We cannot have a relationship with God

[Immanuel Can]

duplicate

[Immanuel Can]

In what regards?

In any regards.

Then your claim is untrue, and the OP fails at the first premise.

I am amused with the concept of relationaly-changeless then if God remains the same.

That's because you haven't perhaps considered what "change" actually is. It's one thing when posited of a particular person or thing: but it's an entirely different issue to posit it of something that is only relative to that thing.

The thing itself does not change. But change happens in the relative object and in the connection between that object and the original object.

Why? Please show that this is true. We would need reasons to believe it. Personally, I know of no such proof: it looks like a mere assumption, and what it's based on I cannot say.

Because God is timeless and we are temporal.

But "timeless" means "beyond time," not "outside of time." God can be both in time and in eternity, with no contradiction there.

Consider this: you accept "the Creator" as a definition of "God." But how could He "create" if He has to remain entirely separate from time? At least in the act of creation, He must have had to act INTO time. And if He could do so once, what reason would we have for thinking He could not do so more than one time?

You see? It doesn't make sense.

I fear your current idea of God is too small. A God who simply could not do anything within time would not be a Supreme Being.

Because you think it means "other people's relations to God have to also remain changeless." This isn't true, by definition. So your premise is guilty of an error logicians have called "amphiboly." And when a syllogism (your OP) contains an amphiboly, it means that the conclusion is no longer reliable.

Take out the amphiboly (the slide between "changeless" as it applies to God's nature, on the one hand, and to relationships to God on the other) and we'll see if your OP stands. But you need to get rid of the fallacy first.

I am not following you right now.

I know. That's why you need to look up the word "amphiboly." It will help you understand.

So you believe that is conscious meaning that He experience things? What is the point of experience if He knows everything.

I'm not suggesting God's "experience" is the same as ours. As One who knows all things, he is not "surprised" by things the way we are, and a sort of "surprise" is part of normal human experience. But that God knows things is something the entire Western tradition believes.

Well, I think I have issues with Western definition of God.

I think so too. But that's okay.

When I first started studying the Eastern perspective, I was also confused. I was placing my Western categories on Eastern patterns of thought. It took me a bit to see that the differences are foundational, and that you have to shift your perspective a bit to get an understanding of how Easterners actually see things. But nowadays I understand some of the basic differences; and this is why I can point them out to you. The Eastern view of God is generally about a Cosmic Force with no particular personality. The exception to that would be in something like Hinduism, which has "avatars" of the "god" that have different characteristics: but even there, behind the millions of potential Hindu "gods" is said to be this giant cosmic Force known as "the god." Ultimately, all the avatars are just avatars of that.

Western thought is not the same about that. The concept of God in the West derives from Hebrew Monotheism, in which a personal God reveals himself, speaks, has intentions and purposes for mankind, and in fact has a specific identity and nature. He's not a giant cosmic blank, like "the god" in the Eastern mystical traditions or the "Abyss" god of the Gnostics. He is a real "person," so to speak.

It's different. You don't have to agree, but until you understand that it is you'll have a hard time seeing why your defeater (OP) for Eastern concepts of "the god" is no kind of defeater for the Western concept.

[Terrapin Station]

bahman, do you not see God as being the creator of the world?

I can accept God as a concept for sake of argument, namely the creator.

He can't be the creator if he can't change/can't be in time, though.

[bahman]

Then your claim is untrue, and the OP fails at the first premise.

Why?

That's because you haven't perhaps considered what "change" actually is.

Change for me means: Make or become different. What is your definition of change?

It's one thing when posited of a particular person or thing: but it's an entirely different issue to posit it of something that is only relative to that thing.

The thing itself does not change. But change happens in the relative object and in the connection between that object and the original object.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate?

But "timeless" means "beyond time," not "outside of time." God can be both in time and in eternity, with no contradiction there.

What do you mean by beyond the time? Things are either timeless or temporal, outside of the time or inside the time. There is no another option.

Consider this: you accept "the Creator" as a definition of "God." But how could He "create" if He has to remain entirely separate from time? At least in the act of creation, He must have had to act INTO time. And if He could do so once, what reason would we have for thinking He could not do so more than one time?

Time is an element of creation itself so God cannot enter to time to create universe. That is how I understand the problem: God existence and the act of creation lay in the same point. By creation I mean the starting state and all other states later. So God stay timeless and He create the universe.

You see? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make any sense at all.

I fear your current idea of God is too small. A God who simply could not do anything within time would not be a Supreme Being.

What do you mean with small? God as I understand can create universe but He is subjected to some constraints. He cannot do impossible thing, like entering the time and existing.

I know. That's why you need to look up the word "amphiboly." It will help you understand.

I check the word and that really didn't help.

I'm not suggesting God's "experience" is the same as ours. As One who knows all things, he is not "surprised" by things the way we are, and a sort of "surprise" is part of normal human experience. But that God knows things is something the entire Western tradition believes.

So I think you are having problem here for the reason you cannot explain why God need to experience things if He already knows everything.

I think so too. But that's okay.

When I first started studying the Eastern perspective, I was also confused. I was placing my Western categories on Eastern patterns of thought. It took me a bit to see that the differences are foundational, and that you have to shift your perspective a bit to get an understanding of how Easterners actually see things. But nowadays I understand some of the basic differences; and this is why I can point them out to you. The Eastern view of God is generally about a Cosmic Force with no particular personality. The exception to that would be in something like Hinduism, which has "avatars" of the "god" that have different characteristics: but even there, behind the millions of potential Hindu "gods" is said to be this giant cosmic Force known as "the god." Ultimately, all the avatars are just avatars of that.

Western thought is not the same about that. The concept of God in the West derives from Hebrew Monotheism, in which a personal God reveals himself, speaks, has intentions and purposes for mankind, and in fact has a specific identity and nature. He's not a giant cosmic blank, like "the god" in the Eastern mystical traditions or the "Abyss" god of the Gnostics. He is a real "person," so to speak.

It's different. You don't have to agree, but until you understand that it is you'll have a hard time seeing why your defeater (OP) for Eastern concepts of "the god" is no kind of defeater for the Western concept.

I have problem with personal God. I have a thread on this here. In this thread I simply explain that God for example cannot decide considering the fact that He is timeless (outside of time).

[bahman]

bahman, do you not see God as being the creator of the world?

I can accept God as a concept for sake of argument, namely the creator.

He can't be the creator if he can't change/can't be in time, though.

Time is a element of creation too. So God cannot enter into time in order to create. That is how I understand and can resolve the situation: God existence and the act of creation, starting and all states later, lay at the same point.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is a element of creation too. So God cannot enter into time in order to create.

The problem I have with that is that time is simply motion/(processual) change. (Again, remember that I don't think it's necessary to put "relative" before motion because that should be understood.)

So if a god does anything, if a god creates things--like creating the world--god is necessarily involved with time. The only way it's possible for there to be no time is if everything is frozen. But then nothing can be created of course. That's not being frozen, it's motion.

[Immanuel Can]

Time is a element of creation too. So God cannot enter into time in order to create.

Then you are not thinking that "God" means "the Creator of the universe." Yet that is who Westerners mean when they say "God."

That is how I understand and can resolve the situation: God existence and the act of creation, starting and all states later, lay at the same point.

Not possible unless you are thinking of a created God. Western tradition does not hold that God was ever created. So you are thinking again of a different concept than they are. It's not their idea of "God."

[Immanuel Can]

Then your claim is untrue, and the OP fails at the first premise.

Why?

Because Westerners do not believe that God cannot "change" in the sense you want them to believe it. So they deny your first premise.

Change for me means: Make or become different. What is your definition of change?

No, you're missing the point. You're saying "God doesn't change," in the sense that He is not modified and does not become different. But in Western thought, WE ARE NOT PART OF GOD. So if we change, God does not. He is distinct from His Creation.

It's one thing when posited of a particular person or thing: but it's an entirely different issue to posit it of something that is only relative to that thing.

The thing itself does not change. But change happens in the relative object and in the connection between that object and the original object.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate?

I think I can't make it simpler. Sorry.

But "timeless" means "beyond time," not "outside of time." God can be both in time and in eternity, with no contradiction there.

What do you mean by beyond the time? Things are either timeless or temporal, outside of the time or inside the time. There is no another option.

No, things can be both IN time, OUTSIDE time, or both INSIDE AND OUTSIDE of time. Time is not the decider of where God is, in Western thought. Time is a created property, not an ultimate one.

In fact, scientifically we know that is correct. Time itself came into being at the original singularity that produced the universe.

Time is an element of creation itself..

.
Yes, yes it is. Now you've got it.

...so God cannot enter to time to create universe....

Incorrect. I can build a house, and I can enter my house. There is no problem there. Surely if God is the creator of time, He can also choose to enter time, if He wishes.

What do you mean with small?

You seem to think that time limits Him. As you say, you think that He cannot enter time.

God as I understand can create universe but He is subjected to some constraints.

What would those be?

I know. That's why you need to look up the word "amphiboly." It will help you understand.

I check the word and that really didn't help.

Sorry, then. It's still the problem you're running into.

Maybe I can help you understand. Suppose I offer you this argument:

People who live on the Indian subcontinent are Indians.
Indians are native North Americans.
Therefore, the people who live on the Indian subcontinent are all native North Americans.

Now, if you see what's wrong with that argument, then you understand what "amphiboly" is. It's when you make a claim about one kind of thing, and then transfer it to another kind of thing using the same name, but the two are not identical.

I have problem with personal God. I have a thread on this here. In this thread I simply explain that God for example cannot decide considering the fact that He is timeless (outside of time).

Yes. I understand that. But the Western God is a personal God. So your OP is not relevant to the Western thinker. Whether it works for Easterners, I'll let them say.

Western thought says God is beyond time: that is, He is not subject to time, but He can choose to act within time as well. Time does not, in Western thought, limit God.

[Immanuel Can]

Time is a element of creation too. So God cannot enter into time in order to create.

The problem I have with that is that time is simply motion/(processual) change. (Again, remember that I don't think it's necessary to put "relative" before motion because that should be understood.)

So if a god does anything, if a god creates things--like creating the world--god is necessarily involved with time. The only way it's possible for there to be no time is if everything is frozen. But then nothing can be created of course. That's not being frozen, it's motion.

The category [motion] "frozen" is drawn from time itself. So is the expression "motion." They are temporal terms.

Outside of time, we don't know exactly what rules would apply. Well, in point of fact, we don't even know what a "rule" would be, then. What we can safely say is, "It wouldn't be like what we know."

[Terrapin Station]

The category [motion] "frozen" is drawn from time itself. So is the expression "motion." They are temporal terms.

Outside of time, we don't know exactly what rules would apply. Well, in point of fact, we don't even know what a "rule" would be, then. What we can safely say is, "It wouldn't be like what we know."

Well, obviously motion is going to be a temporal term if time is identical to motion. And "frozen" in this context, too, since we're referring to there being no motion. So "outside of time," there can be no motion--because motion/time is an identity.

[Immanuel Can]

So "outside of time," there can be no motion--because motion/time is an identity.

Fair enough. But we can't be sure of what IS the case in a non-time-governed situation. Infinity is an immensely tricky concept, one in which (as mathematician David Hilbert showed) our tools of ordinary reason and common sense themselves don't operate reliably anymore.

"Time" is a measure of entropy. But what do you measure in a non-entropic situation? Nobody knows.

So we're sort of shooting in the dark on that one.

[Terrapin Station]

"Time" is a measure of entropy.

I disagree with that view of what time is.

I'm also skeptical that there are any actual infinities, also.

I don't see any reason to suppose that anything can exist without time. But it's no mystery that the idea of an absence of time requires no motion, no events, no change, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

"Time" is a measure of entropy.

I disagree with that view of what time is.

It's just one definition. But it's one I find useful.

I'm also skeptical that there are any actual infinities, also.

That's the point. So am I, and so was Hilbert. But it's quite clear that the universe had an origin. Nothing originates without a cause. So what was that cause? That's the interesting question.

I don't see any reason to suppose that anything can exist without time.

Oh, it has to. We know that time is a contingent property. Outside of what we know as "time" we would need a whole new concept. We're just very hard pressed to say what that concept would be....

But it's no mystery that the idea of an absence of time requires no motion, no events, no change, etc.

Actually, this is far from evident. In fact, something akin to the opposite must be true.

Take the origin of the universe: something must have "moved" in order for the universe to commence. But what that kind of "movement" is really like, we can't say.

If the universe had, prior to the Big Bang, been in a state of , say, absolute eternal motionlessness, then how could anything ever have happened at all?

[bahman]

Time is a element of creation too. So God cannot enter into time in order to create.

The problem I have with that is that time is simply motion/(processual) change. (Again, remember that I don't think it's necessary to put "relative" before motion because that should be understood.)

So if a god does anything, if a god creates things--like creating the world--god is necessarily involved with time. The only way it's possible for there to be no time is if everything is frozen. But then nothing can be created of course. That's not being frozen, it's motion.

There is noting before the act of creation so there is no time also. I used "before" in the previous sentence which is a mistake. The only way to skip this mistake is to define the creation as following. The existence of God and act of creation lay at the same point.

[bahman]

I think of God as the creator of universe. The problem is that there is no before the act of creation since there is no time. So we are dealing with a problem which can only be resolved in one way: God existence and the act of creation, starting state and all states later, lay at the same point.

Not possible unless you are thinking of a created God. Western tradition does not hold that God was ever created. So you are thinking again of a different concept than they are. It's not their idea of "God."

I am not talking about created God. The problem is that there is no before the act of creation since there is no time so the only way to skip the problem is to accept that God existence and the act of creation lay in the same point.