Q#1 - Draygomb's paradox

[sweetycakes]

I find these kinds of questions and debates very interesting, myself.

However, I am reminded from the bible that God's ways are beyond searching out. We can't comprehend God with our minds.

But that's not what finding God is about, anyway - understanding him in a neat little package which we call our reasoning.

Two things I'd like to point out:

The bible says:

1. "Taste and see that the Lord is good."

2. "Do my words not do good to him that walks uprightly?"

Both of these things require some 'input' on our part. And this is the only way to approach God at all, in my opinion. Not just going round in circles with our minds as men have done for millennia.

It's just something you have to experience for yourself.

Taste and see. There is a saying here in England: 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'

A pudding may (or may not) look appetizing. But to stare at it, or debate it all day will go nowhere to settling the argument as to whether or not it is delicious. This can only be gained by trying it for yourself. Tasting.

When you have actually 'tasted' the pudding, then come back and tell us all what you thought about it. Only then will you know. This is true for all of us.

How can anyone say that a pudding is delicious or not, if they have not 'tried' it?

Taste and see that the Lord is good.

Just to elaborate a little further on the above post, here are two multiple choice questions that anybody considering whether or not God exists should answer:

Question 1

A: The proof of the pudding is in the eating

B: The proof of the pudding is in the looking and discussing

(please choose one)

Question 2

A: Taste and see that the Lord is good

B: Debate and see that the Lord is good

(please choose one)

Only those who have tasted the pudding are qualified to say whether the pudding is actually good to eat or not. All other observers are only qualified to state whether or not it actually looks good to eat.

Similarly, only those who have tasted can rightly give an answer as to whether or not the Lord is good. Other observers can only make an outside guess regarding the matter, - which is not based on experience, but on any number of other things.

I often hear Christians saying things like: It is not about knowing the book, it is about knowing the Author of the book. I agree with such statements.

After all, what is the point of merely reading an instructional book, if you don't then carry out the instructions contained in the book? And the message of the bible leads the reader to seek and find a relationshiip with the Author of the book.

Those who follow (as opposed to 'read about' and 'debate') the instructions in the book will find a relationship with God through Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Saviour, who died to save us and lives to keep us.

Those who taste the pudding will know that it is good (or not, as the case may be) - I say this only for a comparison, since the bible text states

Taste and see that (not if) the Lord is good.

A statement and instruction which I totally agree with.

Two questions:

1: Do you agree also?

2: Have you tasted, also?

In order to answer the first question, you need to be able to answer Yes to the second question.

[Questioner]

The creator of this alleged paradox makes the fallacy of believing God "needs" time.

A god him/herself doesn't but the action of deciding does by definition of "decision".

The rebuttals that the poster made are made without logical explaination. He simply states his own oppinion as fact, and offers no proof of his claims.

Those are things Draygomb posted that I pasted here because they can be useful. I didn't intend to frame the debate, i.e. I don't expect anyone to take them as granted. You can still think and debate along those lines if you want to. That said:

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

No, that is not true at all. If God created time, as we believe he did, then God already knows everything about time, and is obviously aware of every moment in time.

That is the point. If he's aware of evey moment of time then past, present and future have always existed. That logically leads to the conclusion that everything has always existed and nothing has been created.

Your logic is totally fallacious. Its like saying, "if someone is aware of every point on a line, then that line has always existed and could not have been created". Such is simply not an honest statement in terms of mathematics or logic.

Your example doesn't fit the original statement because a line is not temporal. If you are aware of every point of a line, period. Nothing follows from that. If you're aware of every point in time, though, then time has always existed. If I'm aware of the future, then the future exists. It could exist without me being aware of it and it could also not exist at all, but if I know about it then it must exist already - otherwise how could I know about it?

The Bible does not merely state that God transcends time. The Bible says that God is THE beginning and the end, and that further, God cannot be contained by the cosmos. God is not a part of the creation, and he is not contained by anything. So the universe, regardless of how many dimensions it has, cannot contain God, is not a part of God as God is also not a part of the universe, and further, the universe is of lesser dimension than God, none of which coincide with God in and of themselves.

I can make a 3 dimensional model of our 4 dimensional world which is easy enough to predict. With two dimensions for space, and one dimension of time in said model. I do not have need of anything within my model, and I am not subject to anything in my model. I can predict exactly where everything in the model is and ever will be because I know the initial conditions and the limitations of that model and I made it and thought it up.

This is off-topic (or I just didn't get it).

Change Doesn?t Require Time

Change Does Require Time Go Look It Up

Anyone who's taken a calculus class knows this is not necessarily the case. You can define "change" in any way you like. As X changes, how does Y change on a graph? Time is not an issue, because the line is defined from the beginning by an equation. No change is occuring to the line with respect to time, but the value of Y is changing with respect to change in the value of X.

I checked definitions for both time and change, and neither implies that change cannot happen without respect to time.

Yeah I already thought about this but it doesn't work Draygomb gave one definition of change. You can break the paradox by changing that definition, e.g. you can say "change doesn't always require time". You then have to define change in a way that doesn't rely on time but it's actually impossible. A change can only be something that is defined in function of two different states that exist in different points of time; how do you define it in such a way that it depends on something else? Besides, once you have defined change in that way you have broken the paradox in an imaginary universe where change doesn't require time; how do you prove that that universe is the same as the real one? I cannot solve any of those two problems.

Further, this is also contradicted by modern physics anyway, not that I agree with modern physics on everything, but relativity states that the passage of time is determined by the relative velocity of an object. An object that has high velocity actually moves through time more slowly. An object with velocity arbitrarily close to the speed of light passes through time at a rate arbitrarily close to 0. Meaning that the closer the velocity gets to the speed of light the closer the passage of time is to 0. This simply shows how that, even in our own universe, Time itself is determined by what is "happening" in the other dimensions.

What other dimensions?

Edited November 11, 2006 by Questioner

[Questioner]

You make an assumption that God is limited to our 3 dimensions. You try and define what God can and cant do based on what people can and cant do in a 3 dimensional world. Our perceptions of Him is limited to 3 dimensional view. Therefore you cannot explain Him logically within the limits of our world.

The addition of one or more dimensions breaks the paradox. That's actually the first thing that came to my mind when I started thinking about it. The problem is that it breaks it in an imaginary universe where those additional dimensions exist. How do I show that that imaginary universe is the same as the real one? In other words, where's evidence for other dimensions in this universe? I've beaten my head against this kind of obstacles several times before realizing a possible refutation is not necessarily a valid one

[ted]

Obviously, some people are simply going to complicate themselves right into eternal damnation.

t.

[Questioner]

I find these kinds of questions and debates very interesting, myself.

However, I am reminded from the bible that God's ways are beyond searching out. We can't comprehend God with our minds.

That's OK Stephen, it simply means you're an agnostic theist -- for clarity: "I believe in God and I believe we cannot comprehend Him" -- and you don't need to break the paradox because it doesn't even touch you.

If you create a separate, dedicated thread here in Apologetics I will answer there the other questions you asked - I hate it when threads start focused and end up full of people talking about anything.

[sweetycakes]

I find these kinds of questions and debates very interesting, myself.

However, I am reminded from the bible that God's ways are beyond searching out. We can't comprehend God with our minds.

That's OK Stephen, it simply means you're an agnostic theist -- for clarity: "I believe in God and I believe we cannot comprehend Him" -- and you don't need to break the paradox because it doesn't even touch you.

If you create a separate, dedicated thread here in Apologetics I will answer there the other questions you asked - I hate it when threads start focused and end up full of people talking about anything.

When I say we cannot comprehend Him, I mean we cannot comprehend Him fully.

This is true. We can only have a limited experience of God here in this life, I believe, since the wonders of God are infinite, and we will be eternally in awe at the power and love of God.

"For now we see as through a glass, darkly. .....we know in part.....then we will know in full...."

[Questioner]

Obviously, some people are simply going to complicate themselves right into eternal damnation.

Thanks for the warning.

[sweetycakes]

I find these kinds of questions and debates very interesting, myself.

However, I am reminded from the bible that God's ways are beyond searching out. We can't comprehend God with our minds.

That's OK Stephen, it simply means you're an agnostic theist -- for clarity: "I believe in God and I believe we cannot comprehend Him" -- and you don't need to break the paradox because it doesn't even touch you.

If you create a separate, dedicated thread here in Apologetics I will answer there the other questions you asked - I hate it when threads start focused and end up full of people talking about anything.

Good news, Q

Will you also answer the question: Have you tasted?

[child_of_iam]

You can break this parodox by simply turning away from it. But as a athiast you have no where to turn so it is ever before you. If you want to realy break Draygomb's paradox and prove it can be broken it would require you to unbelieve everything you believe, and in faith reach out to what you can not see, what you can not touch, or understand in your mind.

[Questioner]

Good news, Q

Will you also answer the question: Have you tasted?

For obvious reasons, here I will answer only to posts pertaining to the topic at hand - indeed this is the last off-topic post I'm answering. If someone invites me somewhere else I'll be glad to accept