God can't think or create anything.

[Johz]

That the reason why 'the Bible doesn't take the time to explain why physical intervention in the universe doesn't happen anymore' is because the adherants of the belief system it espouses do not believe that 'physical intervention in the universe doesn't happen anymore'.

True. And they would be wrong, as it is perfectly explainable pyschological phenomena. Not gods, nor ghosts, nor spirits... just people.

Perhaps, but that was not the discussion. If the Bible is true, then there is no need for any explanation as to why physical intervention no longer happens because, supposedly, it does happen. If it is false, then it needn't explain it because nothing happened in the first place. Neither is a situation that requires explanation.

[Caninope]

Oh, and on this subject, I don't know how time works. If time is simultaneous than a process being temporal is kind of a moot point.

What does time being "simultaneous" mean?

It means that time could be curved like space, and being the three dimensional beings we are, we cannot perceive it properly.

[Four-sided Triangles]

What about in the case of another universe?

Then god's not transcendent anymore, is he?

Seriously, did ANYONE AT ALL carefully read my opening post, or did you all just skim it briefly?

[Caninope]

Have you ever heard the old saying, "Walk a mile in another person's shoes"? Well, while we are of limited knowledge, God is of bountiful, perhaps unlimited knowledge. He is of bountiful, perhaps unlimited power. He is, according to some theologians, capable of appearing in multiple places at once. Until I've got superpowers that are nearly as fraction of those as God's, I doubt I could even begin to comprehend his thought process.

I have heard that saying, and it doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "Don't condemn someone until you've experienced what they've experienced." It doesn't mean, "You can't understand God until you've been God."

Yeah, that was probably a bad phrase there.

I wonder what a better one would have been. Any ideas?

[Caninope]

Then god's not transcendent anymore, is he?

Seriously, did ANYONE AT ALL carefully read my opening post, or did you all just skim it briefly?

I wasn't speaking about God in that post.

[Four-sided Triangles]

It means that time could be curved like space, and being the three dimensional beings we are, we cannot perceive it properly.

1. No, that's not what he meant.

2. Time can't be curved alone. Intrinsic curvature cannot be defined in a one-dimensional differentiable manifold. You must have at least two dimensions to have intrinsic curvature.

3. Space-time IS curved.

4. We most certainly can measure the curvature of space-time, and we can work with curved space-time using the mathematics of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.

[Four-sided Triangles]

But I'm using logic here. Logically, to refer to something 'outside of the universe' creates a flaw, as, in this branch of logic, as specified here, there is nothing outside of the universe. Yet in your OP you makw as a premise for logical debate in this thread that '[i]f god does not reside within time and space, then [...]'. This 'is as fundamentally nonsensical in [logical] terms as 'before the big bang', even when doing so proves the falsity of this god. Your discussion is flawed to begin with.'. As I said earlier.

1. I didn't talk about god as being outside of the universe. I talking about god existing "outside" of time and space. If "outside" is defined sufficiently carefully, this can be a coherent concept.

2. I'm not the one who came up with the idea of god being "outside" of time and space. It was various theologians, usually of the Christian persuasion, that invented this notion. This thread is a response to that notion and points out problems with it.

[Johz]

Well many Christians would believe that God is still acting today. Indeed, I've witnessed meetings where Christians say that they have been driven to uncontrollable emotion, 'slayed in the spirit' or even been given the gifts of being able to, supposedly, talk the language of angels, or prophesy with or without translation.

As Seperates has said, people do all sorts of things when under the influence of charismatic speakers, crowds and neurochemistry. Doesn't prove that God intervened in their lives. And the fact that Old Testament-style intervention doesn't happen anymore, and in fact 'ended' before we had any solid way of confirming that it ever happened in the first place, is more than a bit odd.

But by the time science had really taken it it's feet, Christianity was the dominant religion already. God hardly needed the publicity. And as for the coincidence, did you know that Martin Luther King died under a Democrat presidency? As did Elvis Presley?

I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here. Yes, the level of interaction, if the old testament is taken as literal fact, has gone downhill slightly. But then there are reasons for an absence of action (sin, fallen world etc.) and it is more likely in some ways that the old testament is less reliable in terms of accuracy.

[Johz]

But I'm using logic here. Logically, to refer to something 'outside of the universe' creates a flaw, as, in this branch of logic, as specified here, there is nothing outside of the universe. Yet in your OP you makw as a premise for logical debate in this thread that '[i]f god does not reside within time and space, then [...]'. This 'is as fundamentally nonsensical in [logical] terms as 'before the big bang', even when doing so proves the falsity of this god. Your discussion is flawed to begin with.'. As I said earlier.

1. I didn't talk about god as being outside of the universe. I talking about god existing "outside" of time and space. If "outside" is defined sufficiently carefully, this can be a coherent concept.

In an entirely interested way, source/wiki/(free) scientific paper/explanation?

2. I'm not the one who came up with the idea of god being "outside" of time and space. It was various theologians, usually of the Christian persuasion, that invented this notion. This thread is a response to that notion and points out problems with it.

That's my point. Or rather, my point is that you've spent ages folding up an argument that assumes the conditions in the previous argument and proves the result of the previous argument to be false. However, the assumptions made in the previous argument are false themselves. So your entire argument hinges on a falsity. Far better would be to say that the original argument is false because it assumes that outside the universe is a valid position for an entity, when it's not. It's like being north of the north pole.

[Seperates]

As Seperates has said, people do all sorts of things when under the influence of charismatic speakers, crowds and neurochemistry. Doesn't prove that God intervened in their lives. And the fact that Old Testament-style intervention doesn't happen anymore, and in fact 'ended' before we had any solid way of confirming that it ever happened in the first place, is more than a bit odd.

But by the time science had really taken it it's feet, Christianity was the dominant religion already. God hardly needed the publicity. And as for the coincidence, did you know that Martin Luther King died under a Democrat presidency? As did Elvis Presley?

I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here. Yes, the level of interaction, if the old testament is taken as literal fact, has gone downhill slightly. But then there are reasons for an absence of action (sin, fallen world etc.) and it is more likely in some ways that the old testament is less reliable in terms of accuracy.

What was your point in the second statment? It really made no sense. Democratic presidencies have nothing to do with the price of tea in China. The Christian T.V. commercials and claims of Christians really don't do any good publicity. I mean, really, why not perform miricals on a daily basis? We still have free will. No contradictions there.

[Caninope]

2. Time can't be curved alone. Intrinsic curvature cannot be defined in a one-dimensional differentiable manifold. You must have at least two dimensions to have intrinsic curvature.

And what is there are multiple dimensions of time?

[Four-sided Triangles]

In an entirely interested way, source/wiki/(free) scientific paper/explanation?

Think of "outside" as being the set theory definition. 13 is "outside" the set of all letters in the Roman alphabet, but it stands in no spatial relation to the Roman alphabet. It's not "above" or "to the left of" the alphabet, but it's still "outside" of it. God could similarly be "outside" of space in the sense that he's not contained in the set of all objects with spatial coordinates. This doesn't require god to stand in any spatial relation to space.

Whether such a thing could be said to "exist" or not is entirely your prerogative.

That's my point. Or rather, my point is that you've spent ages folding up an argument that assumes the conditions in the previous argument and proves the result of the previous argument to be false. However, the assumptions made in the previous argument are false themselves. So your entire argument hinges on a falsity. Far better would be to say that the original argument is false because it assumes that outside the universe is a valid position for an entity, when it's not. It's like being north of the north pole.

So you agree that a god "outside" of time and space is logically problematic?

[Four-sided Triangles]

And what is there are multiple dimensions of time?

Then causality becomes really, really strange? Sure, then time could be curved by itself.

[Avenio]

But by the time science had really taken it it's feet, Christianity was the dominant religion already. God hardly needed the publicity. And as for the coincidence, did you know that Martin Luther King died under a Democrat presidency? As did Elvis Presley?

It didn't even have to be in the period of science. Biblical-style miracle-making ended even before the Hellenistic period, curiously when outside observers started taking notes about the history of places traditionally associated with Christianity and Judaism. In fact, a few well-placed miracles in the Roman period would have probably done the Christians a world of good, but they instead got a whole raft of martyrs and horrible deaths to add to their histories.

I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here. Yes, the level of interaction, if the old testament is taken as literal fact, has gone downhill slightly. But then there are reasons for an absence of action (sin, fallen world etc.) and it is more likely in some ways that the old testament is less reliable in terms of accuracy.

The world is no more or less 'fallen' than the day after Adam and Eve's original sin, though. Christ may have died on the cross to 'save' us, but the world, in general, is still just as 'sinful' as before the Noachian flood. All assuming the Old Testament is literally true, of course, and you admit yourself that it may not be accurate.

[Arkinesia]

If god does not reside within time and space, then god cannot think or act at all.

You were doing pretty well until you got to here.

What necessitates a god being unable to think or act if said god does not reside within time and space?

[Four-sided Triangles]

What necessitates a god being unable to think or act if said god does not reside within time and space?

Thoughts and actions are processes. "Process" is a concept that necessitates the existence of a temporal framework. Processes require changes. Changes require a dimension over which change can be defined.

[Johz]

In an entirely interested way, source/wiki/(free) scientific paper/explanation?

Think of "outside" as being the set theory definition. 13 is "outside" the set of all letters in the Roman alphabet, but it stands in no spatial relation to the Roman alphabet. It's not "above" or "to the left of" the alphabet, but it's still "outside" of it. God could similarly be "outside" of space in the sense that he's not contained in the set of all objects with spatial coordinates. This doesn't require god to stand in any spatial relation to space.

Whether such a thing could be said to "exist" or not is entirely your prerogative.

Thanks. That made a lot of sense actually.

That's my point. Or rather, my point is that you've spent ages folding up an argument that assumes the conditions in the previous argument and proves the result of the previous argument to be false. However, the assumptions made in the previous argument are false themselves. So your entire argument hinges on a falsity. Far better would be to say that the original argument is false because it assumes that outside the universe is a valid position for an entity, when it's not. It's like being north of the north pole.

So you agree that a god "outside" of time and space is logically problematic?

Mais oui. But trying to contradict that argument in the way you were doing so was wrong, because, by necessity, your argument had to be wrong.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Mais oui. But trying to contradict that argument in the way you were doing so was wrong, because, by necessity, your argument had to be wrong.

I was just trying to do proof by contradiction or, more aptly, disproof by contradiction. It was an attempt to show that the god outside of space and time doesn't really work like any god should.

[Johz]

But by the time science had really taken it it's feet, Christianity was the dominant religion already. God hardly needed the publicity. And as for the coincidence, did you know that Martin Luther King died under a Democrat presidency? As did Elvis Presley?

It didn't even have to be in the period of science. Biblical-style miracle-making ended even before the Hellenistic period, curiously when outside observers started taking notes about the history of places traditionally associated with Christianity and Judaism. In fact, a few well-placed miracles in the Roman period would have probably done the Christians a world of good, but they instead got a whole raft of martyrs and horrible deaths to add to their histories.

True. We can assume that miracles, much like the modern influences of the spirit, were reported to have happened, even if they weren't as exciting as, say, feeding over4000 or even 5000 people, or raising people's friends from the dead. Perhaps this could be because Jesus' miracles were a direct consequence of him being perfect and sinless, and being the son of God. I'm not a theologian. However, the miracles reported then would have been of the same calibre as those reported now.

I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here. Yes, the level of interaction, if the old testament is taken as literal fact, has gone downhill slightly. But then there are reasons for an absence of action (sin, fallen world etc.) and it is more likely in some ways that the old testament is less reliable in terms of accuracy.

The world is no more or less 'fallen' than the day after Adam and Eve's original sin, though. Christ may have died on the cross to 'save' us, but the world, in general, is still just as 'sinful' as before the Noachian flood. All assuming the Old Testament is literally true, of course, and you admit yourself that it may not be accurate.

Well the first five books are adapted from an ancestral belief, and are probably oral tales, adapted by the infamous editors to attempt to represent the Jewish god. Numbers is book-keeping. Moses and his story was almost certainly an oral story, and heaven knows they can be embelished. Job practically begins with 'Once upon a time', and I continually feel suprised that there are no talking wolves in it. Kings is book keeping. Poetic books are, well poetry. The prophets are generally either prophetic visions of things to come, or, in cases like Esther where we see a coherant story, generally seem to have oral features. The Old Testament isn't really the most reliable source, is it?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Awesome stuff, 4-sided......triangles. Sorry, I have quite some trouble with contradictions. Just have a question. Let's say we are actually brains in a vat in an entirely different world, for any definition of world applicable here. That world works on different rules. What makes logic so, for lack of a better phrase, self-proving/self-evident that there is no way that the logic of that world can turn out not to be identical to our logic? And that our logic must necessarily be equally as valid over in that world as well?

[Bulgislavia]

could Time - Space just be a part of "God", just like the brain and heart are organs and are apart of a human being, time and space are a function/components of a bigger being?

[Distruzio]

I agree. It is denial, just not in the way you mean.

Oh? And what do I mean?

There's a difference between humility and absolute credulity.

What is that, then?

Then again, the "You're just too arrogant!" canard has been a favorite escape hatch of those pushing absurdities for thousands of years. Can't get them to accept logically impossible scenarios? Then just accuse them of being "arrogant" or "close-minded." That'll shut 'em up.

Says the person who made this thread? Interesting.

[Syvorji]

Tell that to my father, Kim il-Sung. He created the Earth, and how it went modern on April 15th, 1912. The Titanic's sinking proves that Kim il-Sung is god. He caused it when his mother was giving birth.