God, Heaven and Hell

[Byblos]

And what is according to you the definition of time?

Change.

[CeT-To]

^ Yay!

[Kurieuo]

Sorry, no I can't. I feel it is as simplistic as I can put it. If you don't understand, then try harder to do so or perhaps you should give your argument away.

Sorry, but your sentence "To believe that God's willing to count, thereby entering into temporarily, somehow retrocauses temporarily to then exist in His timelessness is just illusory." is not gramatically correct and I do not understand it.

If you say so. Then this is where our discussions must come to an end.

[1over137]

1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. Change of God's will relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God changed His will.

[Byblos]

1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. Change of God's will relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God changed His will.

We've repeatedly told you that a timeless being is also changeless (by definition). So where did you get 2 from? Your syllogism fails on that point. You really could benefit from researching first causation and Aquinas' 5 points (particularly the 2nd).

Post edit: For a preview, please read this recent thread on Divine Simplicity. First causation is discussed and a very poignant analogy is given for how a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind can bring about change (time/matter) without itself being changed (the analogy of the clay vase).

[1over137]

By His will I meant will to create time (or start to count). If His will did not change then throughout His timelessness He was decided to create time. Ok, I take my point 2 back and replace it. Then:
1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. The change from no universe to our universe relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God created our universe.

Here is the 2nd Aquinas point:
1.There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2.It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3.To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4.If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5.Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

The 1st problem is:
"There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. The first premise states, "There is an efficient cause for everything, nothing can be the efficient cause of itself." Is, then, God something or nothing? If God is something, then we can ask the question of children, "What caused God?" If God is nothing, then God's existence is not proven."

edit: I already read that story about the vase.

[Byblos]

By His will I meant will to create time (or start to count). If His will did not change then throughout His timelessness He was decided to create time. Ok, I take my point 2 back and replace it. Then:
1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. The change from no universe to our universe relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God created our universe.

Wrong. It still fails on 2 on at least 2 levels. 1) The fact that there was no universe and then there was does not mean there was time before the universe, that's the assertion I keep pointing out to you. And 2) In no way does this imply a change in God, only a change in the universe. When a clay maker turns a clump of clay into a vase, the clay underwent a change (from clump to vase). Did the clay maker's hand change in any way? Of course not.

Here is the 2nd Aquinas point:
1.There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2.It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3.To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4.If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5.Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

The 1st problem is:
"There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. The first premise states, "There is an efficient cause for everything, nothing can be the efficient cause of itself." Is, then, God something or nothing? If God is something, then we can ask the question of children, "What caused God?" If God is nothing, then God's existence is not proven."

You can't be serious. You do realize some of the greatest philosophical minds, not only of our time but ever, haven't been able to poke a hole in Aquinas' 5 ways and you think you can? Efficient cause refers to caused things. But God by definition is uncaused for He is eternal, timeless.

[1over137]

1) The fact that there was no universe and then there was does not mean there was time before the universe, that's the assertion I keep pointing out to you.

And I try to see whether it is a correct one or not. There can be some bigger universe with our universe as sub-universe.

2) In no way does this imply a change in God, only a change in the universe.

I was not claiming in my last post that it implies a change in God.

You can't be serious. You do realize some of the greatest philosophical minds, not only of our time but ever, haven't been able to poke a hole in Aquinas' 5 ways and you think you can?

I took that argument from philosophical department of one university. There was a summary of common objections. (I assumed that those are common objections from philosophers.)

God by definition is uncaused for He is eternal, timeless.

God does not change, even if he counts, even if He creates something.

[Byblos]

1) The fact that there was no universe and then there was does not mean there was time before the universe, that's the assertion I keep pointing out to you.

And I try to see whether it is a correct one or not. There can be some bigger universe with our universe as sub-universe.

Aquinas' 5 ways are undisturbed by the multi-verse theory. They are inter-universal.

2) In no way does this imply a change in God, only a change in the universe.

I was not claiming in my last post that it implies a change in God.

Then we're in agreement. But that is not what you said. Let me quote:

1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. Change of God's will relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God changed His will.

Note the underlined. If that's not saying God changed then what is that saying?

You can't be serious. You do realize some of the greatest philosophical minds, not only of our time but ever, haven't been able to poke a hole in Aquinas' 5 ways and you think you can?

I took that argument from philosophical department of one university. There was a summary of common objections. (I assumed that those are common objections from philosophers.)

They are unmerited objections since they attack a strawman. Like I said, the argument is for things that are caused. Since God is uncaused, the argument does not apply to God and so therefore the objection is meaningless.

God by definition is uncaused for He is eternal, timeless.

God does not change, even if he counts, even if He creates something.

If that's a question, the answer is yes, God does NOT change even if he creates.

[1over137]

2) In no way does this imply a change in God, only a change in the universe.

I was not claiming in my last post that it implies a change in God.

Then we're in agreement. But that is not what you said. Let me quote:

1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. Change of God's will relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God changed His will.

Note the underlined. If that's not saying God changed then what is that saying?

In the post I refered to as last I claimed this:
1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. The change from no universe to our universe relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God created our universe.

[Byblos]

In the post I refered to as last I claimed this:
1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. The change from no universe to our universe relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God created our universe.

And round and round we go. You're back to asserting 2 with no proof.

As for 1, time is change from a MATERIAL state to another. No matter, no change. No change, no time. The only time you get time is when you actually have change. The only time you get change is when you actually have matter. Time starts ticking when matter appears and change is possible, not before.

As for 2, it fails because 1 fails to establish time before creation.

Therefore, 3 fails.

[1over137]

And round and round we go. You're back to asserting 2 with no proof.

No, I am not back in asserting that. I used the word 'claimed'. Past tense. I only wanted to say to you that my last post was not the post you thought.

[Byblos]

And round and round we go. You're back to asserting 2 with no proof.

No, I am not back in asserting that. I used the word 'claimed'. Past tense. I only wanted to say to you that my last post was not the post you thought.

And what I'm trying to tell you either way you phrase it is not a sound syllogism. I hope I've at least succeeded in showing you that. That's not say there aren't better counter-arguments for Aquinas' five ways, there are. It's just that there are none (so far) that haven't been soundly refuted.

[1over137]

And what I'm trying to tell you either way you phrase it is not a sound syllogism. I hope I've at least succeeded in showing you that. That's not say there aren't better counter-arguments for Aquinas' five ways, there are. It's just that there are none (so far) that haven't been soundly refuted.

I reread the whole thread again and see where my mistakes were. But back to the point. As Kurieuo said:
"Given the impossiblity of an infinite regress, something must be timeless possessing the quality of aseity. However, in order to change from a timelessness state and enter into temporality, such an entity must possess a will and power."
An that entity is God. Period. (Will now atheists believe in God? )

[seveneyes]

By His will I meant will to create time (or start to count). If His will did not change then throughout His timelessness He was decided to create time. Ok, I take my point 2 back and replace it. Then:
1. If time is change then the time interval relates to change of something from one state to another.
2. The change from no universe to our universe relates to some time interval.
3. Therefore there was time even before God created our universe.

Wrong. It still fails on 2 on at least 2 levels. 1) The fact that there was no universe and then there was does not mean there was time before the universe, that's the assertion I keep pointing out to you. And 2) In no way does this imply a change in God, only a change in the universe. When a clay maker turns a clump of clay into a vase, the clay underwent a change (from clump to vase). Did the clay maker's hand change in any way? Of course not.

Here is the 2nd Aquinas point:
1.There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2.It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3.To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4.If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5.Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

The 1st problem is:
"There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. The first premise states, "There is an efficient cause for everything, nothing can be the efficient cause of itself." Is, then, God something or nothing? If God is something, then we can ask the question of children, "What caused God?" If God is nothing, then God's existence is not proven."

You can't be serious. You do realize some of the greatest philosophical minds, not only of our time but ever, haven't been able to poke a hole in Aquinas' 5 ways and you think you can? Efficient cause refers to caused things. But God by definition is uncaused for He is eternal, timeless.

The problem here is actually simple and the fact that philosophers couldnt answer it shows me how much sense the statement "Existentialism came about when philosophy stopped paying the bills" makes. -It is basically unrelated to what I am going to say, but funny.

Anyway, the million dollar answer is that Aquinas laws are only laws of the physical world. To base them on a non-physical is an incorrect application of them. The logic doesnt fit because you are trying to equate separate things into the same law structure. Hence the first cause needs a cause. It is impossible. So God is not bound by the same laws, or we do not exist at all.