God and Time

[CharlesV]

It is commonly believed that God stands outside of time and is able to view all temporal events, past, present, and future, from a transcendent time-less Now. This claim, though widely believed, is false, and for a very obvious reason.

Consider the following:

Yesterday I was at the grocery store looking at a magazine. I have a clear and distinct memory of this. If God truly sees all moments in time, that event, being a moment in time, does really exist as well, otherwise there would be nothing for God to see. But if that moment does really exist, I must be there experiencing it in the very same sense as I experiened it yesterday. Yet I am not. I cannot be mistaken in this because I was the one whose experience it was. If it was happening, I would surely know about it. Yet clearly it is not.

Thus God has no timeless and transcendent view of time because the past no longer is, and the future is not yet. Only the present is real and experienced. All else is memory and expectation only.

[CharlesV]

Point taken. Ive enjoyed the conversation here, and the opportunity to sharpen ideas. There is no better way to do that than with people who disagree with you. But I need to take a respite and return to my painting responsibilities. Ill stop by periodically and comment. Wish all well.

Charles V.

[Crazy Ivan]

Ivan...You make an excellent point. I dont know with certainty what the physical world actually consists of. No one does. We only experience the physical world as mediated by consciousness, and even then we can only infer its existence. Im only basing my statements on what physics says about the physical world.

But as you must have realized by now, your understanding of "physical world" (through your arguments) has been limited to some form of "consistency". You can no longer argue that "consciousness", as an emergent property of the brain, is not "physical", anymore than you can argue "inertia" is not "physical", by their lack of "substance" or "consistency".

I cant speak for others, but I do have complete knowledge of my own consciousness.

I believe you think you do, because you disassociate the notions of "consciousness" and "physical" (of which we have limited knowledge), but you arrive at this disassociation through an argument from ignorance. I do not have to thoroughly know or explain "consciousness" to adequately explain why belief in it as an emergent property of the brain is warranted, and I refer you back to consciousness-altering drugs, a point which you're obviously reluctant to address, since it adequately demonstrates how "physical" "consciousness" really is.

Unlike the physical world and other minds, I dont have to infer its reality. Being synonymous with awareness, it is immediately given and revealed by that very fact.

Equating "consciousness" with "self-awareness" (which I believe is what you're actually referring to) is over-simplifying the issue. I think "self-awareness" refers to an advanced state of "consciousness".

If you doubt the reality of your own consciousness, thats fine with me. I am in no position to confirm what can only be known by you. Not even God can do that. But if you question your own consciousness, and thus the reality which it presents, at least be consistent and admit that you call into question the material world itself, for consciousness is your only access to that world.

Of course I question the "material world itself". As does anyone interested in the future LHC findings. But I can base my convictions on observable evidence as it comes along, which is all any of us can honestly do.