• GodlessGirl
    27
    Most theologians adopt 1), and assert God is the sole exception to everything needing a cause. As a argument strategy -- this is flawed, as non-theists are free to propose exceptions to causation of their own -- the favorite is the Universe -- but a time-space probability field, or an Eternally Inflating state -- these have both been proposed as well. Stephen Hawking took this approach in A Brief History of Time -- where he proposed a single cycle universe was just a closed volume in space-time and did not need a causal explanation. In more recent writing, now that the openness of our universe has been fairly well settled and his "closed shape" assumption isn't true, he advocated that the small size of the initial Big Bang singularity mixes time and space per Heseinberg's Uncertaintly Principle -- and without a well defined "first time" -- the "prior" to that time need not be explained.
  • 3017amen
    2.6k
    actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori.Philosophim

    That's quite problematic Philosophim. Are you saying that there is no difference between propositions that are tautologies and logical inference( the a priori vs. the a posteriori)?

    I believe you're missing a previous point about analytics and the fact that philosophy lives in words. Embrace the notion that a priori logic is not designed to parse or explain the nature of our existence. It may describe it, but it doesn't explain it (the thing-in-itself). Instead, a posteriori empirical analysis is the so-called general rule of the day.

    For example, going back to propositions that try to explain conscious existence, consider once again the illogical daydreaming while driving scenario. If one were to further advance a proposition that describes the victim who is subsequently in a coma alive but yet not alive, what would be the truth value to that proposition? Would there be multiple truth values?

    A simple study of dialectic reasoning would suggest that living life is much more than a priori deductive reasoning. Generally, life is both/and, not either/or. A priori is either/or. And that is why it's not suitable to parse things that involve consciousness; sense experience. (Which is another reason why the only outcome to the a priori is logical impossibility.) That is just one reason you would be incorrect in suggesting there are no differences between the a priori and the a posteriori. There are many more examples....
  • Philosophim
    288


    Actually, this may be a good time to get on another thread as we had discussed. I have a thread on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge So far it hasn't garnered much discussion beyond a few troll posts, but I know you'll take the conversation seriously. Here you'll get to see what I mean by stating the a priori and a posteriori distinction (depending on how they are defined) are false dichotomies. Its also the perfect place to discuss what is logical and illogical. I should have though about it sooner. =P See you there!
  • Torus34
    21
    God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.

    If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.

    Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless?
    Walter Pound

    The concept of an all-powerful god leaves itself open to all manner of paradoxes.

    "Can god create a physical place that god cannot enter?" will serve as an example.

    Supreme beings are best left out of philosophical discussions where definitive conclusions -- that is, truth -- is sought.

    Regards, stay safe 'n well.
  • Anna Frey
    2
    Say God is timeless, changeless, and the greatest being. When God created time, if he did depending on what scale of time you believe, he made a change. While he still experienced change around him, he himself did not change. One can be surrounded by the change they bring about it, without that single act of change causing change to them. Just as God can create time and subject us to it, he can remain outside of the restrictions of time. Say I invent or create a device that assists people with writing their address on an envelope. I have created a change, yet I remain the same intrinsically as I was before. I could have more money and the title of inventor, but I remain myself. Even using my own product would not fundamentally change me. Unless, one would argue that growing in mind and thought changes you, then by creating this invention, or learning any new piece of information would change me.

    This is my original thought formation of my argument, however, premise 1 has a major issue because it does not contain any supporting evidence.

    1. A being brings about change through some action. Said being is surrounded by that change, then said being can remain unchanged.
    2. God a being, brought about time, a change in his surroundings.
    3. Thus God can remain changeless even if bringing about change.

    Here is my revised argument:
    A being surrounded by change has the choice to change or remain unchanged.
    God is surrounded by the changing of time, but chooses to remain unchanged.
    God is not changed although he is surrounded by the changing of time.

    God can remain unchanged because he is omnipotent.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.