How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[bahman]

Well, What is the truth that Jesus offers?

Himself.

What is signifcant in Him that make you believe so. He is a mind afterall.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, What is the truth that Jesus offers?

Himself.

What is signifcant in Him that make you believe so.

Find out. Read about Him. Judge for yourself. I did.

See if He is the Truth, as He said He is, or whether He is just another person pretending to be the Truth. I need not persuade you: you will know.

[bahman]

Himself.

What is signifcant in Him that make you believe so.

Find out. Read about Him. Judge for yourself. I did.

See if He is the Truth, as He said He is, or whether He is just another person pretending to be the Truth. I need not persuade you: you will know.

What if I prove that there is no such a thing as God?

[Immanuel Can]

What if I prove that there is no such a thing as God?

Heh. Knock yourself out. Have a go.

[bahman]

What if I prove that there is no such a thing as God?

Heh. Knock yourself out. Have a go.

That is the simple one. If there is a God then this means that there was a point that there was God and nothing else. God then creates everything. But time is needed for the process of creation, God alone to God plus creation is a temporal process. This means that God has to have time in order to create time too. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

[Immanuel Can]

But time is needed for the process of creation

That isn't correct. It takes temporal terms, and attempts to apply them to eternity.

"Time" has several definitions. Some have to do with entropy, for example. But one is "the interval between two points." In other words, time requires the already-existence of two distinct points in space, through which the interval can be described as the "time" it takes to pass between them.

If that definition is right, then time comes into being with space and matter...it does not pre-exist them.

The "disproof" therefore fails. Time is a created entity, not an eternal one. Eternity is timeless.

[bahman]

But time is needed for the process of creation

That isn't correct. It takes temporal terms, and attempts to apply them to eternity.

Why? The act of creation is temporal. There are two states of affair one comes after another one. You can keep God in eternity though.

"Time" has several definitions. Some have to do with entropy, for example. But one is "the interval between two points." In other words, time requires the already-existence of two distinct points in space, through which the interval can be described as the "time" it takes to pass between them.

If that definition is right, then time comes into being with space and matter...it does not pre-exist them.

The "disproof" therefore fails. Time is a created entity, not an eternal one. Eternity is timeless.

Lots of misconceptions. Time has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder that can be found in any system with a large number of particles.

[Immanuel Can]

But time is needed for the process of creation

That isn't correct. It takes temporal terms, and attempts to apply them to eternity.

Why? The act of creation is temporal.

No, the act of creation creates temporality. Time is a product of creation.

That's quite a different thing to say.

Time has nothing to do with entropy.

Well, one definition of time is, "The means by which we measure the rate of entropy." That's not the relevant definition, but it's also not wrong. We do use time in order to do that.

We do it every time somebody asks you, "How old are you?"

You say, "Fifty four."

They say, "Wow. You're old."

You say, "Not that old."

They say, "Well, you're closer to being dead than to being born."

And they're right. On the line between the two points "birth" and "death," fifty-four is probably closer to death than to birth. Fifty four years of time have passed.

[bahman]

That isn't correct. It takes temporal terms, and attempts to apply them to eternity.

Why? The act of creation is temporal.

No, the act of creation creates temporality. Time is a product of creation.

That's quite a different thing to say.

My point is that you need time for the creation of anything including time. Did you understand that part of my argument?

Time has nothing to do with entropy.

Well, one definition of time is, "The means by which we measure the rate of entropy." That's not the relevant definition, but it's also not wrong. We do use time in order to do that.

We do it every time somebody asks you, "How old are you?"

You say, "Fifty four."

They say, "Wow. You're old."

You say, "Not that old."

They say, "Well, you're closer to being dead than to being born."

And they're right. On the line between the two points "birth" and "death," fifty-four is probably closer to death than to birth. Fifty four years of time have passed.

Entropy increases as time passes. But time has nothing to do with entropy.

[Immanuel Can]

Entropy increases as time passes.

Its rate is actually a very predictable incline. So yes, there's more of it as time goes on, but the rate is calculable. So we can use it to measure time.

But you've gotten off track. I didn't use the entropy definition: I merely mentioned it as an aside. I used the two-points definition, which is relevant. So let's talk about that.

[bahman]

Entropy increases as time passes.

Its rate is actually a very predictable incline. So yes, there's more of it as time goes on, but the rate is calculable. So we can use it to measure time.

But you've gotten off track. I didn't use the entropy definition: I merely mentioned it as an aside. I used the two-points definition, which is relevant. So let's talk about that.

Yes, we are off track. Do you agree that there are two states of affair in creation? God alone and God plus creation.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you agree that there are two states of affair in creation? God alone and God plus creation.

No.

The reason I can't accept that summary is that that explanation treats God as a "thing" or as a substance, and creation as another, both within a realm called "states of affairs." But there are no "affairs" when there is no creation, and nothing is in a "state of affairs." Moreover, God is not a substance, and not a point-in-time.

I think perhaps you're having trouble conceiving of the idea that time is not transcendent but created. But that recognition really does radically change the equation.

[bahman]

Do you agree that there are two states of affair in creation? God alone and God plus creation.

No.

The reason I can't accept that summary is that that explanation treats God as a "thing" or as a substance, and creation as another, both within a realm called "states of affairs." But there are no "affairs" when there is no creation, and nothing is in a "state of affairs." Moreover, God is not a substance, and not a point-in-time.

I think perhaps you're having trouble conceiving of the idea that time is not transcendent but created. But that recognition really does radically change the equation.

So there was no point that God was alone?

[Immanuel Can]

So there was no point that God was alone?

The question is ill-formed. For the word "alone" supposes the existence of space and substance. The word simply does not apply to the eternal past, in which there are no dimensions such as space and substance.

[bahman]

So there was no point that God was alone?

The question is ill-formed. For the word "alone" supposes the existence of space and substance. The word simply does not apply to the eternal past, in which there are no dimensions such as space and substance.

The question is not ill-formed. If God as it is described in the Bible created the universe then there was a point that the creation did not exist. At that point you only have God.