• Devans99
    1.9k
    I argue there must be a first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1) and for the purposes of this post, I’m assuming the first cause exists and is/was God.

    In the beginning there was no time (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). What about space? 14 billion years ago spacetime started; so it must of been created by something beyond spacetime.

    So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime.

    We know God cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). Is space possible without time? Maybe not suggesting God is spaceless (dimensionless) as well?

    So a key question is, can space exist without time? If no, God is non-material. Can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So it appears space cannot exist without time (so God must be spaceless).

    What evidence do we have for the non-material? It is understandably hard to come by. I listed a few possibilities here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4920/could-a-non-material-substrate-underly-reality/p1

    It could be argued that photons are sort of non-material; they experience no time and no distance (space).

    If God is material and subject to change then he might be dead by now (or dead and alive at the same time maybe... he is timeless). If God is non-material, then he’s not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That would allow him to neatly sidestep the whole God is dead problem, so this is an important question.
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k
    I argue there must be a first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1) and for the purposes of this post, I’m assuming the first cause exists and is/was God.
    Devans99

    Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting.

    From the first, I assumed the only reason for making such a flawed argument...was as an attempt for a backdoor "proof of the existence of a god."

    I am more sure of that now, after reading this OP, then ever.

    Since you are exploring whether this supposed god is material or non-material...why do you refer to it as "God"...the way you do in this following sentence, "So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime."

    You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that?

    And why do you refer to it as "he?"

    Just want to be sure about these things before getting involved in the discussion itself.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting.Frank Apisa

    No-one has pointed out any flaws. Care to expand? I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. I would just love to debate some of this stuff with people but no-one comes up with any counter arguments.

    You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that?Frank Apisa

    I am using God as an abbreviation of 'timeless first cause'

    And why do you refer to it as "he?"Frank Apisa

    It is conventional to refer to God as a he. God has no sex, is not the product of bi-sexual reproduction, so it is just a convention that people use.
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k

    Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting. — Frank Apisa


    No-one has pointed out any flaws.
    Devans99

    Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

    Care to expand? — Devans
    At my age...best not to.



    I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. — Devans

    Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example.


    I would just love to debate some of this stuff with people but no-one comes up with any counter arguments. — Devans

    You honestly do not see it...do you?

    You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that? — Frank Apisa


    I am using God as an abbreviation of 'timeless first cause'
    — Devans

    If you mean a "timeless first cause"...use that.

    And why do you refer to it as "he?" — Frank Apisa


    It is conventional to refer to God as a he.
    — Devans

    Nobody uses "he" to denote a timeless first cause...which is what you say you mean.


    God has no sex, is not the product of bi-sexual reproduction, so it is just a convention that people use.

    God???
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

    Care to expand?
    — Devans
    At my age...best not to.
    Frank Apisa

    Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on earth is there to gain by doing that?

    I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause.
    — Devans

    Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example.
    Frank Apisa

    My first cause I suppose was sexual intercourse of my parents. Everything has a cause apart from the timeless first cause surely?

    God???Frank Apisa

    "Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

    So the convention of using 'him' to refer to God stems from the Judaic tradition I grant you.
  • christian2017
    274


    A great book to read that addresses this issue to some extent is called "Flatland". It was written by Abbott Abbott. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein.
  • christian2017
    274


    you can probably request "Flatland" from your local library.
  • christian2017
    274
    its available for free online sometimes as a digital download
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    A great book to read that addresses this issue to some extent is called "Flatland"christian2017

    I have heard about it but never read it. 'A Sphere' demonstrates to 'A Square' the nature of 3D by lowering and raising himself through Flatland. Sounds brilliant... must read it some time.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    No. Because nothing can be non-material. The notion of non-material things is incoherent.

    Nothing can be apart from spacetime, either.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    No. Because nothing can be non-material. The notion of non-material things is incoherent.

    Nothing can be apart from spacetime, either.
    Terrapin Station

    Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. By something not of spacetime. Space can't exist without time so that something was spaceless as well as timeless.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago.Devans99

    All we know is that the big bang appears to have occurred about that time, if our theories are correct. That doesn't amount to spacetime being created then, or at any time. We have no idea about that.

    Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    Space doesn't occur without timeTerrapin Station

    Exactly. I can show time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). So space does not exist 'before' time was created. So the creator of both space and time must be spaceless and timeless.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    I can show time has a startDevans99

    No, you can't. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again I show the problems with your idiotic arguments. You're incapable of learning.

    Even this response is completely idiotic. I just explained that there can't be a "creator" that's aside from spacetime. It's incoherent.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    That's just BS. I have addressed all your counter arguments.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    That's just BS. I have addressed all your counter arguments.Devans99

    No, you haven't. You do a combo of just plowing ahead without understanding and just ignoring, then repeating a script like a mantra.

    Then you start another thread where you repeat the same idiocy yet again. You're as OCDish as the antinatalists in that.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    Well go ahead and either raise a counter argument or provide a link to a counter argument that I have not addressed.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    I think that is hypocritical.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    I think that is hypocritical.Devans99

    Not surprising that you'd think that.
  • christian2017
    274


    Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time.Terrapin Station

    The theory of special relativity dictates that the measurement of time is only in accordance with how fast particles are moving. In the case of a photon and all the particles that are of a similar size or small than a photon: the x vector, y vector, and z vector can never be combined to exceed C (speed of light). A clock that approaches the speed C will slow down in terms of the way it tells time.

    This has been shown on airplanes carrying clocks over long periods of time. Time can only be measured in relation to moving objects. If there is no objects there is no way for humans to measure time.
  • christian2017
    274


    read the book Flatland. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein. You've probably seen magazine covers saying the Universe is like one giant computer. Read those articles too if you like.
  • whollyrolling
    408
    This is the problem with every "philosophical" assertion pertaining to the supernatural. There is, without exception, a prerequisite assumption followed by a series of explanations as if the assumption is fact. It is necessarily speculative because there's no basis for something that has never been perceived by the senses.
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k

    Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

    Care to expand?
    — Devans
    At my age...best not to. — Frank Apisa


    Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on earth is there to gain by doing that?
    Devans99

    People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them.



    I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause.
    — Devans

    Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example. — Frank Apisa


    My first cause I suppose was sexual intercourse of my parents. Everything has a cause apart from the timeless first cause surely?
    — Devans

    Obviously from the Book of Devans. BUT you never cite the chapter and verse.

    God??? — Frank Apisa


    "Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

    So the convention of using 'him' to refer to God stems from the Judaic tradition I grant you.

    Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause.

    But...like I said, you are stone-headed.

    That can be a good quality.
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k

    Space doesn't occur without time — Terrapin Station


    Exactly. I can show time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). So space does not exist 'before' time was created. So the creator of both space and time must be spaceless and timeless.
    Devans99

    No, Devans...you cannot.

    Neither could Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman...or the many, many others who pondered this problem.

    Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    This is the problem with every "philosophical" assertion pertaining to the supernatural. There is, without exception, a prerequisite assumption followed by a series of explanations as if the assumption is fact.whollyrolling

    Could you identify the 'prerequisite assumption'?

    It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist) so it must of been created by something external to the universe - something not of nature - something supernatural.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss themFrank Apisa

    I do not dismiss them; I read each one, think about it and post a valid counter-counter argument. Or is someone comes up with a valid counter argument, I acknowledge it and stop posting about that particular idea.

    Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause.Frank Apisa

    I spent a lot of time justifying the existence of the first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1). No-one has come up with any valid counter arguments. So I have done more than 'posit' a first cause; I have shown there must be a first cause - how can anything exist without a first cause?

    Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start.Frank Apisa

    No-one has come up with a valid counter argument. And it makes sense. The Big Bang sure looks like a start of time. Entropy is too low for there not to be a start of time.
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k

    People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them — Frank Apisa


    I do not dismiss them; I read each one, think about it and post a valid counter-counter argument. Or is someone comes up with a valid counter argument, I acknowledge it and stop posting about that particular idea.
    Devans99

    The crux of your over-all argument has been logically rebutted by several people...and YOU DO simply dismiss them.

    You may not be able to see that...but it is so.

    Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause. — Frank Apisa


    I spent a lot of time justifying the existence of the first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1). No-one has come up with any valid counter arguments. So I have done more than 'posit' a first cause; I have shown there must be a first cause - how can anything exist without a first cause?
    — Devans

    Your argument is nonsense...a rehashing of the argument of Aquinas...and the argument of Aquinas was nonsense also.

    You have a blind spot about this...and I suspect it has to do with a desire to show that a GOD must exist.

    Fact is...a GOD...or gods...MAY exist...or may not.

    There is no need for any gods (your supposed need is manufactured and gratuitous to your ends. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose no gods can exist.

    On the Internet we hear arguments from advocates of both camps...and attempts to get them to see the flaws in their arguments are met with laughable denial.

    Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start. — Frank Apisa


    No-one has come up with a valid counter argument. And it makes sense. The Big Bang sure looks like a start of time. Entropy is too low for there not to be a start of time.

    THINK ABOUT THAT. Actually think about it. You are making a categorical statement about something YOU ought not to be making such a statement. YOU are pontificating.
  • Devans99
    1.9k
    A lot of words but not even a single counter argument :(
  • Frank Apisa
    749
    Devans99
    1.2k
    ↪Frank Apisa
    A lot of words but not even a single counter argument :(
    Devans99

    You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand.

    My comment to you is not based on counter arguments. It is something more basic:

    I ask you to consider why you suppose YOU have done what the greatest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do...

    ...and why you suppose it is so easy to see.

    Why do you SUPPOSE that is?

    Why could someone like Albert Einstein not see it?

    Why could someone like Stephen Hawking not see it?

    Why could someone like Richard Feynman not see it?

    Why could someone like Carl Sagan not see it?

    You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph.
  • christian2017
    274
    You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand.

    My comment to you is not based on counter arguments. It is something more basic:

    I ask you to consider why you suppose YOU have done what the greatest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do...

    ...and why you suppose it is so easy to see.

    Why do you SUPPOSE that is?

    Why could someone like Albert Einstein not see it?

    Why could someone like Stephen Hawking not see it?

    Why could someone like Richard Feynman not see it?

    Why could someone like Carl Sagan not see it?

    You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph.
    Frank Apisa

    Only time will tell.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.2k
    The theory of special relativity dictates that the measurement of time is only in accordance with how fast particles are moving. In the case of a photon and all the particles that are of a similar size or small than a photon: the x vector, y vector, and z vector can never be combined to exceed C (speed of light). A clock that approaches the speed C will slow down in terms of the way it tells time.

    This has been shown on airplanes carrying clocks over long periods of time. Time can only be measured in relation to moving objects. If there is no objects there is no way for humans to measure time.
    christian2017

    I'm not clear on how this is a response to my post.
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.