Two paradoxes related to God

[bahman]

You cannot wait from now to infinite future. You cannot wait from infinite past to now.

Why not? can you substantiate your position?

Because infinity+any finite number=infinity where any finite number is your waiting time.

[bahman]

I don't believe in Bible. :-S

Fair enough. so what's your guide to know god's qualities, the properties of god the "specs" if you want to put it that way?

All properties of God is subject of longer discussion. Here we are discussing whether He is timeless or temporal.

Why do you believe in creation? What is your reason for it?

I don't believe in creation. I just discuss God who has ability to create. I don't understand the beginning.

Why do you even insist that god has properties, such as timelessness or being temporal?

These are the only two options when it comes to time.

What is your reference to what qualities god has?

He is a being. So apparently He does things.

[bahman]

It certainly is ming-boggling why the creation happened when it did, since god has had an infinite amount of time to decide when to go for it.

But it did happen, and it happened whenever it happened.

This cuts through the polemification and pondering and speculation when god decided to do this creation. That is not an issue any longer when you think that this is when it happened.

You actually can't say "it was impossible for god to do the creation" when you are a creature of creation.

You are referring to temporal God (bold p art). This is the second argument related to timeless God.

This has become moot. Your god is not defined. It's not the god of the bible. So I have no clue what attributes you believe this god to have.

This entire argument hinges upon some assumptions, and I don't know the source of your assumptions. It would be easier if your god was assumed to be the Christian god, but you deny that.

I can't really make an argument against air. Your god just went up in a POOF, it became dematerialized, at least inasmuch as it is impossible for others on this page to grasp what you believe god is. Since you have no comprehensive reference as to what it is that entails god.

I discussed two different Gods here, temporal (God of bible for example) and timeless (God of philosopher).

[bahman]

You have nothing+God then creation+God. You need time for that and time is a part of creation. That is contrary.

...Or you could just repeat yourself, but phrased in a different way; What you're saying doesn't actually demonstrate anything, it's just a statement of what you believe has to be the case without showing exactly why. Theologians have specifically addressed why the act of creation differentiates from actions which do need time, and I would say they have sufficiently explained it. It's not where I would personally object to the cosmological argument.

So how they explain that you need time for creation?

[Harbal]

Ultimately, you are the proof that God exists,

I am not aware of God, therefore God doesn't exist.

[Dontaskme]

I am not aware of God, therefore God doesn't exist.

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

.

God is not what thought thinks it is.

[Harbal]

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

Does that principle apply to can openers?

[-1-]

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

Therefore unicorns exist.

Therefore three-headed purple stone gobblers with polka-dot mantles exist whom teen-age girls go gaga over.

Therefore the seven-breasted Whore of Babylon exists.

[-1-]

You cannot wait from now to infinite future. You cannot wait from infinite past to now.

Why not? can you substantiate your position?

Because infinity+any finite number=infinity where any finite number is your waiting time.

"where any finite number is your waiting time" -- substitute "infinity" for "any finite number" and you got why your assumption is not valid. You can wait a finite amount of time. You can wait an infinitely long time. There is no reason why you must restrict waiting time to one or to the other.

[-1-]

so what's your guide to know god's qualities, the properties of god the "specs" if you want to put it that way?

All properties of God is subject of longer discussion. Here we are discussing whether He is timeless or temporal.

All properties of God are subject to a longer discussion. Yet you go way beyond just the two properties you restrict the discussion to: he is timeless or else he is temporal.

Well. You are throwing in a whole bunch of OTHER very pertinent and needed assumptions, which you deny here throwing in: he is capable of creation, he is everlasting, etc. etc.

You name two premises, and yet your thesis can't even begin to work without further assumptions.

How do you know your assumptions are the same as someone else's?

You are all of a sudden comparing apples to oranges.

Your assumptions, from the looks of it, resemble the Christian god of the bible. Yet you deny that that's what you are talking about.

this is a veritable nightmare. You mix up your assumptions with others, and you hope they are compatible.

This argument is untenable, because you assume too much that others assume you are assuming.

This can't go on. We might as well speak different languages and not understand each other, and call our babble a discussion.

If you can't nail down for us what god's qualities are, other than being temporal or timeless, the whole discussion is meaningless. I could assume, and you can't deny that this is a valid assumption, that god is not capable of creating anything greater in size than an apple, and he is very potent, but not omnipotent. You can't say that's not true, and you can't even say that that's silly, because the ONLY thing you hold god to, is that he be temporal or timeless. He does not even have to do any creation.

You see where I am driving at.

You can't just have these two premises. You must make other qualifying descriptors of this god you want to talk about, otherwise nothing can be said.

"He is temporal or timeless. Nothing else qualifies god." ?????

[Dontaskme]

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

Does that principle apply to can openers?

No can opener has ever been seen, it’s a conceptual known by no thing...aka awareness.

If we did not have to conceptualise objects in the first place, we would not have to conceptualise awareness.

You mistake the images upon the screen of awareness for reality. Real reality has no image of itself except as concept in this conception.



.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

You have nothing+God then creation+God. You need time for that and time is a part of creation. That is contrary.

...Or you could just repeat yourself, but phrased in a different way; What you're saying doesn't actually demonstrate anything, it's just a statement of what you believe has to be the case without showing exactly why. Theologians have specifically addressed why the act of creation differentiates from actions which do need time, and I would say they have sufficiently explained it. It's not where I would personally object to the cosmological argument.

So how they explain that you need time for creation?

I've already told you how; Time is a form of progression, and according to them, the act of 'willing something' into existence isn't something which needs it, because there isn't a start, middle and finish as there is with something like a rock rolling down a hill. So they believe they do not need a measurable gamut of transitioning from one thing into the next, like working off of a chain-reaction as things in our current world need to do.

[Dontaskme]

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

Therefore unicorns exist.

Therefore three-headed purple stone gobblers with polka-dot mantles exist whom teen-age girls go gaga over.

Therefore the seven-breasted Whore of Babylon exists.

The ego aka the mind will come up with all kinds of diversion strategies to avoid real reality which is void of ''thought''

There are no things aka ''thoughts'' ...there is only the experience of things seeming to be objects within the field of awareness itself and since we are aware of this experience, we are awareness itself.

Life is just a dream dreamt by no one aka pure awareness. When the dream is over, there is no thing...just silent presence.

Sometimes I mistakenly believe I am mind and nearly always mind mistakenly believes it is me.

One of us is so, the other is not.

Who knows which of these assertions is true or false?

''I do'', says mind nearly every time. But even more often then that, there is Silence.

.

[Dontaskme]

.

It matters not whether a concept arises as an animate or inanimate object because that which is aware of an animate or inanimate conceptual object is neither animate nor inanimate ..awareness is not a thing that can be known..it is the knowing, the only knowing there is. Awareness is not a thing seen, it is the seeing, the only seeing there is.

.

[-1-]

You have to exist to be aware of the concept God doesn’t exist.

Therefore God exists.

Therefore unicorns exist.

Therefore three-headed purple stone gobblers with polka-dot mantles exist whom teen-age girls go gaga over.

Therefore the seven-breasted Whore of Babylon exists.

The ego aka the mind will come up with all kinds of diversion strategies to avoid real reality which is void of ''thought''

There are no things aka ''thoughts'' ...there is only the experience of things seeming to be objects within the field of awareness itself and since we are aware of this experience, we are awareness itself.

Life is just a dream dreamt by no one aka pure awareness. When the dream is over, there is no thing...just silent presence.

Sometimes I mistakenly believe I am mind and nearly always mind mistakenly believes it is me.

One of us is so, the other is not.

Who knows which of these assertions is true or false?

''I do'', says mind nearly every time. But even more often then that, there is Silence.

.

Nice poem. Very lyrical.