Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 [] If it means what I think it means -- i.e., God does not follow logic -- there's nothing to say about it. Either you mean that God is impossible to understand, which makes you an agnostic theist and immune from the paradox, or you mean that God is above logic, which makes Him illogical and therefore nonexistent. can the finite say to the infinate, "I can measure you" You mean it cannot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 His main premise is an a priori which is incorrect. For him infinity is a static concept. Once you are past this really rather silly concept, his whole scheme falls apart. I strongly suggest he read Kant's CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. Can you elaborate on that? As it is now your post doesn't stand on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 The three dimensions of "space". Oh ok. I believe there's more then one way to define time. Draygomb assumes time and space are impossible to separate so he can define time as a measure of change. Let's go on. An assumption on D's part (and yours). Do you mean time and space are separate? <things about string theory> Thanks for the link but you're not answering me at all Prove to me a man can drive a car parameters: 1) take away the means to start the car 2) take away the engine to the car 3) bind his hands and feet 4) drug him senseless Therefore man cant drive a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 The part about dimensions etc would require some backing up, if you don't mind Anyway, it isn't God that depends on time, but the act of making a decision. A decision is a change and change can only be defined in ways that require time. You could say that the paradox doesn't disprove God directly, it disproves the idea that the FC could have been conscious and then, from that, it follows that the FC isn't God. That said, you described a universe where time behaves strangely. It doesn't follow, however, that the paradox is invalid because all the paradox relies on is the assumption that time had a beginning. So whatever the behaviour of time in our universe, if it came into being caused by something then the paradox applies and that "something" cannot be conscious. It behaves strangely why? Most of what we currently understand about astrophysics is strange including time. Yeah ok, the point is, you said time behaves in a very complex way etc etc, do you follow me? And you implied that the paradox doesn't work because time behaves strangely. So far so good. What I said is, the behaviour of time has nothing to do with the paradox, as long as time had a beginning the paradox is valid. But how do you know that God makes decisions? I don't, indeed I'm absolutely sure that God doesn't exist at all. You guys are the ones who say he is conscious and decided to create everything Why would a decision need time for a creator being? because decision is a change. A change is the act of going from one state to another. Those two states must have an order, otherwise we couldn't say if God created the Universe or the Universe created God. Time is what gives an order to those two states. Therefore change requires time. Time is a relative construct; God could have made all decisions for all time all at once. No, because a decision is change and change requires time. Thus no decision can be made before time exists. God exists in the present, the past and the future all at the same time. God Transcends Time If God is Always aware of every Moment of Time Then All Of Time Has Always Existed Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created No Creation = No Creator I stand by this until disproven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 There is a few presuppositions which this paradox makes which cannot be backed OK 1 Our father is bound by the constraints of time The paradox assumes that the FC, conscious or not, existed before time existed so no, it doesn't make that assumption. This post also assumes the fact that Humans thought is Logical and Gods is not. ??? Where ??? God's thought is not logical ??? Therefore the premise "However Draygomb's paradox is about consciousness and time, so all he needs is the minimal definition of a god" is incorrect. It is not a premise. It's a comment of mine. Whatever is outside of the quote is not part of the paradox, I thought that was obvious... It also doesn't follow from what you were saying earlier. Draygomb must need infinite knowlege of God and Time. Or his paradox falls down as soon as he opens his mouth. As I have said, if you're an agnostic theist the paradox doesn't touch you since you don't even believe you can understand God in the first place. It is also suggested that god was caused Where???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 11, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) No assumptions are made about consciousness. LOL. Your entire post, and the paradox itself, are based on assumptions about consciousness. Can you list them? I'll be happy with just the ones in the paradox. Decision is, however, temporal because it is a change. See below. *looks down* Can you define change or decision in a way that doesn't rely on time? yes, I thought I already addressed that. Consider the curve Y = X^2. Neither X nor Y is determined by change in time, as they are always the same regardless of time. The curve represents the set of all points (X,Y) such that Y = X^2. I we make a chart for the first several positive and negative integer values of X, we see that Y changes with respect to X, but neither changes with respect to time. We can watch the curve for millenia, but the curve Y = X^2 will always look the same. X | Y ----------- -3 | 9 -2 | 4 -1 | 1 0 | 0 1 | 1 2 | 4 3 | 9 and so on. Neither is changed by time, because time is not even part of the relationship in this curve, yet Y does change as X changes. "Y changes as X changes" is a statement that implies Y is time and X space or Y is space and X time. If both are space then we do not observe any kind of change, only a perfectly still curve. You simply tried to hide time. If you describe the curve as something that evolves from one initial state (X=-3, Y=9) to a final one (X=3, Y=9) then you have already used time. You give an order to the points as they appear on the graph; point one, point two, point three... se what you're doing? You're counting and associating to each point a number. That's an additional axis you didn't draw, a third dimension. Guess how it's called. Edited November 11, 2006 by Questioner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 12, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 12, 2006 Not so. I do not differentiate the equation Y = X^2 with respect to time. I differentiate it with respect to either Y or X. You do not because you're trying to avoid the word "time". That doesn't mean you're not using it. If you use that graph to describe a change, then one of the axis is time or an axis you didn't draw is time. Otherwise without any way to order the points no change is observable. Neither the value of Y nor the value of X changes with respect to time. The value of X changes with resepect to Y, and the value of Y changes with respect to X. Neither is dependant on the passage of time. You're just re-labeling time as X or Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest willing servant Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 (edited) God Transcends Time If God is Always aware of every Moment of Time Then All Of Time Has Always Existed Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created No Creation = No Creator I stand by this until disproven. Edited November 12, 2006 by willing servant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted November 14, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted November 14, 2006 (edited) Draygomb's paradox Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time. God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - The First Cause is That which caused Time. Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision. A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided. Time is the measure of change. Premises: Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it. Conclusions: Time is required for Change. A Decision is a Change. Decisions require Time. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time. Consciousness requires Time. God is Conscious. God requires Time. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time. God isn't the cause of Time. God isn't The First Cause. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. This is true if God required time, and if God is not the first cause. If God made time than he does not need it. It is no more than part of his plan. I asked myself what else could have made the universe. I came to a theory that suggests that the universe was created by something faster than light. Think about it this way. scientists suggest that the universe went from the size of a marble to the size it is currently, if that were true and there is a delay on the time it takes light to travel to us than everything would have been black at first, than the light would hit the earth later. My point is that we assume nothing can travel faster than light, but if speed is relative, than so is distance. It would take a midget much longer to walk a mile than a 9 foot man. If distance and speed are both relative than time must also be relative since time is used to measure velocity, (EG I ran a mile in 7 mins). We assume time is solid since we put values on it, but how do we really know? How would time be relative, or relevant to an infinite being whom occupies the past present and the future all at once? Edited November 14, 2006 by Observer of dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest willing servant Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 =========================================================== note2: However, there is still a contradiction with relativity. After all, if the formula is undefined when V = C, then how does light's velocity = c?!? Wouldn't that make the formula undefined for every photon as well? ========================================================== Einstein himself said it was useless to hypothesise on travel of the speed of light because it can't happen and that working it out was pointless. Although I thought einstein was dismissed since it was discovered that light decays (Setterfield) ... its velocity is not fixed. But relative framework was still a reality, inertial, non inertial frames of reference ============================================================ Jesus died just for us. Willing servant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts