How can it be possible that something can exist out of time, if that was the case then wouldn't we only exist becuase of time - implying that witout time only God can exist (or someother supernatural life force). Basically if time did not exist would we still exist? If that was the case then surely God created the universe via the Big Bang in order to create humanity and perhaps other races. So lets say that God create the universe, wouldnt he have been able to see the rise and devolopment of a human race on this planet before it happened if he has forever exiated outside of time. Which would mean that what happens next is entirely inevitable? Hope that made sense.
Existence without time is actually a grey area of physics. Time and space as it is currently defined was supposedly born with the Universe in the Big Bang (if you believe in it, of course), but before it matter still existed. Time, of course, is nothing but a concept. And it is that idea that I think you and a few others are getting confused about. To answer your second paragraph- it depends on how you look at it. It's a grey area open for interpretation and, no matter how you look at it, nothing changes. It's just a matter of what you believe in. You can say that, in some way, there exists a "future" and in that future whatever choices you are going to make will have been made. In that way, you can say everything is inevitable. You can also believe in alternate timelines and dimensions that exist for multiple choices people make and which choice you makes determines what timeline you will personally end up on. No matter how you look at it, at least for now, none of it matters as it has no physical relevance. To put this back in a religious perspective, the Christian-Jewish God generally allows us to do our own thing and face the consequences after death. The exceptions to this are the events of the Bible, such as the famous examples of Moses (sending him off as well as splitting the seas) and Noah's Ark. In answer to your first paragraph's general question: something that exists out of time essentially replaces time as a concept. There is no time- no before the thing's existence, no after, no middle, and no "3 days later." It simply exists. Again, this has no physical relevance and is just a concept, but theoretically, there is such thing as existence without time, and that concept helps drive the loopholes of the Big Bang Theory- as one of the biggest ones is the question "what existed before the Big Bang."
Sorry to cut in, I just have a few questions. I am agnostic myself. 1.What was there before the big bang? (If you say matter etc, what created this matter?) 2.How can something always be there i.e. God? 3.In response to eternal life being boring, maybe your conscious/feelings change so that all your endorphines are ones of happiness? Bonus Info: The meaning of the joke "Why did the Chicken Cross The Road, ANS= To get to the other side. Is that the other side is heaven. Just thought id throw this in, never knew it meself.
1. Some say that the Universe is caught in an infinite loop of Big Bang-Big Crunch, but that doesn't address the core of your question. And of course before the actual explosion, the Universe's matter was piled together. I think the majority consensus is that there simply wasn't. Similar to, from a Christian perspective, the idea that God was not created, but simply is. 2. This is, from a Christian perspective (specifically Roman Catholic) one of the things beyond human understanding. I think that the same applies to the scientific view; we can't know what we can't comprehend. 3. Possible, but from my mortal coil I certainly can't see eternal life as a positive thing. But given the context of how it would be granted, I would still be quite okay with it.
The only harm is wasted time. Let me put it to you this way. I do not eat with religious people who pray before they eat; unless I value said relationship above the wasted time. Why? Well, first is the morality of it, I find it outrageous and dishonest to bow my head in prayer when I do not pray, but mainly, I value my my time very highly. Religion wastes my time. Deism is like an annoying fly, constantly in your ear buzzing. It does not ruin your day, but its buzzing in your ear is a constant reminder of a pest left un-exterminated. On the other hand, Deism, I believe, is a necessary tool to control the essentially evil and self serving human race. It is a tool to control the morality of the masses, and if disbanded, would lead to more crime and immorality, than the immorality apparent in it's hypocrisy. Perhaps a necessary evil. But still, an evil. "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." Aristotle Just thought it was funny to see this written so clearly. Bolded for clarity. Followed by the next statement "I am a pretty rational guy..." If you're not cracking a smile by that point I don't know when you will be 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). The classic, "In a perfect society, everyone would be perfectly moral and identical, I.E. Evil has to exist or there is no individuality. God wanted choice. God wanted individuality. God gave us choice. Therefore, he had to allow us the choice of being evil/making choices." The problem you run into here is that I can think of 100 ways in which to Improve earth/humanity WITHOUT losing individuality/choice in less than an hour. I'll name 5 off the top of my head. 1. No harmful bacteria, viruses, or cellular cancers of any kinds. Letting these things exist near innocent children would endanger them of nearly incurable, devastatingly painful, diseases and sicknesses when they are at a point in their life when they cannot make choices to save themselves, or, were born into conditions of squalor in which these types of sickness' are nigh unavoidable. 2. Make human bodies nearly impenetrable with basic tools or weapons. Hell, why not make them impenetrable if they can't get sick. This rids the world of murder and war. Sadly torture, and imprisonment can remain a problem. Fax this problem to the angels ASAP, six days till we make earth, its crunch time! 3. Rid the world of parasitic and carnivorous life forms. This enables people and animals to live (hopefully) in harmony. 4. Oceans are now fresh water. They are also only waist high, and slightly chilled to ideal drinking temperature. (Note to Godself: Talk to Gabriel about gill idea he had.) 5. A woman must really, really, really want to get pregnant to get pregnant. Labor is only 1 month, and painless+deathless. Editor's Note: Fucked up the quotes somehow : / Oh well. They are intact. This post might come off as harsh, but I would actually prefer a world inhabited by clones with your philosophy then most of the religious nuts in the world. Still, a cute baby fly is still a fly. It is my duty to exterminate the err of their ways!1!!!1 [/End Pretentious Gibberish] Nah, just kidding, I'm living in a dream world if I think I can convince a religious person of reality. My strongest argument is probably the FSM argument: God is/was a gigantic flying spaghetti monster. Prove me wrong! I believe its true! I shall open a church in his name; The Spicy Meatball: He spilt his spaghetti sauce for our sins. "The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny known to the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson
It is despicable and, quite frankly, disturbing, that you regard people who don't share your worldview as sub-human. If you don't want to be religious, that's fine. But it's simply detestable to think of yourself as "superior" because you choose not to believe. I meant exactly what I said; I find it impossible for God not to exist, despite the lack of material evidence available. I am not compelled by any outside forces to believe in God. And yet I do. The obvious problem you have here is that you base your logic on the assumption that there is a better state of existence. This assumption is clearly unfounded, for if we accept God to be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, then there is no possible outcome but the best of all possible worlds. There is no further optimization that can be done. "Evil" is obviously a necessary component in a universe that optimizes good, if we accept God to be omniscient (personally I think this requires omnibenevolence anyways), omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I didn't make any point about choice requiring evil. You again seem to think that there must be a better state of existence, when if you clearly accept that a being which has unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, and unlimited compassion, has to have created the best possible universe. There is no alternative.
There is a better state of existence, and to simply accept that the world is perfect the way it is, is a cop-out. If my list didn't inspire you, I'm sure if you opened your brain and your eyes, you could see the amount of pain and suffering in the world, the prayers left unanswered, and realize that god is not benevolent in the slightest, or he does not exist. We could entertain the idea of a weak deity who is only omniscient, but then you run into the creation problem. Also, I don't view religious people as "subhuman". I view their intellect or mental facilities under scrutiny, and almost invariably come to the conclusion that they are intellectually inferior to me, I am intellectually superior to them, they are lying about their true beliefs, or they lack the emotional independence to make their own way through the world without the overarching support of their imaginary friend.
See, this is an emotional argument. But the logical conclusion of accepting a deity with unlimited power, knowledge, and compassion is that they have created the perfect world. There simply can't be an alternative. We can't debate the existence of God, but we can debate His logical consistency, and so far, you've shown nothing that proves He is inconsistent.
Well, in the Netherlands, someone of a strongly religious party claimed the world was to end this year. This party was also criticised for not allowing women to join it...I really can't take them seriously anymore.
If you aren't willing to debate then don't be surprised when your arguments come across as fallacious and hollow. You say there can't be an alternative. I say there can because I open minded and have several alternatives listed in my earlier arguments. I will re-quote my conundrum which was put together by Epicurus. 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). Contradict this logical argument and I will entertain the idea of a benevolent God. If you do not, then I cannot prove the absence of evidence to be the truth, (i.e. the nonexistence of a deity), but I can prove that if he does exist he is either not omnipotent or he is not omnibenevolent. And to say that we should not question the status quo leads me to question your intelligence; Are you really interested in the truth? Or are you just another sheep?
The divide between our arguments is quite clearly on the assumption you make that there exists a better reality. But in fact, if God has created reality, and we accept that He's capable of doing anything that can be done, knowing anything that can be known, and that He seeks to optimize good in the universe, then there is literally one conclusion; that God has created the optimal universe for good. Analogy Teacher: In nature there exists a series of elements known as the noble gases. Student: Why are they known as noble? Teacher: Because they have 8 valence electrons (except helium) and thus do not readily react. Student: Well why do they have 8 valence electrons? Teacher: Because that is the maximum number of valence electrons in the valence shell. Student: Well why is that the maximum number of valence electrons? Teacher: Because 8 electrons in the valence shell balance the atom. Student: What if there were 9 valence electrons? Teacher: There can't be 9 valence electrons. Student: Why not? Teacher: Because 8 electrons balance the atom. Student: But surely 9 valence electrons would balance the atom more? Teacher: No, it would create an atom with 1 electron in the valence shell, and thus be very unstable. The student's logic is the same that you are using. You assume that there exists a better state, that if only there was more good in the world, then the universe would be more optimally good. But if we accept God to be the optimizer of good in the universe, and give Him unlimited power to do whatever can be done, and unlimited knowledge to know whatever can be known, then He can only produce the best possible universe. A universe where things happen that do not happen in the present universe is obviously less optimally good. This includes a universe where all that exist are baby puppies and no scarcity and chocolate rain... It is foolish to believe that all things can be good, when in reality we can accept only one optimal state; and if we accept God to be the creator and assign Him the traits mentioned above, then He cannot produce but one result; the status quo.
The difference between these two arguments is that the existence of a deity is based on assumption and belief, but as far as I know, the number of valence electrons have been measured and calculated. I'm not entirely sure, but I think it has been proven that 8 valence electrons is the maximum amount, so the student is plainly wrong.
It's true, but we weren't debating the existence of God, but rather whether or nor He is logically consistent. The point I was making is that we know that there can only be a maximum number of 8 valence electrons in the valence shell, and the contention you made about the theological side being based on assumption and belief may be true, but for the sake of argument we accepted the premise of God's existence, as well as the existence of the several traits listed earlier. Both situations have an absolute answer as long as we accept the premise behind them: there can be one optimum state. And if we accept God to be the perfect optimizer of good, then He has to have optimized His creation.
Since I am no physicist, (although I believe I understand your metaphor), I would like to state where my reasoning comes from. "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarians argue that justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration, and general anxiety and fear could increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored." In other words, if God does exist, he allows for the suffering of people on a large scale, which in forms of utility, essentially makes him "bad". He is denying pleasure/happiness to many people, even down the smallest and most basic utility; food. I am starting to see your point that perhaps I do not have the mental capacity and knowledge to judge God's plan, yet at the same time, if he does exist, He has apparently judged us. My question to you, "Are humans truly as happy as they could be?"
The biggest concern that I often feel is left out of the maltheist position is that we are nearly certain that other life exists in the universe, and that there are bound to be intelligent species as well. If we accept God as the creator, then He is required to not only optimize Earth and humanity for goodness, but make sure that this optimization contributes to the optimum good of the universe. Now that balancing act is maddeningly complex, and I'm fairly certain that no non-omniscient being would be capable of understanding how to create a universe optimized for good. Just as there exist a variety of factors in the optimization of the fuel-air mixture supplied to an engine, there is certainly an enormous amount of factors that go into optimizing the universe for good. And yet God must produce one result, which means that there is one preferred series of events (despite their immediate connotations) that will produce optimum universal good. Honestly I consider God's "plan" as so many people put it, to be akin to concepts of destiny, fate, etc. Sure, it may be impossible to escape, but if we aren't able to make predictions based on it, then we aren't constrained by it. My advice would be to live your life to the fullest as long as you don't go against your own ethical code. For most people, the harm principle is a good measure of what's right and what's wrong, though there are obviously times when this is simply not enough. So humans are restricted in happiness only by their own convictions, or each other, not by God.
Speaking of the entire universe, these questions recently came to my mind...if God created anything, then why are there so many planets and stars? And if all of mankind are the children of God, then why is our planet in such an awkward position if you look at the position of the earth in comparison to the milky way, and other galaxies?
