Im not sure I follow...what is the difference between ummutable and a changless state? They seem the same to me, making your argument circular.

Yeah, thank you. That was circular. I changed the argument a little; hopefully that helps.

"1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB."

Incoherent. The universe=spacetime. There is no time (a "when") at which the universe didn't exlst (i.e. there is no time prior to time - that would be self-contradictory).

I'd like to object to premises 3 and 5, despite your rebuttals.

In your defense of premise 3 you state that, for a being who knows all things, thought does not qualify as change because the being gains no knowledge. But my own personal thoughts change constantly without the acquisition of knowledge. A more accurate description might be that my attention is shifting, but this still counts as change. For example, even though I've had many emotions before and know exactly what they are like, my state can still change from happy to sad.

And as for premise 5, that statement only remains true when using a common description of time such as Merriam-Webster's. However, time can be defined scientifically as the fundamental unit measured by a clock. Time does not necessarily require change to exist. It is simply a measurement that applies to every being.

You might say that time itself is a process of change, and so for time to pass, change must occur. However, we know of no quantity to have ever definitively existed without time (since everything ever studied scientifically has existed within this universe), and so attempts to define time in this way fall short. We cannot necessarily provide a correct definition of time without knowing what timelessness would actually look like.

1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB. — adhomienem

Does the GCB necessarily exist before the universe was created? Why couldnt it have come into existence along with the rest of the universe from some kind of timeless natural event (not a being, so it doesnt contradict the existence of GCB)?

I'm only using references to time-- "when," "before," etc.-- because we are temporal beings who cannot think outside of events in relation to time. Perhaps a better word would be "outside"-- outside of the creation of the universe, which obviously includes time, the GCB still existed, otherwise it would not be greater than the universe.

Clearly, we cannot even argue in an atemporal sense, because even the act of using verbs assumes a relation to time. But that doesn't mean we can't try to understand, or at least think about, what it would be like outside of the existence of time.

To your rebuttal of premise 3: your attention shifts because your attention is limited. Your states of being change because you are mutable. The GCB would not have a limited attention, and would be immutable, and therefore would not experience anything analogous to your example.

Let’s go ahead and define time as the fundamental unit measured by a clock, then. How then could we measure time without clocks? Without the existence of clocks, time would be immeasurable according to your definition. Immeasurable time, then, leads us back to the same question I posed earlier: if the point of time is to measure something, and there is no way to measure anything, because there is nothing to measure, then time has no purpose for existing.

I agree that we run into problems attempting to understand timelessness when we ourselves are bound by time. But that does not mean that nothing can be known about timelessness, or at least postulated within the rules of logic that we know. My whole argument hinges on the assumption that something did exist outside of time; namely, the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I'm defining time according to Merriam-Webster: "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues." To put it more simply, time is the measurement of change. — adhomienem

You have defined time as "the measured or measurable". But then you go on to say that time is "the measurement...". Do you not recognize the difference between "the measured" and "the measurement"?

I'm only using references to time-- "when," "before," etc.-- because we are temporal beings who cannot think outside of events in relation to time. Perhaps a better word would be "outside"-- outside of the creation of the universe, which obviously includes time, the GCB still existed, otherwise it would not be greater than the universe. — adhomienem

You earlier said: "I'm offering the following proof as evidence that God existed when time did not exist." But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. Your reasoning is circular. What you really have is a rationalization of God's creating spacetime, not a proof of God's existence. Further, it seems a weak, ad hoc rationalization, since you can't actually explain how an action can possibly be performed without an elapse of time.

I like the idea of the Greatest Conceivable Being, GCB or God, existing separately from time.

However I would like to challenge premise 5, as well as propose some adjustments.

I also have some questions about premise 3. You essentially say that since the GCB is omniscient, he knows everything, since he knows everything, his thoughts are not susceptible to change. I see where you're going with this, but I'm still having some trouble accepting this line of reasoning as is, due to the idea of attention mentioned by Brillig in the above comments. However, I don't believe I'm at all qualified to speculate as to the inner-workings of the mind of God, does he even have an attention span? Does his mind never change because he is paying attention to everything equally all the time?

Next is my challenge of premise 5. This premise, in my opinion, weakens the argument, because of the fact that it hinges on a semi-arbitrary definition that was established at the beginning of the post. As Brillig points out, time can be scientifically defined as "the fundamental unit measured by a clock."

While time and change have become almost interchangeable in this context, I think it's important to differentiate the two.

Let's say you are sitting in an empty room. The only thing in this room is an analog clock, just ticking away. Is the clock ticking as a result of it experiencing change due the passing of time? Or is it ticking due to the fact that it was designed to measure the fundamental unit we know as time?

I prefer to think that it's ticking because it's measuring the passing of seconds, and not because it's experiencing a change induced by the passing of time.

What if you were to establish the definition of time as simply the passing of seconds?

Then you could keep your argument in tact by establishing that the GCB resides in a realm outside of time. A realm where every moment that has ever happened and ever will happen, is happening currently.

But you have to assume that something can actually exist atemporally and somehow perform an action, despite the fact that actions entail time. i.e. you have to assume there is a God. — Relativist

The key here is in understanding the relationship between material existence, and time. We need to separate the two, such that the activity of physical, or material, existence, and time, are not conceived of as the same thing. This is what Belouie suggests:

While time and change have become almost interchangeable in this context, I think it's important to differentiate the two. — Belouie

Logically, if physical change is occurring, then time is passing, but the inverse is not necessary. It is not necessary that physical change is occurring for time to be passing. So time may pass without physical change, but change cannot happen without time passing.

When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence, then we can understand a time prior to physical existence, and therefore a time when physical existence starts, or comes into being. So in the context of Relativist's objection above, we now have the principles whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act".

This would put God outside of "time" and therefore eternal, if time is understood as necessarily tied to physical change. But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God, God is no longer understood as completely outside of time, with this refined concept of "time". But if we move further, and bind time to God, but not vise versa, then we can allow that God is actually responsible for starting time. This would put God outside of time, but the "act" of God which starts time, would have to be understood in another temporal frame work. So this act could likely be understood as something like a change in the way that time passes. The way that time passes now, and what we know as time, came into existence from God's act, which occurred in a different temporal framework.

unenlightened's first law of linguistic inadequacy states that no matter how sophisticated the symbols, and no matter how well arranged they are, they cannot oblige the world to be thus and not so. To think that they can is to believe in philosophical magic.

...God's act, which occurred in a different temporal framework. — Metaphysician Undercover

One imagines an outside to the temporal framework, but then has to imagine it inside another temporal framework in order for it to exist, for to exist at no time is otherwise not to exist. One sees proofs that time cannot be infinite and proofs that it cannot have a beginning on a regular basis, because both are inconceivable; yet one or the other must be true. Language is inadequate to the world we live in, never mind what is beyond.

If there's a God that's changeless/motionless, how does that God start the material world?

time may pass without physical change. — Metaphysician Undercover

That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified.

When we understand "time" in this way, as not necessarily tied to physical existence,

How do you explain special relativity? Time slows near a strong gavitational field and at high velocities, which suggests time and the material universe are intertwined.

whereby God, being non-physical, i.e. immaterial, has time to "act". — Metaphysician Undercover

Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation?

But since we need to alter this concept of "time" to allow for the actions of God

This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God.

That flies in the face of quantum field theory (QFT). Under QFT, fields (waves) are fundamental, and every point in a field is constantly fluctuating (and thus changing); that's why there is energy in "empty" space. Belouie's assumption entails a premise that is false, or at least unjustified. — Relativist

Such fields are mathematical though, and are not representative of any real physical existence because they represent probabilities, possibilities for physical existence. The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles.

It's just like mapping space with coordinates, the coordinate points do not represent any real physical existence, nor do the points in the field. The real physical existence, of what's there are the particles(or whatever a particle really is), but the "fluctuating" is just mathematics, because the wave function does not represent real waves.

Setting aside the above objections, this imp!ies an infinite past. Why did God wait an infinite period of time before creating the universe? How did he traverse infinite time to reach the time of creation? — Relativist

No, there is no infinite past implied, whether or not time has a beginning is not mentioned, nor implied. Actually, if you reread the post, I went on further to suggest that God might have created time, and this would imply that time is not infinite. It all relates to how one defines "time".

One sees proofs that time cannot be infinite and proofs that it cannot have a beginning on a regular basis, because both are inconceivable; yet one or the other must be true. Language is inadequate to the world we live in, never mind what is beyond. — unenlightened

Yes, the conclusions are all relative to how words like "time" are defined. So one proof would demonstrate time as necessarily infinite, another demonstrate time as necessarily having a beginning, but all this is, is two different descriptions of what time is. Now I wouldn't say "both are inconceivable" thought, because really such proofs demonstrate that both are conceivable. The question then, is what is the real nature of time, the real description.

This confirms the circularity I identified. You're choosing a conception of time that is consistent with God creating, and then claiming to prove God. — Relativist

Your claim of circularity is irrelevant. I didn't claim to prove God. I was just explaining how we could conceive of God as being outside of time. This allows for the possibility of God, as something outside of time, but there is no claim here for the necessity of God, therefore no proof of God. The necessity for God may be presented as the cosmological argument, which is related to what I said, but not what I produced, as I had no intent to prove the existence of God, only to explain how it is possible to conceive of God as outside of time.

So of course, I chose a conception of time which is consistent with God creating, to demonstrate that it is possible to conceive of God as being outside of time. To conceive of God is not impossible, it doesn't involve contradictions, etc., it only requires a particular conception of time. But this was in no way meant to prove the existence of God, which would require, as a starting point, to prove that this conception of time is the correct conception of time. If one is open to this type of understanding of time, accepting it as the real description of time, then that person might be moved by the demonstration which is the cosmological argument.

I created a dream last night, it was absolutely real, complete with actions.

But of course it wasn't.

Such fields are mathematical though, and are not representative of any real physical existence because they represent probabilities, possibilities for physical existence. The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level."

Fields are real, they exist, they are the most fundamental thing we're aware of in the material world, and they are not mere equations.

You are out of touch. I suggest you watch this video, starting at 15:00. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gives a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory. You will hear him say "Particles are not what nature is made of...what nature is made of is fields". "Quantum Field theory is the best idea we have about understanding the world at a fundamental level." — Relativist

So what? He's a mathematical Platonist who believes that mathematical objects are real, and nature is made of these. There is no question that fields are mathematical, that is obvious. But there are many physicists who take this position of Platonic realism. Just because a physicists holds different metaphysical principles from I, a metaphysician, doesn't mean that I'm out of touch. Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree?

Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. usually. In your case, no.
Sorry, MU, that's a joke. I couldn't resist.

"Since I'm a metaphysician, and he's a physicist, and we're talking metaphysical principles, it's seems more likely that he's the one who is out of touch. Wouldn't you agree"
No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. You are making an ad hoc assumption. Labelling this a "metaphysical principle" doesn't change that. It's obvious that you are rationalizing God's existence, not "proving" it.

A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist

Whether mathematical fields are real and fundamental things is purely metaphysics, it has nothing to do with the theories of physics. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

It's obvious that you are rationalizing God's existence, not "proving" it. — Relativist

Duh! That's what I repeated claimed. I'm glad you finally learned how to read. Who claimed to be trying to prove God's existence?

No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist

Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god, do you suppose the witch doctor or local wizard is going to say, "Gee, I guess there really isn't a volcano god. I'm going to change my entire metaphysical belief system"? Belief systems do change, and how that happens is no simple matter, but it sure does't happen because of the inefficacy of a virgin or two.

What you have to distinguish between is competing theories within a belief system, which disagreement is soluble in experiment of some kind, and ideas that don't fit. These latter create a strain that eventually will cause a change, but through a change in the belief system, not a mere adjustment in a state of knowledge.

No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics.
— Relativist
Actually, usually it's the other way 'round. If, for example, the most recent batch of sacrificial virgins doesn't seem to propitiate the volcano god,... — tim wood

You're conflating metaphysical beliefs with well-supported beliefs about the world. It would be silly to hold a metaphysical belief that is contradicted by (for example) belief in gravity. Getting more esoteric, if your metaphysical belief is inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics, your burden would be to show that you can account for the empirical evidence explained by the standard model.

No. A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics. — Relativist

Why would it have to be compatible with "the best theories of physics"? A philosopher could think the physics has things wrong.

A philosopher could think the physics has things wrong. — Terrapin Station

Thank you Terrapin Station for bringing that to Relativist's attention. And I am such a philosopher. If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. Relativist doesn't seem to believe that it is possible that any theories of physics might be based in principles which are wrong.

Oops I meant to type "that physics has things wrong" . . . not a big deal, though. I'm just a typo king. ;-)

Two issues:
1) Is the metaphysican's belief justified? We SawIn the present case, it remains to be seen - a case has not been made.
2) In the present duscussion, an argument for God's existence has been proposed. That argument is dependent on certain metaphysical assumptions, so the presenter of the argument has the burden to show these assumptions are more likely than not to be true. If it is inconsistent with accepted physics, I expect he will not be able to meet that burden.

When a theist makes metaphysical assumptions that lead to "proving" his belief in God, it raises suspicions that those assumptions were chosen for the purpose.

Above, you seem to be saying that it's a contingent matter whether someone's metaphysics can depart from physics. But that's not the same as saying "A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics."

"Must be" means you see it as something necessary. As a requirement.

If physics is full of contradictions (as it is) then most likely it has some things wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. QFT is widely accepted by physicists, so if your metaphysics is not consistent with it, you have a burden to show that your assumptions are more likely to be true than QFT. For yourself, you need to show justification; for your theistic argument, you have a higher burden to make a persuasive case for those assumptions. The latter is what I'm focusing on.

Above, you seem to be saying that it's a contingent matter whether someone's metaphysics can depart from physics. But that's not the same as saying "A metaphysics must be consistent with empirical evidence and with the best theories of physics."

"Must be" means you see it as something necessary. As a requirement. — Terrapin Station

I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading.