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]

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?

'GOD' is a human idea represented through a variety of different and even conflicting belief systems.

Infinite regression (turtles all the way down) is the idea that if 'God' exists, then what created 'God' etc, and the only answer to that is that 'God' always existed and never did not exist.

This effectively creates an argument against the problem of Infinite Regression.

The problem many have with this concept is that we all had a beginning and thus everything 'must also have a beginning' but this is only a perception problem. There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

I mention this in this thread I just created.

[Divine Insight]

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

There are a couple things to realize about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First off it proclaims that everything that came into existence had to have been caused. Then it proclaims that clearly whatever FIRST existed could not have been caused by something that preceded it. So it then concludes that something "uncaused" must be the cause of everything else. And then it quite arbitrarily labels this uncaused thing to be "God".

The argument most certainly doesn't prove the existence of any "God". All it could possibly do is suggest that the origin of all that exists could not itself have been caused.

The second thing to note is the the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't favor or support any specific or particular religion. So even if it did qualify as a valid argument for the existence of a "God" it would be giving just as much support to any and all religions equally. In that case the religions would then need to stand on their own claims of what they claim God is like.

I would personally suggest that this would end up favoring Buddhism far more than something like the Hebrew Bible, for example. So the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't help Abrahamic theology one bit IMHO.

Plus I don't even feel that its a valid argument for a "God" anyway. At best it's an argument for an uncaused origin to reality. That doesn't automatically equate to being a "God".

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?

This argument you just gave demands that time always obeys the second law of thermodynamics or entropy. In other words, you are basically demanding that the only kind of time that is possible is entropic time that stretches from a recognizable past into a very specific future.

This kind of time would only be related to a physical universe that has the property of entropy.

There are other ways that time can be defined and thought of. A non-entropic time does not keep a record of the past. Therefore it's actually meaningless to even speak of the past "causing" the present or the future. It would also be meaningless to speak of an infinite past, since you can't even speak meaningfully about an immediate past.

There are actually reasons to believe that "non-entropic time" exists. In other words, there are reason to believe that change that is not dependent upon the past can exist. And that "uncaused" events can indeed occur. In fact, this condition is actually required for Quantum Mechanics to work.

So once we embrace the concept of "non-entropic time" the problem of a never-ending infinite past to things evaporates as well.

We could then try to assert that a "God" exists in non-entropic time. However, there is a problem with this since it's highly unlikely that any purposeful intelligence could exist in a non-entropic state. So if non-entropic time is the answer to this riddle it would seem that secular atheism wins the day. The very concept of a God would be impossible. Yet ironically we simultaneously solve the problem of an uncaused beginning to all that exists.

No God required.

[Divine Insight]

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?

[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?

The "problem of infinite regression" isn't a problem in relation to consciousness which never had a beginning but simply always has existed and always will exist. That in itself is a different subject as it isn't a 'problem' in the same way the 'problem' is seen to be in relation to 'turtles all the way down' or 'if there is a god then who/what created that god?'

The 'problem' is solved simply due to the concept/idea of it never having had a beginning.

eta;

Something which had no beginning cannot be thought of to have had a 'first thought' - so no problem there either.

[Divine Insight]

Something which had no beginning cannot be thought of to have had a 'first thought' - so no problem there either.

Technically there is a problem. Because technically you can't have a thought without a change in entropy. And a continual change of entropy into an infinite past does indeed pose a problem.

In order to avoid the problem of entropy you need to imagine an eternal God who exists without any thoughts at all. Only then can the God be eternal. But at that point God loses the very thing that we require it to have in order to be called a "God" (i.e. consciousness).

So we're right back to square one. Only Secular Naturalism can save the day at that point. With Secular Naturalism we can imagine an eternal realm that always exists, but only arises to consciousness during physical incarnation (i.e. when we exist).

So Secular Naturalism solves the problem. A God hypothesis doesn't.

[William]

Something which had no beginning cannot be thought of to have had a 'first thought' - so no problem there either.

Technically there is a problem. Because technically you can't have a thought without a change in entropy. And a continual change of entropy into an infinite past does indeed pose a problem.

In order to avoid the problem of entropy you need to imagine an eternal God who exists without any thoughts at all. Only then can the God be eternal. But at that point God loses the very thing that we require it to have in order to be called a "God" (i.e. consciousness).

So we're right back to square one. Only Secular Naturalism can save the day at that point. With Secular Naturalism we can imagine an eternal realm that always exists, but only arises to consciousness during physical incarnation (i.e. when we exist).

So Secular Naturalism solves the problem. A God hypothesis doesn't.

You are of course putting the cart before the horse. Your argument is founded on human perception and understanding relation to consciousness from the limitation of the environment the human being exists within.

As such, the assumption regarding consciousness of any sort must have the same limitations that human consciousness has.

The same applies in relation to the idea of GOD - and how we even prescribe the parameters to 'what a GOD must be' according to our rules...rules we make up in relation to our limited position.

My comment re the OP was that a being which could be regarded as GOD (as the first source...the reason for every thing which might exist) could indeed never have had a beginning which would sort the problem of infinite regression, but I refrained from elaborating on what other attributes such a being might possess or assuming limitations which might argue against the existence of any Intelligent Designer. (also commonly referred to as 'GOD'.)

What I originally commented;

'GOD' is a human idea represented through a variety of different and even conflicting belief systems.

Infinite regression (turtles all the way down) is the idea that if 'God' exists, then what created 'God' etc, and the only answer to that is that 'God' always existed and never did not exist.

This effectively creates an argument against the problem of Infinite Regression.

The problem many have with this concept is that we all had a beginning and thus everything 'must also have a beginning' but this is only a perception problem. There is no logical reason why consciousness cannot always have existed and everything else comes from that.

The OP refers to a particular idea of GOD;

"In the Kalam Cosmological argument, God is described as uncaused and timeless" so I simply went with that.

The timeless part means that including "an infinite past" is not valid as argument as you are attempting to do in this case.

Uncaused implies 'without beginning' which simply settles the problem of turtles all the way down.

[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.

[ttruscott]

Time measures movement. To be outside of time is to be motionless. Creation is movement from nothing to something. GOD is therefore not outside of time.

[McCulloch]

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

I no longer struggle to understand this. I believe that the concept of existence is meaningless outside of space time. Those who assert otherwise have to provide a coherent explanation of what they mean.

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?

Traditionally, Christians teach that God has existed for all time. If time is infinite, then God is infinite.

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?

If you follow the Kalam argument, God is their answer to the impossibility of infinite regression. Either there is an infinite causal regression or there is something uncaused at the beginning of the causal chain. Then the argument goes, we should call whatever this uncaused entity is God.
This, according to Kalam, if you don't believe in God, you must believe in infinite regression.