Replies

Bear with me here. Why is there only room outside spacetime for God? You are defining God as something outside the realm where physical things live, yet isn't God a thing in itself? Any thing which god is made of is still a thing, and if you insist on lumping all things INTO the cosmos then do the same with god. If you want to argue that god isn't a thing, then I would agree. But wouldn't he then be nothing? If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it. If at some point his proverbial hand would have to cross the boundary of the physical realm whenever he interacts with it. He however cannot do so without being part of it. If he doesn't ever interact with the physical realm then he is, as far as we are concerned, non existent.

[this existence, uncaused and singular must also have wanted there to be a beginning]

WHY!? Firstly, you have utterly disposed with the possibility of infinitely negative time existing (with time being zero at the big bang, say). I will address this first. Why don't we have a problem with infinitely POSITIVE time existing? When the heat-death of the universe occurs in infinitely positive time (as by 2nd law of t.d.) the universe stagnates into an ever-unchanging homogeneous infinitesimal goup. Time only has a direction as a part of our anthropocentric perception of the universe, that is of increasing entropy, yet isentropic particle interactions have no perception of temporal direction since they have no entropic signpost (many Feynman diagrams do violate causality as we know it - yet they are empirically correct). If the universe started as a zero, and was braught into finity then it will end (in the limit of infinite time, by 2nd l.o.t.d.) as a zero. (I assume you understand that. Even if god intervenes to stop this, then we either violate our presupposition that he is outside our spacetime, or put him inside our spacetime, where he must bow to the same rules we do)

A little lateral thought begs the question: isn't direction in time arbitrary? I think we are neurally equipped to perceive a temporal direction, and can thus accept an infinite future, yet why are we all so concerned with the opposite end? If our inability to comprehend infinitely negative time drives us to believe in a creator-god, then wouldn't we then need a destroyer-god at the end of time by the same logic? If we need to transition from a null to a zero we require a creator, yet why is this any more necessary than transitioning from a zero to a null, opposite to the creator-god? Do the laws of physics really still exist after the heat-death of the universe, any more than before its birth? (In equivalence to the "tree falling in the woods and not making a sound" argument). Why must the "rules" be created at one particular end of the universe - the beginning - and not the other?

What if the two ends are joined in a cyclic fashion? The cycle conceptually requires no beginning, since infinities are acceptable by its very nature. Then couldn't we rule out both Gods altogether? These situations are very fun to concoct and are not very instructive, but it goes to show that God is only STRICTLY confined to that which we cannot imagine. The more we think, the less we can assume about him.

Secondly, why must we lump together all the religious baggage into this otherworldly figure God, which we postulate to exist outside our spacetime. Even if my rantings above were flawed, finding a logical necessity for this figure IN NO WAY justifies or validates any religious standpoint, other than that there is some creator-God. It does not justify a personal-God, it does not validate any religious morality and it does not give him a beard! What else can we infer about this god figure, purely from logical speculation?

[I AM is willful, having personality]

Why did god will the universe to happen? Why couldn't it have been an accident? Why why why why? We KNOW nothing about god for sure. I don't think you can use science as a weapon to justify god, in the way you are trying to. Regards, Tris.

Thank you for your reply!

Why is there only room outside spacetime for God?

Not outside of space/time as it is but rather in the void of the beginning, i.e. in the beginning. The spiritual realm exists and is not necessarily altogether "in" the space/time continuum.

You are defining God as something outside the realm where physical things live, yet isn't God a thing in itself?

No, God is not a “thing” nor is He an “event.”

Any thing which god is made of is still a thing, and if you insist on lumping all things INTO the cosmos then do the same with god.

God is not made of any “thing.” He is. "I AM that I Am." In the void of the beginning, existence exists, uncaused and singular.

If you want to argue that god isn't a thing, then I would agree. But wouldn't he then be nothing?

Go back to the discussion of Ayn Sof - the Hebrew phrase for God in the beginning which means “no thing”, i.e. One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.

If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it.

Absolutely a false presumption. I am living proof that he interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century.

If at some point his proverbial hand would have to cross the boundary of the physical realm whenever he interacts with it. He however cannot do so without being part of it. If he doesn't ever interact with the physical realm then he is, as far as we are concerned, non existent.

Another absolutely false presumption of boundary restrictions. Since God is the creator of “all that there is” – both heaven and earth, spiritual and physical – there is nothing of which anything can be made but His own will – whether by His creative will or His permissive will. And there is no limitation of His own will except that when He wills it, it is and therefore He cannot lie.

Firstly, you have utterly disposed with the possibility of infinitely negative time existing (with time being zero at the big bang, say). I will address this first. Why don't we have a problem with infinitely POSITIVE time existing? When the heat-death of the universe occurs in infinitely positive time (as by 2nd law of t.d.) the universe stagnates into an ever-unchanging homogeneous infinitesimal goup...

Again, infinity is boundarylessness. Infinity past is not the same thing as “no time” – neither would negative infinity past be the same thing as "no time." Infinity is geometric and therefore the same causation "bottom line" applies:

In the absence of time, events can not occur.

In the absence of space, things can not exist.

As an aside, the Steinhardt cyclic universe model has a beginning of real time. The rebooting of a universe does not reset real time to zero. It is considered a weakness in the model that it cannot obviate the need for a Creator.

A little lateral thought begs the question: isn't direction in time arbitrary?

Again, you keep insisting that time is a line and therefore there is an arrow of time (either direction.) Think of time as a plane. Time is geometric and that fact becomes abundantly clear when you add even one more temporal dimension to a model.

I think we are neurally equipped to perceive a temporal direction, and can thus accept an infinite future, yet why are we all so concerned with the opposite end?

The discovery that the universe is expanding – and therefore had a real beginning – was the single most theological statement ever to come out of science. Before that, atheists could take comfort in the notion of a steady state universe.

If our inability to comprehend infinitely negative time drives us to believe in a creator-god, then wouldn't we then need a destroyer-god at the end of time by the same logic? If we need to transition from a null to a zero we require a creator, yet why is this any more necessary than transitioning from a zero to a null, opposite to the creator-god?

A new heaven and new earth does not require a “new” God. The existence which exists, I AM, is not diminished by the collapse of a space/time continuum nor by the creation of a space/time continuum.

Do the laws of physics really still exist after the heat-death of the universe, any more than before its birth? (In equivalence to the "tree falling in the woods and not making a sound" argument). Why must the "rules" be created at one particular end of the universe - the beginning - and not the other?

Again, you are the one insisting on the existence of physical laws – in this case causality – to begin space/time. And I keep asserting again and again – there can be no physical causality (or any physical laws or constants) in the absence of space/time – because in the absence of time, events cannot occur and in the absence of space, things cannot exist. There must be an uncaused cause.

What if the two ends are joined in a cyclic fashion? The cycle conceptually requires no beginning, since infinities are acceptable by its very nature. Then couldn't we rule out both Gods altogether? These situations are very fun to concoct and are not very instructive, but it goes to show that God is only STRICTLY confined to that which we cannot imagine. The more we think, the less we can assume about him.

Again, infinity is merely boundarylessness. The Steinhardt cyclic model requires geometry for physical causation – as do brane models, multi-verse, loop models and so forth. All of these models must have a beginning of the geometry itself - for there to be physical causation.

Secondly, why must we lump together all the religious baggage into this otherworldly figure God, which we postulate to exist outside our spacetime. Even if my rantings above were flawed, finding a logical necessity for this figure IN NO WAY justifies or validates any religious standpoint, other than that there is some creator-God. It does not justify a personal-God, it does not validate any religious morality and it does not give him a beard! What else can we infer about this god figure, purely from logical speculation?

One can infer from logical speculation that God exists. But no one can get from that knowledge to knowing Him personally without a revelation from God Himself. That is why it is impossible to know Him without being “born again” and it is impossible to be born again without being called by Him (given “ears to hear.”)

Why did god will the universe to happen?

In speaking of Ayn Sof, the Jewish mystics assert that God wanted to reveal Himself. That assertion is confirmed by the Spirit who indwells me.

God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways, in this order of importance: through Jesus Christ, through the indwelling Spirit, through Scripture and through Creation, both physical and spiritual.

The purpose of the revelation is not this heaven and earth but the one to come. Jesus Christ was God enfleshed – not to establish a religion – but rather a family. That is the context of the new heaven and new earth.

Why couldn't it have been an accident? Why why why why? We KNOW nothing about god for sure. I don't think you can use science as a weapon to justify god, in the way you are trying to.

You may know nothing about God for sure. But that does not apply to me. Not at all. I’ve known Him personally for nearly a half century.

And no, I am not using science as a weapon to justify God. I am pointing out that reason alone should be enough for any intelligent man to observe that God exists. Only a fool could miss the evidence though certainly many may resent what they see, wanting to be the captain of their ship and the master of their own destiny.