How I know God is unreal

[Chrawnus]

Yes, I'd agree with that. G-d is outside of time, since He created it. The Laws of Physics don't apply to G-d since He created those. So I'd agree with you that G-d appears to us as a contradiction of reality.

Unless you're using another definition of "contradiction" than the one used in logical thought your last statement above about God appearing to us as a contradiction of reality is severely confused. There might be people who think that God appears to be a contradiction of reality, but I'm not so sure those people understand what a contradiction is.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Unless you're using another definition of "contradiction" than the one used in logical thought your last statement above about God appearing to us as a contradiction of reality is severely confused. There might be people who think that God appears to be a contradiction of reality, but I'm not so sure those people understand what a contradiction is.

They know what a contradiction is, but they are basing it on their limited point of view. I know that G-d is outside of time and isn't subject to it. I know that G-d is everywhere, at once. I know that G-d has no form whatsoever and can't be measured in any way. I know that G-d is unique and eternal and One. All these attributes and more, can cause severe problems to anyone trying to apply scientific thought processes to G-d and will appear as contradictions to them.

[37818]

Nothingness never was. Self-existence always was and is. The latter is the only valid identity for God.

[SatanTheAlien]

I didn't say God is in our present, idiot. His timelessness entails that he is always in his equivalent of the present - always in the moment where actions are performed.

I don't feel the need to call you names. I'm way beyond that, but anyway, what would his equivalent of present be if there is no time? How would there be any movement in his timelessness if there is nothing like time there? If there is movement of anything, then there is time, for time is just the interpretation of movement, so please make up your mind already. There is a form of eternal movement/time or there isn't.

If actions are preformed, and God is in that MOMENT, then God is in TIME. Moments = time. Actions being preformed = time. And I'm the idiot. Odd.

[SatanTheAlien]

You've moved the goalposts, StA. You started arguing about God--now you are arguing about the nature of reality. That's fallacious argumentation.



Current science (specifically, Big Bang cosmology) refutes this argument.

Not really. I just made my argument even more clear since people try to use semantics. The standard Big Bang model is not logically sound, thus I don't accept it. You can't have a singularity with nothing outside it and no information within it that would cause it to expand and have it expand. If it was in a timeless state of not expanding, then it never could have expanded. It's a dumb theory.

[SatanTheAlien]

They know what a contradiction is, but they are basing it on their limited point of view. I know that G-d is outside of time and isn't subject to it. I know that G-d is everywhere, at once. I know that G-d has no form whatsoever and can't be measured in any way. I know that G-d is unique and eternal and One. All these attributes and more, can cause severe problems to anyone trying to apply scientific thought processes to G-d and will appear as contradictions to them.

It doesn't appear as a contradiction. It flat out is a contradiction. If God is outside time, no moments, no movement, stasis, then no actions can take place outside time in this God-realm. Nothing can happen. Just stasis. God is just a picture that can do nothing. So it is clear since we are here, that the stasis timeless God did not create us. Your position would be stronger if you said a different kind of time happens in God-ream than in our realm.

If God has no form what so ever, that is not made of any sort of substance, not even spirit substance, then please try to explain how that is not a contradiction. In what way would a non-substance be anything? It sound like you are talking about nothingness and calling it God. Ein Sof pretty much means nothingness, so perhaps you do think nothingness is God.

[Pilgrim]

And your position would be stronger if you weren't working from an out dated, Newtonian understanding of time and motion.

[technomage]

I just made my argument even more clear since people try to use semantics.

No, I fear you completely changed the basis of your argument. However, this separate argument is also problematic, as I noted with the Big Bang.

The standard Big Bang model is not logically sound, thus I don't accept it.

I'll advise Dr. Hawking to return his knighthood immediately.

[GioD]

what would his equivalent of present be if there is no time?

The present, for us, is the infinitesimal moment where we actually act. God's timelessness is equivalent to the present inasmuch as he is constantly and immediately acting and doing all the things leading up to action.

How would there be any movement in his timelessness if there is nothing like time there?

Because in his timelessness he is in the motional equivalent of the present - he is instantly and constantly acting, as we do briefly in each "present" moment.

If there is movement of anything, then there is time, for time is just the interpretation of movement, so please make up your mind already.

Time, at the very best, is only required for physical motion, but "motion" in the sense meant of God's acts extends well beyond that type of motion.

If actions are preformed, and God is in that MOMENT, then God is in TIME. Moments = time.

God is not "in" the moment - he is capable of moving in the same way we are in the present, but he is not in the present as a state of time.

Actions being preformed = time.

You've not defended this at all.

And I'm the idiot. Odd.

Yeah, it is odd to see people like you talking so much about what they don't know.

[37818]

. . . [H]e is instantly and constantly acting, . . .

In constant change, the very act of acting. This goes against immutability.

[GioD]

In constant change, the very act of acting. This goes against immutability.

Action doesn't necessarily entail a change on the part of the one doing it. God's creating the universe was action on his part, and he didn't change. Like I said above, God is immutable only in his internal nature - not his external relationships.

[SatanTheAlien]

And your position would be stronger if you weren't working from an out dated, Newtonian understanding of time and motion.

Weird assumption. I go with modern understandings of time. It would be nice if you could show how I did otherwise.

[SatanTheAlien]

The present, for us, is the infinitesimal moment where we actually act. God's timelessness is equivalent to the present inasmuch as he is constantly and immediately acting and doing all the things leading up to action.



Because in his timelessness he is in the motional equivalent of the present - he is instantly and constantly acting, as we do briefly in each "present" moment.



Time, at the very best, is only required for physical motion, but "motion" in the sense meant of God's acts extends well beyond that type of motion.



God is not "in" the moment - he is capable of moving in the same way we are in the present, but he is not in the present as a state of time.



You've not defended this at all.



Yeah, it is odd to see people like you talking so much about what they don't know.

Your not making any sense. You are stringing words together to make sentences, but they don't mean anything. God is acting but not moving? God is immediately acting but not moving in any way? All I need to know is what act can be preformed that is void of any movement? Can you give an example and explain how it works?

[Adrift]

Your not making any sense. You are stringing words together to make sentences, but they don't mean anything. God is acting but not moving? God is immediately acting but not moving in any way? All I need to know is what act can be preformed that is void of any movement? Can you give an example and explain how it works?

Hmm... Let me think.

[37818]

Action doesn't necessarily entail a change on the part of the one doing it.

When you move your arm, that is a change. You do not cease being you. Nevertheless, effects require causes, and causes which cause effects are always finite changes. Act require action, change.

God's creating the universe was action on his part, and he didn't change. Like I said above, God is immutable only in his internal nature - not his external relationships.

Actually God created the universe via His Son, who could change. (see John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17. Genesis 1:1.) No Son of God, no second Person of the Trinity, no creation.