You are back to front in your thinking.
Omnipresence RELATES to time and space.
Remove time and space and you remove the very concept of omnipresence.
Please start again.
For the Creationists
- Thread starter mountainhare
- Start date
Omnipresence RELATES to time and space.
Remove time and space and you remove the very concept of omnipresence.
Please start again.
So, given your knowledge base, how do you propose that 1 entity can inhabit "nothingness" any better than 2?
... As... equally as one.
Perhaps heh.. So you now concur that 'time' is as much a factor for one entity as it is for two. Glad we got that settled.
Henpecking. My outburst was that YOU are proposing an illogical claim and yet expect me (et al.) to defend our questions and challenges. The ball is still in your court, and Sarkus has already pointed out the flaws in your statements.
I'm going to try to help LG here.
Ominpresence implies only one by the following logic. If there are two then by simple logic you can show that both cannot be omnipresent since one would displace at least some of the spacetime occupied by the other. Therefore, to be omnipresent means only one being can be in that state.
Right?
And if such an entity existed, unchanging, throughout space and time, then space and time would have no distinction as far as it was concerned. Thus you could say that it trancended space and time.
Yar?
Ominpresence implies only one by the following logic. If there are two then by simple logic you can show that both cannot be omnipresent since one would displace at least some of the spacetime occupied by the other. Therefore, to be omnipresent means only one being can be in that state.
Right?
And if such an entity existed, unchanging, throughout space and time, then space and time would have no distinction as far as it was concerned. Thus you could say that it trancended space and time.
Yar?
Here is the problem with the statement: Apparently god/s exist outside of space and time. If god were to occupy 'space' in an omnipresent fashion then sure, any other being that was also omnipresent would have to occupy the same space. But we are not talking space, we're talking "nothingness". In saying, there is no 'space' to occupy, and thus omnipresence is not only pointless but meaningless to whether one or two can occupy it.
Lg argues that two cannot exist outside of time and space, but the argument should be that even one cannot exist outside of it if it is claimed to be omnipresent. To be omnipresent it must occupy space, to move or do anything time must be a factor. If this being can operate in a realm of nothingness and no time, then 2 can just as easily, as can 3, 4 or 50 gazillion.
Agreed. The whole "beyond space and time" scifi movie advert thingy is a bit worn out. "It came from a world BEYOND SPACE AND TIME!!!"
I've always wondered what that meant.
Let me also ask something. LG et al propose that some singular god is responsible for the cosmos. They also propose here that it is impossible for there to be more than one singular god, because there weren't space and time as yet.
In other threads, LG and other proponents of theism state with confidence that god exists outside of and unaffected by time and space. So:
1. Why would time and space be an issue before the actual existence of time and space? and thus,
2. Why would the non-existence of time and space have anything to do with this argument? Can't multiple gods exist outside of time and space where theists say that their uni-god exists now? and to expand...
3. Why then can two gods not exist and be the co-operative designers of the cosmos? The one is after all unaffected by the constraints of time and space; why is it impossible for two, eleven, forty nine or even three thousand and sixteen to exist outside the constraints of time and space? If theists have held that time and space do not apply to their god, how could they possibly hold or KNOW that there can only be ONE outside of the effects of time and space? (Somehow I think LG is going to find some obscure Hindu text to quote in answer).
(EDIT: Hmm I guess I was a little late on the draw with this one, but I'll leave the post anyway)
In other threads, LG and other proponents of theism state with confidence that god exists outside of and unaffected by time and space. So:
1. Why would time and space be an issue before the actual existence of time and space? and thus,
2. Why would the non-existence of time and space have anything to do with this argument? Can't multiple gods exist outside of time and space where theists say that their uni-god exists now? and to expand...
3. Why then can two gods not exist and be the co-operative designers of the cosmos? The one is after all unaffected by the constraints of time and space; why is it impossible for two, eleven, forty nine or even three thousand and sixteen to exist outside the constraints of time and space? If theists have held that time and space do not apply to their god, how could they possibly hold or KNOW that there can only be ONE outside of the effects of time and space? (Somehow I think LG is going to find some obscure Hindu text to quote in answer).
(EDIT: Hmm I guess I was a little late on the draw with this one, but I'll leave the post anyway)
Last edited:
and usually people defend claims of logic by presenting premises that lead to a conclusion- if you want to say "there is no evidence!" that is fine - if you want to say "that is not logical" that is also fine - but until you come to the point of understanding how claims for logic and evidence are both slightly different there is not much point in trying to answer your challenges .... it appears that you have issues with the nature of knowledge and philosophy, aside from any specific topic of god/religion etc.
Enterprise D
“
Supe
”
“ Snakelord
“
“
“
Sarkus
Time and space is only an issue for relativity – there is no question of absolute existence under the influence of time and space (unless one accepts time and space as absolute – which then makes consciousness a problematic anomaly)
To be outside the influence of time and space requires either omnipresence or contingency on that omnipresent entity
Because its not possible for two or more entities operating out of a different sense of “I” to be both/all omnipresent – kind of like the impossibility of having the continuous weft and waft of thread resulting in more than one piece of cloth
“
Supe
”
Actually the suggestion of an object/thing/substance beyond time and space has been the central suggestion of of notable theories, including einstein’s attempts to crack the unified field theory (and also to a lesser extent with probability fields in quantam physics), what to speak of philosophy – you will rarely find a unique original idea in pulp science fiction
“ Snakelord
Therefore ‘nothingness’ Is not what I am proposing
“
Unless the one is EVERYTHING
“
If there were two, contingency would be a factor for one of them which would enable a distinction
“
Sarkus
The inability to discern a difference between an entity that is omnipresent and an entity that is very very very big is the inability to discern between an entity that is beyond time and space and an entity that is contingent on it (in other words the very notion of omnipresence contingent on time and space has no possibility of being omniscient)
Utterly irrelevant to the point I made.
You said that, pre creation of time and space there was only 1 God - due to the God's omnipresence.
You have failed to answer the apparent, and explained, flaw in this argument: that omnipresence requires the existence of space and time.
In the absence of space and time, omnipresence is meaningless - and thus you need to explain how even 1 can exist, and then we will move on to explaining how 2 can.
Now please counter the point made - or concede the point.
Given the arguments you've used on this thread that is exactly what you're proposing.
You state that two entities could not be involved in the creation of time and space, only one can. This indicates that before that creation of time and space this god dwells in a place outside of time and space, (that I dub 'nothingness' or if it pleases you more 'no-space').
If we now assert that this god, (before the creation of space), dwells in no-space, then if you somehow claim that one being can do such a thing while claiming it is omnipresent, (something that is meaningless in no-space because there's nothing to be present of), then two can do it just as easily.
The minute that is argued everything descends into worthlessness. That pile of stinky dog poo - that's god, I'm god, the wall over there is god.. The 'sins' I perform are not an issue, because I'm god. Those sins themselves are god, nobody is to blame for anything, because we're all god.
It's pointless.
you get a 1 on word choice, but anyways, god is always referred to in the singular in the bible, So there can only be one God. A god who is infinitley powerful has the capabilities to do such things. When you start from square one, the laws of physics, chemistry, nature, etc. are not written yet. All the freedom to make the foundation for all life is at your disposal.
This is inaccurate, elohim is plural.
Furthermore you have statements like "let us go down", "made in our image, our likeness", etc.
Even the very term 'lord' denotes rank status among a group.
Finally, what the bible says doesn't mean 'there can only be one god'. There are many other texts that need to be taken into account - and then, something being written about by ancient people does not mean it's true.
Shall I assume you don't wish to seek the information you desire?
therefore there are issues of contingency (of which time and space is one factor) that enables distinction
just like a drop of ocean water has the qualities (saltiness) but not the quantity of the ocean
you are working (like most faithful empiricists) that time and space is the ultimate substance of existence - in short though, if you take away time and space (which is after all, the medium that conditioned souls require to express themselves in), you are just left with two things - the desire of god and the desire of living entities in line with the desire of god.
Given your foundation, there is not much else to present for your understanding - I guess we could always try and crack open th e"limitations of empiricism" argument and try and get you to determine how such things as consciousness can be materially defined in terms of time and space ??
:shrug:
So you're taking my asking of the questions as an assumption that I don't wish to seek the information I'm after???
And you think of yourself as rational?
So let me ask once again:
On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?
And your evidence for these confidence statements is?
You have this wonderfully self-referential ball of circular-logic that actually answers diddly-squat about anything. And you spout it as though it answers everything.
You continue to baffle me, LG.
Which can only be your own purposefull misunderstanding in a vain effort of manuvering and manipulation.
I sense you're crying out for help but you haven't actually asked for it yet.And you think of yourself as rational?
So let me ask once again:
[/QUOTE]
Once you've appreciated what has been said previously you might understand that you're asking the wrong questions. However shall you persist in your current thinking, you'll be locked in a circular exange...
For I will allways tell you. Read what came before. If you are indeed a seeker of evidence. If this is beyond you comprehension or ability then I believe you know what my response will be to your next post.
So wait, god is or is not "EVERYTHING"? (emphasis yours). If so my statement stands.
As a sidenote, you missed this:
"You state that two entities could not be involved in the creation of time and space, only one can. This indicates that before that creation of time and space this god dwells in a place outside of time and space, (that I dub 'nothingness' or if it pleases you more 'no-space').
If we now assert that this god, (before the creation of space), dwells in no-space, then if you somehow claim that one being can do such a thing while claiming it is omnipresent, (something that is meaningless in no-space because there's nothing to be present of), then two can do it just as easily."
Agree/disagree? Explanation?