Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote:
I just argue that the concept of a being/thing who could create and be a person at the same time is incoherent.

So here you are saying that God created the universe and is not a person.

But a person exists? ...is that right?

If so, who created the person?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:The concept of God is incoherent...because a concept is a dead thing.

Not that I agree with you that concepts are dead things, but dead things are incoherent?

"Keith can't be dead--the very idea of being dead is incoherent."

Maybe that's how you catalyze a resurrection.

Concepts are dead because they don't know anything, they are already known, but who or what is it that knows a concept?

Dontaskme wrote: What causes the deep ocean currents?

Water density and temperature differences.

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:The concept of God is incoherent...because a concept is a dead thing.

Not that I agree with you that concepts are dead things, but dead things are incoherent?

"Keith can't be dead--the very idea of being dead is incoherent."

Maybe that's how you catalyze a resurrection.

Concepts are dead because they don't know anything, they are already known, but who or what is it that knows a concept?

What knows something is a person. Concepts aren't themselves people, so sure, concepts don't know anything. Concepts are things that people (individuals, that is) construct, and they only exist insofar as people construct them. At any rate, I don't know what any of that has to do with the idea of dead things being incoherent, which is what I was asking you about.

Terrapin Station wrote: "We agree that God created the universe by His Divine act."

Actually, I don't believe any such thing. I'm an atheist. But moving on while putting that aside for a moment:

Cool.

Terrapin Station wrote: "We believe that God could decide about the act of creation."

Sure, most people would probably say that God could decide, although I think a lot of theologians and philosophers of religion would say something more like "Creation is an expression of God's nature." They want to discount the idea of God acting per whim.

Lets for a moment stick to first case, God can decide. We can discuss another later.

Terrapin Station wrote: "This requires decision before act. This is however problematic since we believe that God is in state of timeless(ness) . . ."

Again, I don't buy that God is conventionally seen as timeless. I asked you for some examples in literature of that claim, but I don't know if you provided any.

You can read about God and time here, here and here. I hope that they are good links for you.

There are however two simple reasons to accept timelessness: (1) Time (relative motion) is part of creation and God is not a part of creation hence He is not temporal. (2) Temporal God should be eternal, has no beginning or end. This means that one/God has to wait infinity to reach from eternal past to now, which this is logically impossible.

Terrapin Station wrote: "This means that we have to give up either the decision or the act of creation."

OR the idea that God is timeless, OR particular notions of what time is, and so on. As is often the case, there are a large number of moves that can be made to salvage something. (Hello Duhem-Quine.)

We already discussed the issue of timelessness so I hope we can agree on the fact that God is timeless.

Terrapin Station wrote: "This means that the concept of God is incoherent because He is not a person (a person can decide)."

That's a non sequitur in context. For one, nowhere in your argument did you establish that God must be a person if God exists, or that the idea of God is only coherent just in case God is a person.

I just define the concept of person a little late. Person is a being who can make decision and act.

Terrapin Station wrote: There's also a problem in that you're assuming that if God didn't make a decision about creation, then God was not capable of deciding. That doesn't follow.

If God make a decision then He could not act based on decision since He is in timeless state so as it was illustrated, we have to give up either decision or act.

Arising_uk wrote:

Dontaskme wrote: What causes the deep ocean currents?

Water density and temperature differences.

Thanks...so temperature and density caused the currents...okay.

But, are the currents at deep ocean level aware of the crashing waves going on at the surface? ...since the below and the above are the same body of water?

And are the surface waves aware of the deeper undercurrents?

If not...then who is aware of this knowledge? ...if God is not a person?

Bahman, so when you say that God is "timeless," are you saying that you're referring to the concept more or less in the vein of Aquinas' views for example? Because Aquinas' views are quite different than a lot of what you've been expressing.

Dontaskme wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Dontaskme wrote: What causes the deep ocean currents?

Water density and temperature differences.

Thanks...so temperature and density caused the currents...okay.

But, are the currents at deep ocean level aware of the crashing waves going on at the surface? ...since the below and the above are the same body of water?

And are the surface waves aware of the deeper undercurrents?

If not...then who is aware of this knowledge? ...if God is not a person?

Ocean currents are not conscious, so no, they're not aware of anything.

Dontaskme wrote: You must provide proof that God exists before you can assert it in the first place.

I'm not asserting it you are so you should provide the answer to my question. Where does the notion of God come from?

You said...God created the universe by His Divine act.

How do you know that? ...you answer it since you are asserting it, don''t tell me to look it up somewhere else.

Do you even know how to answer my question?

What you asked to prove are my premises: (1) God is the creator, (2) God is timeless and (3) God is a person (can decide and act). In short, we just showed that there is a problem in the timelessness, the act of creation and decision.

Dontaskme wrote:

bahman wrote: I just argue that the concept of a being/thing who could create and be a person at the same time is incoherent.

So here you are saying that God created the universe and is not a person.

But a person exists? ...is that right?

If so, who created the person?

Simply, I claim that God, the creator, cannot be a person, a being with ability decide and act.

Terrapin Station wrote: Bahman, so when you say that God is "timeless," are you saying that you're referring to the concept more or less in the vein of Aquinas' views for example? Because Aquinas' views are quite different than a lot of what you've been expressing.

Timeless to me is absence of relative motion or time. It simply mean changeless/motionless (accepting that time is relative change/motion). God in this picture can only perform one eternal act which is the act of creation from beginning to end.

He believed that creation could be eternal which I don't. Other than that I think we are in the same page.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Bahman, so when you say that God is "timeless," are you saying that you're referring to the concept more or less in the vein of Aquinas' views for example? Because Aquinas' views are quite different than a lot of what you've been expressing.

Timeless to me is absence of relative motion or time. It simply mean changeless/motionless (accepting that time is relative change/motion). God in this picture can only perform one eternal act which is the act of creation from beginning to end.

He believed that creation could be eternal which I don't. Other than that I think we are in the same page.

Aquinas believed that God interacted with people--for example, he believed that God answered prayers. That wouldn't be possible under your views.

I asked because you referred me to comments about God's relationship to time that do not seem to resemble yours at all.

How could God perform the act of creation under your views? That's not changeless or motionless.

(Personally, I think the the very idea of a changeless existent has problems, and at best, it could only be something hypothetical.)

Terrapin Station wrote:Ocean currents are not conscious, so no, they're not aware of anything.

So who knows the knowledge that ocean currents are not conscious?

bahman wrote:
Simply, I claim that God, the creator, cannot be a person, a being with ability decide and act.

So who is deciding and acting?

Is it being or a person ? ...is a person a being...or is being a person?

You mentioned two things here...person and being...which one of those two things (being/person) is doing the deciding and acting?

bahman wrote:
What you asked to prove are my premises: (1) God is the creator, (2) God is timeless and (3) God is a person (can decide and act). In short, we just showed that there is a problem in the timelessness, the act of creation and decision.

If there is a problem with acting and deciding in the timelessness, then there must be one acting and deciding in time ? who is that one?