Uncaused and Existing Outside of Time.

[jgh7]

In the Kalam Cosmological argument, God is described as uncaused and timeless. I have struggled to understand what this means.

Does it mean that God always existed? But wouldn't this cause an infinite regression, as in you can always ask if God existed one second before such a time, ad infinitum?

My argument is that it's impossible to reach infinity, so God must have had a beginning, and if you had a beginning, something must have caused that beginning. What then does timeless and uncaused mean for God?

[William]

There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

Actually there is a problem with this. Consciousness would require entropy. Especially if we are going to claim that this consciousness can have any sort of organized thought or memory. In fact, entropy is absolutely required for memory to exist.

So if we are going claim that God is a consciousness that exists forever, then we're stuck with an infinite regression associated with the organization of God's consciousness.

Even imagining God as a consciousness we're face with asking the question, "What was the first thing that God was ever aware of?" And could God even answer this question?

Help me understand your claim. What prohibits thought in an existence of anti-entropy? (Don't know if there's a better term for that.) I agree that consciousness requires change and I can't figure out how a perfect being could change.

Why is it necessary that 'a perfect being' has to know everything?

Why is it even necessary that a GOD should be 'perfect'?

What do you or anyone else actually mean be 'perfect'?

Perhaps if we could clear that up, we might be able to get a bead on things...see where the confusion can be sorted...

[Plumbus Grumbo]

There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

Actually there is a problem with this. Consciousness would require entropy. Especially if we are going to claim that this consciousness can have any sort of organized thought or memory. In fact, entropy is absolutely required for memory to exist.

So if we are going claim that God is a consciousness that exists forever, then we're stuck with an infinite regression associated with the organization of God's consciousness.

Even imagining God as a consciousness we're face with asking the question, "What was the first thing that God was ever aware of?" And could God even answer this question?

Help me understand your claim. What prohibits thought in an existence of anti-entropy? (Don't know if there's a better term for that.) I agree that consciousness requires change and I can't figure out how a perfect being could change.

Why is it necessary that 'a perfect being' has to know everything?

Why is it even necessary that a GOD should be 'perfect'?

What do you or anyone else actually mean be 'perfect'?

Perhaps if we could clear that up, we might be able to get a bead on things...see where the confusion can be sorted...

High, William.

You quoted me, but I don't know if you're asking me those questions or if hut asking them to someone else. Maybe I'm not comprehending what I read. If so, I apologize.

I'll answer and you can ignore the answers if you prefer.

1. I have no idea. I wouldn't claim that.
2. The gods I believe in are far from perfect.
3. When I use the word "perfect," I mean "precise beyond any ability or possibility of being more precise." (A "perfect circle" would be one that no machine or method of detection could find a flaw in).

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Plumbus Grumbo]

Hi Plumbus Grumbo


I was replying to your post here, where you seemed to be having difficulty with the concept of a being having always existed.

I had said this;

There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

You then asked me this;

Help me understand your claim. What prohibits thought in an existence of anti-entropy? (Don't know if there's a better term for that.) I agree that consciousness requires change and I can't figure out how a perfect being could change.

So my questions to you were for clarification on what you said in order to see if I couldn't get some bead on where you are coming from with this argument in relation to my own.


Q: William: Why is it necessary that 'a perfect being' has to know everything?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 1. I have no idea. I wouldn't claim that.

Q: William: Why is it even necessary that a GOD should be 'perfect'?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 2. The gods I believe in are far from perfect.

Q: William: What do you or anyone else actually mean be 'perfect'?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 3. When I use the word "perfect," I mean "precise beyond any ability or possibility of being more precise." (A "perfect circle" would be one that no machine or method of detection could find a flaw in).

It appears that your statement to begin with was coming from the perception that GOD has to be perfect and that somehow I had claimed as much and that is why you said "I can't figure out how a perfect being could change."

[Plumbus Grumbo]

[Replying to post 12 by Plumbus Grumbo]

Hi Plumbus Grumbo


I was replying to your post here, where you seemed to be having difficulty with the concept of a being having always existed.

I had said this;

There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

You then asked me this;

Help me understand your claim. What prohibits thought in an existence of anti-entropy? (Don't know if there's a better term for that.) I agree that consciousness requires change and I can't figure out how a perfect being could change.

So my questions to you were for clarification on what you said in order to see if I couldn't get some bead on where you are coming from with this argument in relation to my own.


Q: William: Why is it necessary that 'a perfect being' has to know everything?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 1. I have no idea. I wouldn't claim that.

Q: William: Why is it even necessary that a GOD should be 'perfect'?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 2. The gods I believe in are far from perfect.

Q: William: What do you or anyone else actually mean be 'perfect'?

A: Plumbus Grumbo: 3. When I use the word "perfect," I mean "precise beyond any ability or possibility of being more precise." (A "perfect circle" would be one that no machine or method of detection could find a flaw in).

It appears that your statement to begin with was coming from the perception that GOD has to be perfect and that somehow I had claimed as much and that is why you said "I can't figure out how a perfect being could change."

Ah. Thanks for clarifying!!

(To your accusation concerning me "having trouble with gods always having existed," four of the nine gods I believe have always existed, but only two of them are eternal).


I thought I had said, in a prior post, that I do not believe any gods must be perfect. I believe in nine, and none of them are prefect, claim to be, nor work towards perfection. (Perhaps I made that comment in another thread. I apologize).

Did you plan on answering my question of "what prohibits thought in a universe of anti-entropy"-a universe where things come together instead of fall apart?

I had hoped you would answer that. Do you mind? I understand if you'd rather not, friend.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Plumbus Grumbo]



Did you plan on answering my question of "what prohibits thought in a universe of anti-entropy"-a universe where things come together instead of fall apart?

I don't understand your question. Did I give you the impression thought was prohibitive in such a universe?

[Plumbus Grumbo]

[Replying to post 12 by Plumbus Grumbo]



Did you plan on answering my question of "what prohibits thought in a universe of anti-entropy"-a universe where things come together instead of fall apart?

I don't understand your question. Did I give you the impression thought was prohibitive in such a universe?

No.

I am so sorry.

My question was to Divine Insight.

You quoted me and I became confused. I am so so sorry. I wish I could make it up to you but I cant.

Please accept my apology. I really feel bad. I would never intentionally make such a mistake. Please forgive me. I'm sorrry.

You quoted and responded and I did not research the information in the thread properly. I'm sorry!! Will you forgive me?

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Plumbus Grumbo]



Did you plan on answering my question of "what prohibits thought in a universe of anti-entropy"-a universe where things come together instead of fall apart?

I don't understand your question. Did I give you the impression thought was prohibitive in such a universe?

No.

I am so sorry.

My question was to Divine Insight.

You quoted me and I became confused. I am so so sorry. I wish I could make it up to you but I cant.

Please accept my apology. I really feel bad. I would never intentionally make such a mistake. Please forgive me. I'm sorrry.

You quoted and responded and I did not research the information in the thread properly. I'm sorry!! Will you forgive me?

Seems a bit over the top dontcha think Plumbus Grumbo?

It was just a simple mistake.