 |
| 
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 9/11/2001 5:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Doc. You Wrote:
quote:
I don't follow your line of reasoning. How do you jump from the denial of preexistent dimensions to the denial of pre-creational sequence? I hear Magneton affirming pre-creational sequence -- in God, with angels, etc... But he denies, I assume, pre-creational dimensions. Is he inconsistent?
Just to clear the symantic issues, I don't care if you call sequencing(time) a dimension or not, this is a label we give to fundamental things others may tag differently.
re: pre-existing itself: If God created X, then there was a "before X" and and "after X," correct?
"Before" and "After" are sequencing indication words, that is, they tell you what the relating time position of the events was, they are ordinal words, ordering the sequences.
Now lets do a mind exercise: time=X(=sequence if you prefer that), God created time, so there is a "before time (was created)," and an "after time (was created)."
Remember though that the word "before" is a time ordering word. You cannot use the word without time so you are left with: there is a "__________," and an "after time (was created)."
We have to eliminate absurd notions to clarify the sentence, so I removed the absurd phrase. But now the sentence doesn't make sense because the word "after" has no sequence reference on which it depended for meaning. This isn't just an English problem, it is a logical problem. Therefore the creation of time is reductio absurdum.
I know this next one was going to cause some interest, I've never heard anyone speak of it even in the OV group:
quote:
2I'm also puzzelled, and intrigued, by your postulation of pre-creational dimensions. Does this mean you believe that Yahweh has a finite size, a shape, a weight (or maybe three sizes, shapes and weights in the Trinity?)? Do you believe that God exists somewhere within the physical universe (or at least within space)? If we possessed the technological capacities, could we take a rocket ship to heaven? Also, if God is located within the universe, does information have to travel to him? If so, how can you affirm (if you affirm) that God knows all present reality as it occurs?
OK, to get though this let me put text between your statements:
quote:
Does this mean you believe that Yahweh has a finite size, a shape, a weight (or maybe three sizes, shapes and weights in the Trinity?)?
Let me use the obverse argument: Do you think he has unlimited dimensions? This would mean he is everywhere? Then the angels could not leave his presence. With Moses, he would not have to look down and see anything because he would be at or in the molten calf as well as on the mountain, and, of course, he would be in hell. The spiritual domain would be filled with him and there could be nothing else in it because it would be filled. He would be in Satan, etc. ad infinitum. I don't think anyone actually holds that idea, once thought out.
quote:
Do you believe that God exists somewhere within the physical universe (or at least within space)? If we possessed the technological capacities, could we take a rocket ship to heaven?
Good questions. No, you can't travel in this DOMAIN to heaven. (You travel in the other domain when you die because your spirit is in that domain. Angels travels through time/space in that domain, see Daniel's prayer of 22 days.) You could think of it as a "parallel universe" kind of, that is, likely the spiritual domain uses some of the same, but not all of the same dimensions our physical universe uses to exist (it likey uses more than just the 4d we have been discussing, don't ask, I don't know what they would be). If there was no dimension sharing between then, then there would be realtionships, no way to communicate between them and perhaps Kant was right about the split between reality and the spiritual realm (i.e. faith). I would hold the same 4d we have been speaking of is the same but other dimensions are different resulting in a different type of existence occupying the same space but our senses do not detect them. But there is a relationship, and angels, for instance, use both domains. Jesus was in one only, popped into this one from time to time in the OT, then was incarnated into this domain permanently.
quote:
Also, if God is located within the universe, does information have to travel to him?
No, and, yes. He isn't in what we are now calling the universe, (i.e. the PHYSICAL universe), but the U word actually includes everything that exists, God does, so, this is symantics. Sometimes I will use the U word to include the spiritual realm, but never without first stating that clearly. Here I haven't. Does information travel to him?
Look again at Moses. While they were making the calf, was God aware of it? If so, why did he suddenly become mad if he knew it was happening? (Back to basic OV arguments.) Exactly what his communications system is, I don't know, but I believe he can get any information he wants to have.
quote:
If so, how can you affirm (if you affirm) that God knows all present reality as it occurs?
Only if he wants to know the particulars. I suspect he is now paying close attention to New York City, but, while they were building the World Trade Centers, in the gravel pit, a loader scooped up a small kids marble that he left while he was playing the night before. That marble was loaded into the concrete that made it into the building. Do you think God knows (cares) where that marble is right now?
Information Overload
Why would God track this information? Who cares? Right? That's the point. We took the text where Jesus told them that God watches a sparrow (Luke 12:6-7) and extrapolate it too far. Correct me if I am wrong, but those were sparrows given in an offering. That is likely why he did not forget them, not because he tracks all data in the universe, he doesn't.
I told you this would cause a rowe:D
Newcomb
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 9/13/2001 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Lord, make me an instrument of your peace...
I stand corrected on the idea that space is being created on the leading edge of the expanding universe.  The following website clarifies: quote:
Here one should not think of the galaxies as moving through space, but rather that the space between the galaxies is expanding. - Thomas Roman. http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics57/
Further, the question of whether space itself is finite or infinite is far from settled:quote:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
Magneton
Time exists so everything doesn't happen at once. Space exists so everything doesn't happen to you. - Anonymous
| | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 9/13/2001 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Newcomb:
You wrote
"Let me use the obverse argument: Do you think he has unlimited dimensions? This would mean he is everywhere? Then the angels could not leave his presence. With Moses, he would not have to look down and see anything because he would be at or in the molten calf as well as on the mountain, and, of course, he would be in hell. The spiritual domain would be filled with him and there could be nothing else in it because it would be filled. He would be in Satan, etc. ad infinitum. I don't think anyone actually holds that idea, once thought out."
in response to Dr. Boyd's question about whether God is confined to our dimensions.
While you didn't directly answer, I assume you to mean that you feel He is. My questions are then-
"What about God's Omni's?" and-
"Do you beleive in a finite deity?" and, if not-
"How can the infinite be contained within finitude?"
I have always considered our dimensionality to be a constraint not a necessity. It is interesting you mention Hugh Ross because I have read reviews of his material by theologians who raise the same objections. Namely, that he seems to posit a God contained within dimensions(albeit more than our 3 or 4), in fact, subject to them. Which raises more questions, like, "Did space pre-exist God or why is He cointained within it?"
Just curious.
God bless.
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 9/14/2001 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | still_unsure wrote:
quote:
in response to Dr. Boyd's question about whether God is confined to our dimensions.
First, the word "our" you used above suggests that we invented dimensions. We didn't, but we can describe them. Describing it is not the same as creating it. We were at the National Gallery a few weeks agi and I described a Monet to my daughter. Monet painted it, I just described how he did it.
The problem is that you just loaded the question, so I'll unload it before answering it. :)
quote:
While you didn't directly answer, I assume you to mean that you feel He is.
Yes, he is subject to dimensions because I posited that they are necessary for existence. If that is correct, then everything that exists is subject to them.
quote:
My questions are then-
"What about God's Omni's?" and-
"Do you beleive in a finite deity?" and, if not-
Well, which omni's?
Omniscience: He knows everything (he wants to) that has happened, is happening, and things he plans for the future. we, like him, do not know what there is not to know. (Does he know the thoughts of Barbe (by Mattel)?
quote:
"How can the infinite be contained within finitude?"
I didn't say that dimensions are finite, you assume they are.
quote:
I have always considered our dimensionality to be a constraint not a necessity.
Which of your dimensions could I take away and have you survive? Height? In one sence, that is what happened at the World Trade Centers with devestating results. Time? So you could not progress, sequence, or experiewnce the future? These are not optional, they are necessary.
Do you know what the word means in a philosophical sense? It means it is an absolute that cannot not be. Yes, that's a double negative in English, if you translate it into Spanish or Russian, this will loose it's meaning.
quote:
It is interesting you mention Hugh Ross because I have read reviews of his material by theologians who raise the same objections. Namely, that he seems to posit a God contained within dimensions(albeit more than our 3 or 4), in fact, subject to them. Which raises more questions, like, "Did space pre-exist God or why is He cointained within it?"
While I haven't read Ross, just listened and rejected his cosmology, he might be right, I don't know why he holds this idea. He might be right about a fact but arrives there by faulty thinking, I can't say.
I didn't claim, anything preexisted God. Nothing can preexist the self-existent one, but things that are not alive could have co-existed for all time.
Again, dimentions come together to create domains. Things exist in domains. God is the cause of all contingent things (things that are not necessary). God did not create necessary things like himself or dimensions.
There is no such thing as a finite deity. The concept has been used before (lots of false gods out there), but it is a absurdity.
Why is he contained within dimensions? Because they are necessary for anything to exist, not just contingent things, everything. OK?
1) God is the only necessary living being, he is self existent, eternal, all powerful, personal, loving, etc.
2) God experiences dimensions similarly to the way we do.
3) The "spiritual realm" i.e. heaven, hell, angels, etc. is in a domain that shares some, but not necessarily all the dimensions we do. (It may share all the dimensions, I don't know because we can only realy know 4 or so of them, but there may be many, and, if they share the same, there is always the possibility they are simply so different that we can't see them except under extraordinary circumstances. We just can't say which is true.)
Newcomb
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 9/15/2001 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Newcomb:
Perhaps I should clarify some of my questions. IN regard to my question about God's locality you said:
quote] First, the word "our" you used above suggests that we invented dimensions. We didn't, but we can describe them. Describing it is not the same as creating it. We were at the National Gallery a few weeks agi and I described a Monet to my daughter. Monet painted it, I just described how he did it.
The problem is that you just loaded the question, so I'll unload it before answering it. :)
and:
quote:
Yes, he is subject to dimensions because I posited that they are necessary for existence. If that is correct, then everything that exists is subject to them.
Is there a significant difference between your view and that of others (such as Fred Hoyle or Frank Tipler) who propose a localized deity inside an infinite universe. They feel God may actually be an intelligence (living or machine like) which has evolved within the universe until it has gradually assumed Demiurge-like capabilities. Do you see the resemblance?
In regard to God's infinite capacities you said: quote:
Well, which omni's?
Omniscience: He knows everything (he wants to) that has happened, is happening, and things he plans for the future. we, like him, do not know what there is not to know. (Does he know the thoughts of Barbe (by Mattel)?
and:
quote:
I didn't say that dimensions are finite, you assume they are.
I think you misunderstood my intent. I had already assumed you to feel space is infinite. I was thinking more about God's containment. If He is localized, how could anything about Him be infinite? If space is infinite, how could he have all knowledge? Infinity is, by definition, unknowable. If space is infinite, it would be impossible to traverse, therefore God's knowledge would have to be less than perfect. Time cannot stetch back infinitely or the present would have never arrived (again, you cannot traverse an infinite series). Not to mention the logical inconsistencies an actual infinite series produces(see the Kalaam cosmological argument).
If space and time are absolutes, how could space be stetched or time dilated (both observable phenomenon). I assume you reject relativity due to it's implications on the age of the universe. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to discard it, considering it's incredible predictive and descriptive ability regarding our reality.
I am, however, open to new ideas.
Rob
Edited by - still_unsure on 09/16/2001 06:34:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 9/15/2001 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Rob states:
quote:
Is there a significant difference between your view and that of others (such as Fred Hoyle or Frank Tipler) who propose a localized deity inside an infinite universe. They feel God may actually be an intelligence (living or machine like) which has evolved within the universe until it has gradually assumed Demiurge-like capabilities. Do you see the resemblance?
Tis is the first I have heard of these people, but with your brief introduction I can see we have significant differences. I do not claim that God is inside our universe, he is separate from it and not physical in the same way we are, or anything else inside this universe is. God does not evolve. His nature is unchanging, etc. It sound like these two have made God into something else altogether, a sort of super human. It is funny to think of a localized deity, since this is an old error that I thought was long gone from the western world. The type of error made by Jonah when trying to flee God's instructions by leaving the area. I suppose by "local" it would incorporate a larger area though, such as the solar system or galaxy? Hmmm. Cute. Strange, but cute.
quote:
In regard to God's infinite capacities . . . I was thinking more about God's containment. If He is localized, how could anything about Him be infinite? If space is infinite, how could he have all knowledge?
Here you are crossing different elements. Because I believe God has limited size does not limit his ability to know whatever he wants to know. (Note that his omniscience is qualified here, I believe it is.) Your statement is a non-sequitur, it doesn't follow. One aspect of something can be limited and another not. We could say that Bill Gates has unlimited money (not true), but his eyesight is limited. These are not mutually exclusive. But how can God's size be infinite but space (requisite for size) be limited? Both can't be true.
quote:
Infinity is, by definition, unknowable.
False: Infinity is unending, not unknowable. The "end" of infinity isn't unknowable either. Do you know why? Because, likle Barbe's thoughts, it doesn't exist, therefore, the notion of and "end" of infinity is absurd.
quote:
If space is infinite, it would be impossible to traverse, therefore God's knowledge would have to be less than perfect.
Anothe non-sequitur. Also, where does it say God has traversed space? Or needs to? But, if he created everything in our physical universe, he would know where it is, wouldn't he? He would know the end of our universe, therefore know nothing was elsewhere. Why would he need to go there?
You have a similar problem, if space is limited and God fills it up, then God is also limited. (From the department of redundance department.)
Don't get "space" and "universe" mixed up. I am not saying that the universe goes on forever, just 3D, the empty room to expand into. This is empty area we are speaking of as "space" as differentiated from "outer space" a location inside our physical universe.
quote:
Time cannot stetch back infinitely or the present would have never arrived (again, you cannot traverse an infinite series). Not to mention the logical inconsistencies an actual infinite series produces(see the Kalaam cosmological argument).
Do you mean by this that everything that has a beginning is caused? If so, you have a problem with time being created since a sequance could not happen without it, or reverse the wording to Jim's: without a sequence you can't start time. Whichever you want to go is OK with me, but you are assuming a sequence of events lead to "x" but "x" is sequencing itself, so it must pre-exist itself? This is absurd. See the problem? You posit that time is created, but creation demands a sequence of events, which cannot happen without time. It can't be both ways, and time cann't pre-exist itself.
But in your statement, you treat time as if it were location. Time is always in the present. It is similar to where you are now in space, wherever you go, there you are, but it is different from traversing infinity. I agree you cannot traverse the infinity, even God hasn't done that, and our eternal souls won't either, that is why it is eternal. See, "eternity" requires time to continue. If I told my wife that I would love her forever, but "forever" ends next week, where would that leave us?
One thing we can answer is, will time end? No, it can't. Why? Well, even if it were not a self existent dimension, Jesus is has become an incarate being and the Bible tells us he will retain that state as well as his other state forever. Physical matter requires time, therefore, if you believe the scripture you cannot hold that time will end. This argument can be used for his promise of "eternal life" also. The word is rediculous if time will end.
quote:
If space and time are absolutes, how could space be stetched or time dilated (both observable phenomenon). I assume you reject relativity due to it's implications on the age of the universe. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to discard it, considering it's incredible predictive and descriptive ability regarding our reality.
I am, however, open to new ideas.
Rob
I am not a physicist, so I don't need to deal with relativity, but many scientists agree that it has its limitations, some of which are fixed by quantum models, which also have problems, some of which are fixed by string theory, which has some problems. . .etc.
I don't buy the idea that time is effected by gravity, per Einstein, Hawkings, et al. There could be another explaination for the effects you see, for instance, if we took an HP Cesium clock on a trip far from earth and it came back with a time different from that which we experienced with an identical, pre-calibrated clock here, what are the logical possibilites to explain this?
1) Eistein was right and time was warped.
2) Eistein was wrong and the clock take away from the gravitational center experienced the change in gravity in such a way as to change the reading. Perhaps cesium degrades differently with less gravity?
There are other possibilities.
In deductive logic situations (i.e. physical sciences) a theory which acurately predicts things is strengthened, but not proved. Proof is elusive in indictive reasoning. This is all science has. One failed test and the theory crashes.
By the way, you cann't prove that time is changed, you can only observe that a clock is different. There are not the same. Even if that were, I didn't claim that time is an absolute, rather, that is is continuous, never ending, a dimension that is not a created thing.
regarding "space" being stretched, it isn't the dimension that is being stretched, or you wouldn't notice it, it is something that is using various dimensions that is stretched. The warp and woof of the physical universe is stretched, that is not the dimension, it is something that resides in a domain that uses a dimension.
"Neuk'em"
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|