and sentience are not necessary for knowledge, a.k.a information, to exist. I realize that the universe is not in itself a mind, but all knowledge, a.k.a. information, can still be contained within it and the universe unlike a God/mind doesn't need to be anthropomorphised in order to try and make sense of that.

[JimL]

They're at an impasse, OB. To Jim 'timeless' means 'eventless' because, presumably, there's no interval for events to occur in. (I think I'm following Jim correctly - am I, Jim?). Leo's view of timeless seems to be in the sense of 'without the boundaries of time' (Leo? Did I get this right?) which is closer to my understanding of how time relates to the eternal (personally, I think there are issues with the use of timeless at all but that's another discussion). Until they resolve what exactly 'timeless' means they aren't gonna get anywhere - because both are reasoning correctly but in very different frameworks.

I would have to know better exactly what it is that you mean by events happening, I guess in eternity, but "without the bounderies of time". You seem to be suggesting two different kinds of time, one with bounderies and one without. How do you differentiate the nature of the two in terms of events taking place?

[Teallaura]

If it isn't what we consider to be "thinking" then it isn't "thinking" simply because someone calls it "thinking."

You'll recall that Leo didn't consider it 'thinking'. It's a case of linguistic inadequacy. We just don't have a word for this.

Comprehension is not the same thing as thinking, I believe you are confusing the two.

I know they aren't - which is why I used them the way I did. In my opinion, comprehension is probably the closer term to what Leo's describing.

Cognition, will and sentience are not necessary for knowledge, a.k.a information, to exist. I realize that the universe is not in itself a mind, but all knowledge, a.k.a. information, can still be contained within it and the universe unlike a God/mind doesn't need to be anthropomorphised in order to try and make sense of that.

They ARE necessary for information to be processed - the critical difference is that a mindless universe cannot process information (or comprehend it which is probably a better way to describe this) whereas God can.

Just because He has little (if any) need for our particular type of processing (thought) doesn't mean He doesn't comprehend (may not even mean He doesn't process at all but that I'd have to think about before making an argument one way or the other). Leo isn't describing God as some big, all encompassing computer that just sits there waiting hence the analogy to the universe doesn't work.

[Teallaura]

I would have to know better exactly what it is that you mean by events happening, I guess in eternity, but "without the bounderies of time". You seem to be suggesting two different kinds of time, one with bounderies and one without. How do you differentiate the nature of the two in terms of events taking place?

Time is defined as the interval between events - I was presuming that was the definition you were using. Time as we experience it is linear. Time in eternity is non-linear (I've heard it described as a plane). So time as we know it has boundaries - we're confined to a given instant, can't turn sideways, can't turn back. Eternity has no such limitations.

[JimL]

You'll recall that Leo didn't consider it 'thinking'. It's a case of linguistic inadequacy. We just don't have a word for this.

Not to be harsh, but honestly, I would say rather that it is a case of ones having no clue, and I don't think that is any way to win a case. Why argue that the cause of our existence is a mind if it is a mind unlike any other mind that you know of, and is one in which you have no way to truly explain.

I know they aren't - which is why I used them the way I did. In my opinion, comprehension is probably the closer term to what Leo's describing.
They ARE necessary for information to be processed - the critical difference is that a mindless universe cannot process information (or comprehend it which is probably a better way to describe this) whereas God can.

Yes that is true, but an eternal and mindless universe, unlike a God/mind, would have no need to process information, no need to comprehend it, in order for it to perform in accord with that information, in order to create, and to continue to create within itself. So, I guess my point is, why argue for an eternal God/mind that comprehends and acts accordingly, when one, such an eternal mind can't be reaonably explained, and two, there is no need of an eternal mind to reasonably explain an eternal existence?

Just because He has little (if any) need for our particular type of processing (thought) doesn't mean He doesn't comprehend (may not even mean He doesn't process at all but that I'd have to think about before making an argument one way or the other). Leo isn't describing God as some big, all encompassing computer that just sits there waiting hence the analogy to the universe doesn't work.

The thing is though that it doesn't add up. Since, as it is argued, the way in which God is characterized is not at all the way he actually is, then what is being described could just as well describe the Cosmos itself. The Cosmos could just as well be defined as being omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omnibenevolent, if we take the terms to mean whatever we want them to mean. Omniscience (all information is contained within it), Omnipresent (it is everywhere), omnipotent (contains all power), Omnibenevolent is a tough one for a mindless Cosmos, but remember these are our definitions, not necessarily the definitions. The point is that if there is no empirical evidence of an eternal God/mind, and the argument for ones necessity or nature can't be reasonably made, then why should one look to anything beyond an uncaused eternal existence itself?

[Teallaura]

Not to be harsh, but honestly, I would say rather that it is a case of ones having no clue, and I don't think that is any way to win a case. Why argue that the cause of our existence is a mind if it is a mind unlike any other mind that you know of, and is one in which you have no way to truly explain.

There's a difference between not being able to explain and trying to get someone to understand. You're hung up on the terminology - I was trying to get you to see that, not make a case from this.

Oh, and the answer to your other question is 'that's what we have evidence of'. Scripture tells us God's thoughts are not like human thoughts.

Yes that is true, but an eternal and mindless universe, unlike a God/mind, would have no need to process information, no need to comprehend it, in order for it to perform in accord with that information, in order to create, and to continue to create within itself. So, I guess my point is, why argue for an eternal God/mind that comprehends and acts accordingly, when one, such an eternal mind can't be reaonably explained, and two, there is no need of an eternal mind to reasonably explain an eternal existence?

A mindless universe wouldn't use information - no comprehension, not thoughts, no processing = no usage.

An eternal existence of the cosmos? Yeah, you need a First Cause for that so the need exists.

Also, the human mind cannot be 'reasonably explained' - try explaining consciousness - so that point is moot.

The thing is though that it doesn't add up. Since, as it is argued, the way in which God is characterized is not at all the way he actually is, then what is being described could just as well describe the Cosmos itself. The Cosmos could just as well be defined as being omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omnibenevolent, if we take the terms to mean whatever we want them to mean. Omniscience (all information is contained within it), Omnipresent (it is everywhere), omnipotent (contains all power), Omnibenevolent is a tough one for a mindless Cosmos, but remember these are our definitions, not necessarily the definitions. The point is that if there is no empirical evidence of an eternal God/mind, and the argument for ones necessity or nature can't be reasonably made, then why should one look to anything beyond an uncaused eternal existence itself?

No, you're mistaken - Leo (and to a lesser extent, I) are not describing God the way you keep interpreting it. Let me come back to this - I'm not sure where the problem is. My inclination is to think that your views on eternality are at issue but maybe it's in the explanation - I need to think about it.

[shunyadragon]

A mindless universe wouldn't use information - no comprehension, not thoughts, no processing = no usage.

This a rather mechanistic old objection to the nature of our physical existence. There is no objective observable reason for a source outside the our physical existence and natural law.

An eternal existence of the cosmos? Yeah, you need a First Cause for that so the need exists.

Objectively based on the evidence there is no need for a First Cause outside our physical existence and natural law. It is possible that our physical existence is self-existent. The natural laws can possibly be the cause of everything, and by the evidence we have no other observable cause to justify another 'first cause' outside what we can observe in our physical existence.

Also, the human mind cannot be 'reasonably explained' - try explaining consciousness - so that point is moot.

Actually your argument here, like many dated arguments for the existence of God, is very dated. The human mind can be reasonably explained by natural processes.

The evidence we have concerning the nature of our physical existence is decidedly neutral to any argument for or against the existence of God.

[Teallaura]

Shuny, I wasn't discussing this with you - and I'm not going to. I'm in a bad mood and you and I don't get along that well. I may come back to this but not soon.


Edit: That came out a lot angrier than I meant it to - I just don't think it's a good idea to get in a discussion with you while I'm this irritable. My apologies for being so harsh.

[Jedidiah]

"It is turtles all the way down."

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I wasn't discussing this with you - and I'm not going to. I'm in a bad mood and you and I don't get along that well. I may come back to this but not soon.


Edit: That came out a lot angrier than I meant it to - I just don't think it's a good idea to get in a discussion with you while I'm this irritable. My apologies for being so harsh.

ok