The Inner Life: Beyond Science?

[JimL]

No, that doesn't appear to be the case (unless in the mind of God only).

Well, what does appear to be the case then? If God is only causally prior to the universe, like the bowling ball is only causally prior to the dent in the cushion, if there is no division of time between the two, then they have both existed together eternally. Please explain your alternative to this logic?

It sounds like you're still conflating causality with temporality. I thought this conversation sounded familiar, and I found that we had this exact same conversation 3 months ago here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...creation/page4

I don't know how you forgot all of this so suddenly. It sounds like you're making a lot of the mistakes you made the first time around too! It's pretty deep stuff, so I guess I can sorta see how you could forget some of it, but the fact that you seemed to think that theologians literally believed that God sat in empty space for billions and billions of years after it was explained to you that that wasn't the case at all is very strange to me. That seems like something you'd remember.

If your explanations made any sense, then you could say that I am making the same mistakes. But they don't, your explanations are assertions that, like the above "causally prior" assertion are rationalizations without logical underpinnings.

Oh, you're tripping over the Bible passage I cited? Weird, I wasn't attempting to get you to focus on that part of the verse, but on the phrase "before all time". "All eternity" is also often translated "now and forever", so if it helps, just think of it in that way.

Well now, "now and forever" really doesn't make any more sense than does "all of eternity" without the concept of time. Thats your problem, you can't really explain what you mean by "eternity" "before all time" and "now and forever" in a logical fashion. You can believe it of course, but you can't explain what you mean by it in a logical way.

[Tassman]

Read your Bible - God's Word confirms it.

Yes hypotheticals - with no ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. But like I said Tass, I won't deny your faith..

Right, so you would believe that there may actually be dozens if not hundreds of copies of you and me having this same debate is "science" says so. Talk about nonsense...

seeminglyhttp://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PD...erse_sciam.pdf

Right, all I said is that no inflation theory is past eternal. The multi-verse still needs a creation event. What came before that or if there was anything before that is not known.



Let me quote your link again: Vilenkin: I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.

Spontaneous creation from literally nothing Tass? How is that different from creation Ex nihilo? Tell me. And stop falsely accusing me of misrepresenting anyone, especially when I quote your own sources. Bad form old chap.

[seer]

No it is historical evidence of God communicating with man.

seemingly

If the multi-verse is true then it follows that there are dozens even hundreds of copies of us having this very same debate. So Tass, are you the real Tass or a copy? I mean the fact that you are even entertaining this nonsense is disturbing. The concept of God positively rational compared to this.


Again wrong, read your own link. Vilenkin makes it perfectly clear that he is speaking of LITERALLY NOTHING. But if "science say" Tass it must be true, and this is creation Ex nihilo whether you admit it or not.

[seer]

Seer, allow me to set you straight on the physicist definition of nothing so that you don't continue to go on about it foolishly. Nothing is a term that should never have been used, because nothing is not exactly what was meant and all that term ended up doing is to give the enemies of science the wrong impression. In physics "nothing"=a boiling bubbling froth of virtual particles popping in and out of existence. This froth is counterbalanced by negative gravity. The counterbalancing of the two, the particles and the negative gravity, brings the total energy of the universe to ZERO. So the so called "nothing" is not really nothing at all, it is the counterbalancing of two somethings, two somethings which exist. Hope that helps you to stop making that uniformed argument in the future.

That is not what Vilenkin is arguing for:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological
scenario in which the universe is spontaneously
created from literally nothing, and which is free
from the difficulties I mentioned in the preceding
paragraph. This scenario does not require any changes
in the fundamental equations of physics; it only gives
a new interpretation to a well-known cosmological
solution.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

[Adrift]

Well, what does appear to be the case then? If God is only causally prior to the universe, like the bowling ball is only causally prior to the dent in the cushion, if there is no division of time between the two, then they have both existed together eternally. Please explain your alternative to this logic?

I think you've misunderstood the illustration of the 'bowling ball resting on a pillow for eternity'. It isn't meant to illustrate how both God and the universe are both eternal within time, as though God is the bowling ball, and the universe is the pillow, it's simply meant to illustrate how a causal relationship can conceivably exist without requiring temporal priority. That cause and effect are simultaneous. This is just a thought experiment. Christian theologians argue that, unlike the universe/pillow illustration, God is eternal, sans time, prior to the beginning of the universe, and that time did not exist until the beginning of the universe (which happened 14 billion years ago). If the bowling ball/pillow illustration is confusing you, then I think you can drop it altogether if you'd like.

If your explanations made any sense, then you could say that I am making the same mistakes. But they don't, your explanations are assertions that, like the above "causally prior" assertion are rationalizations without logical underpinnings.

Well, first, they're not my explanations. I didn't come up with any of this. But secondly, I don't agree. I find these explanations totally coherent, and very logical. I think maybe there's some key part that you simply can't work your mind around that makes these explanations seem illogical (the fact, for instance, that you conflate God and the universe with the bowling ball/cushion seems to suggest this) Unfortunately, I probably can't help you in that regard other than to tell you to read the literature on the subject. You may not agree with the conclusion, but at least you'll be able to see how it all comes together. I would suggest maybe picking up Dr. Craig's Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time.

Well now, "now and forever" really doesn't make any more sense than does "all of eternity" without the concept of time. Thats your problem, you can't really explain what you mean by "eternity" "before all time" and "now and forever" in a logical fashion. You can believe it of course, but you can't explain what you mean by it in a logical way.

Now and forever does require time. But it doesn't require an infinite amount of time in the past, it simply requires a potential infinite amount of time in the future. That's a perfectly logical explanation that's easy to explain. You give up so easily JimL. I think if you just thought about this a bit, it would all fall into place for you.

[shunyadragon]

That is not what Vilenkin is arguing for:



http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

The nothing referred to by Vilikin and Hawking is not the philosophical nothing. It is the Quantum nothing, no time and no space

[Tassman]

No it is historical evidence of God communicating with man.

There is no evidence supporting that assertion. OTOH there is evidence of the Mesopotamian myths from which the Genesis narratives derive.

If the multi-verse is true then it follows that there are dozens even hundreds of copies of us having this very same debate. So Tass, are you the real Tass or a copy? I mean the fact that you are even entertaining this nonsense is disturbing. The concept of God positively rational compared to this.

Again wrong, read your own link. Vilenkin makes it perfectly clear that he is speaking of LITERALLY NOTHING. But if "science say" Tass it must be true, and this is creation Ex nihilo whether you admit it or not.

[JimL]

I think you've misunderstood the illustration of the 'bowling ball resting on a pillow for eternity'. It isn't meant to illustrate how both God and the universe are both eternal within time, as though God is the bowling ball, and the universe is the pillow, it's simply meant to illustrate how a causal relationship can conceivably exist without requiring temporal priority. That cause and effect are simultaneous. This is just a thought experiment. Christian theologians argue that, unlike the universe/pillow illustration, God is eternal, sans time, prior to the beginning of the universe, and that time did not exist until the beginning of the universe (which happened 14 billion years ago). If the bowling ball/pillow illustration is confusing you, then I think you can drop it altogether if you'd like.

I understand that it is not meant to illustrate that God and the universe are both eternal, but that is exactly what it accomplishes in doing. The universe as symbolized by the dent in the pillow and God which is symbolized by the bowling ball, according to the analogy, exist together in time. Separate the bowling ball/God, from the pillow/universe, or better, remove the pillow from existence altogether, and the only thing that can bring the pillow into existence is an actionable event is time. Unless you want to argue that the creation itself is an event that takes place in no time. Time btw is a requirement of spontaneity, which is what your analogy seems to want to dismiss.

Now and forever does require time. But it doesn't require an infinite amount of time in the past, it simply requires a potential infinite amount of time in the future. That's a perfectly logical explanation that's easy to explain. You give up so easily JimL. I think if you just thought about this a bit, it would all fall into place for you.

Please explain what you mean by timeless eternity. Do you mean that the eternal object in question simply doesn't move or change with time, or that no time passes for the eternal motionless object? Or perhaps you mean that the object just doesn't age with time. I understand that your answer will most likely be that eternal time just doesn't exist, but can you actually make sense of that in your explanation, or is it just an assertion without explanation?

[lilpixieofterror]

First off Lilpix, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was explaining to seer what physicists mean by the term "nothing."

You could have fooled me, with all of your mindless attacks and ignorance about the science you seem to be so determined to defend. I just find it entertaining. Anyway, do you even know what physicists mean by the term 'nothing'. You didn't even get the term 'dark energy' right (which is what they are talking about, FYI).

Second, everyone knows that multiverse theory, "is a theory! Try not to be so defensive and jump to conclusions Lilpix and you may better comprehend what you read.

It would be more of a hypothesis than a theory, but do continue to mindlessly attack instead of admitting to the silly mistakes you made, while trying to berate Christian beliefs with science you don't even understand.

First off it isn't a claim Lilpix, where did I claim that either you or christian theologians believe this? Like I said, its a question that neither you, nor any christian theologian for that matter, will answer to, or have an answer for.

Do you not read your own post? Here is what you said:

Or we could instead ignore reason and in our ignorance make up a story about an eternally existing immaterial conscious being who after an infinite existence, out of complete boredom with himself, decided just 14 billion years ago, to think a material world into existence from out of nothing so that he could finally have something to play with. Scientific evidence for the multiverse isn't the only reason for our disbelief in creation seer! the lack of any evidence whatsoever for such extraordinary and seemingly ridiculous claims is reason enough in itself.

Problem is, this is nothing more than a strawman of Christians beliefs to begin with because the answer is out there and you're just too busy attacking piles of straw to deal with it. God is timeless and God contains all he needs, that is a basic theology 101. Your above claims that he was 'board' doesn't deal with the basics of what Christians believe about God and doesn't require an answer. Instead, I laugh at your ignorance on display and just correct your silly mistakes. Let me help you out here:

God is timeless as in he doesn't exist within time at all, but exist apart of it.
God contains all he needs and ever would need. God can not be 'board' because that would say that God doesn't have everything.

If you're going to attack Christian beliefs Jimmy, it does a load of good to actually learn what Christians believe. These are the basics and if you can't even get the basics right, why should anybody take you seriously?

[seer]

There is no evidence supporting that assertion. OTOH there is evidence of the Mesopotamian myths from which the Genesis narratives derive.

Feel perfectly free to worship the gods of Mesopotamia, or your multi-verse. That seems to be your god Tass, your creator. As for me and my house we will serve the God of Scripture and His Son, Christ Jesus.



Hypotheses, but no "credible" physical evidence. But like I said Tass, you are perfectly free to worship your great god multi-verse. And BTW Tass pointing to a multi-verse does not tell us how life came from non-living matter, how the non-rational created the rational, or how the non-conscious created the conscious.



But that is not what Vilenkin is saying - at all. His is a NEW model. Read the link again. When he says literally nothing that is EXACTLY what he means. I know you don't like it - but that is his hypothesis. "Science says" Tass....

[Adrift]

I understand that it is not meant to illustrate that God and the universe are both eternal, but that is exactly what it accomplishes in doing. The universe as symbolized by the dent in the pillow and God which is symbolized by the bowling ball, according to the analogy, exist together in time. Separate the bowling ball/God, from the pillow/universe, or better, remove the pillow from existence altogether, and the only thing that can bring the pillow into existence is an actionable event is time.

You're doing it again. You're conflating God/bowling ball and universe/pillow. The bowling ball/pillow analogy was never intended to represent God and the universe. It's simply an illustration of how causal priority would work in a world with an infinite amount of time so that our minds can get around the idea of causality. Many Christian thinkers don't think there's any such thing as an infinite past time. They believe time began at the Big Bang. So the illustration is not applicable to God and the universe in the same way that you're trying to conflate the two. Again, I strongly suggest you simply forget the bowling ball/pillow illustration since it seems to be causing you so much confusion. If you can't see what the analogy is attempting to accomplish, it's no good to you.

Unless you want to argue that the creation itself is an event that takes place in no time. Time btw is a requirement of spontaneity, which is what your analogy seems to want to dismiss.

You're far too kind to me. This isn't my analogy. I'm simply not smart enough to come up with this stuff on my own. Usually the argument is that time begins simultaneously with creation, not that creation happens sans time.

Please explain what you mean by timeless eternity. Do you mean that the eternal object in question simply doesn't move or change with time, or that no time passes for the eternal motionless object? Or perhaps you mean that the object just doesn't age with time. I understand that your answer will most likely be that eternal time just doesn't exist, but can you actually make sense of that in your explanation, or is it just an assertion without explanation?

I already answered this question in post #113 and #115 by citing William Lane Craig.

I feel that since you're sort of looping back on questions you've already asked and that I've already attempted to answer, that there likely isn't any good reason for me to continue discussing this subject with you. It's not one of my strong suits, and since I don't seem to be making much headway in helping you understand the subject so far, I think it's unlikely that that will change later. I'm certain there are others who could do a much better job in explaining this subject to you than I. I only wanted to pop in to help correct some of the easier, and more glaring mistakes that you made in your conversation with lilpixie.

[Adrift]

Hypotheses, but no "credible" physical evidence. But like I said Tass, you are perfectly free to worship your great god multi-verse. And BTW Tass pointing to a multi-verse does not tell us how life came from non-living matter, how the non-rational created the rational, or how the non-conscious created the conscious.

I think it should be pointed out (though, not for Tassman's sake), that there is evidence to support a divinity. There are a ton of books filled with evidence for a divinity's existence. Now, whether or not that evidence is actually credible is where the debate occurs. I tend to think that it is. Tassman, I'm certain, would disagree. But I feel that there is as much, if not better evidence for a divinity than there is for a multiverse. But that's just my take.

[JimL]

You're doing it again. You're conflating God/bowling ball and universe/pillow. The bowling ball/pillow analogy was never intended to represent God and the universe. It's simply an illustration of how causal priority would work in a world with an infinite amount of time so that our minds can get around the idea of causality. Many Christian thinkers don't think there's any such thing as an infinite past time. They believe time began at the Big Bang. So the illustration is not applicable to God and the universe in the same way that you're trying to conflate the two. Again, I strongly suggest you simply forget the bowling ball/pillow illustration since it seems to be causing you so much confusion. If you can't see what the analogy is attempting to accomplish, it's no good to you.

This is an analogy that christians on this very site have used to explain ex nihilo creation. Besides that you are missing the point and not answering the question. My point was that yes, that analogy can explain simultaneous cause and effect in time, but it can't explain timeless cause and effect, aka creation. An act of creation, change, takes place in what we call time, simultaneous or not, and so doesn't explain timeless change, or creation. My question to you is do you have an logical explanation or analogy for that?

You're far too kind to me. This isn't my analogy. I'm simply not smart enough to come up with this stuff on my own. Usually the argument is that time begins simultaneously with creation, not that creation happens sans time.

I was refering to it as yours in the sense that you are using it in your argument. But if they are simultaneous, then there is no distance between the two, ergo they are both, cause and effect, in time. And btw, if your argument is that creation happens with time, then how do you argue that the creator, the cause, is timeless?

I already answered this question in post #113 and #115 by citing William Lane Craig.

I feel that since you're sort of looping back on questions you've already asked and that I've already attempted to answer, that there likely isn't any good reason for me to continue discussing this subject with you. It's not one of my strong suits, and since I don't seem to be making much headway in helping you understand the subject so far, I think it's unlikely that that will change later. I'm certain there are others who could do a much better job in explaining this subject to you than I. I only wanted to pop in to help correct some of the easier, and more glaring mistakes that you made in your conversation with lilpixie.

Thats fine, but better you should help lipix understand, since she to could not answer the question. But I will go back and re-read your responses to see what if anything I missed.

[JimL]

I think it should be pointed out (though, not for Tassman's sake), that there is evidence to support a divinity. There are a ton of books filled with evidence for a divinity's existence. Now, whether or not that evidence is actually credible is where the debate occurs. I tend to think that it is. Tassman, I'm certain, would disagree. But I feel that there is as much, if not better evidence for a divinity than there is for a multiverse. But that's just my take.

Mere claims are not credible evidence. Claims of revelation are not in themselves credible evidence. If I told you that I walked on water, if I told you that I spoke to God in a burning bush, if I told you that I saw someone floating up to heaven, if I told you that there were over 500 witnesses there etc etc., you would not believe me. The words of men in and of themselves are not evidence of truth. A better discription for these claims would be incredible, and few would be naive enough to believe them if their culture did not impress it upon them from their youth. The only objective evidence for a divinity that has ever been put forth is that the universe exists, ergo it must have been created. The universe is not evidence that the universe was created, nor does it make sense, since one could then make the same argument for the creator of it.

[Adrift]

This is an analogy that christians on this very site have used to explain ex nihilo creation. Besides that you are missing the point and not answering the question. My point was that yes, that analogy can explain simultaneous cause and effect in time, but it can't explain timeless cause and effect, aka creation. An act of creation, change, takes place in what we call time, simultaneous or not, and so doesn't explain timeless change, or creation. My question to you is do you have an logical explanation or analogy for that?



I was refering to it as yours in the sense that you are using it in your argument. But if they are simultaneous, then there is no distance between the two, ergo they are both, cause and effect, in time. And btw, if your argument is that creation happens with time, then how do you argue that the creator, the cause, is timeless?




Thats fine, but better you should help lipix understand, since she to could not answer the question. But I will go back and re-read your responses to see what if anything I missed.

Like I said, I don't think we'll make much more progress here. You seem incapable of understanding what the bowling ball/pillow analogy is in reference to, and seeing how the conversation is going currently, it doesn't appear that I'll have any success in helping you see your flawed analysis. Also, these aren't my arguments. I'm simply parroting arguments by far more intelligent thinkers than I. Nor am I attempting to make an argument here by parroting these arguments, I was simply attempting to set you straight on what the arguments actually stated, because it doesn't seem like you understand them very well (though, it appears that you've read them in the past). Finally, I don't see much that lilpixie needs help with so far. It sounds like she has the basic gist. I suggest you buy and read the book I suggested earlier. I think it will really help clarify a number of issues that you seem to be having with the arguments concerning God, time, and creation. You can currently buy Time and Eternity for about $14 on Amazon.