Originally posted by HumanHeaven
That is because the universe had a start and changed (going by the big bang) where God is unchanging, he is always the same, that is the difference of being outside of time and inside.

If the universe was outside of time as God is it never would have banged. Our science shows that it started and will even end. Anything outside of time is not subject to beginnings and ends as we understand it.

(1) The universe is not a thing itself, like a jar containing bugs. It is the totality of all that is (substances, forces, and their relationships—including dimensionality and causality).

(2) “Outside the universe” is an incoherent notion. (It is like asserting that there is something “outside of” everything.)

(3) Time is a dimension of the universe.

(4) Therefore, “outside of time” is an incoherent notion.

_______________________________________

If you redefine the universe as everything except a god (or any type of prime-mover), then the argument begs the question, viz.:

(a) the universe needs an “external” cause/prime-mover;

(b) ergo, there is a prime-mover.

Originally posted by AProdigy
As I said before...
The idea that an infinitely complex universe exists suggests that someone had to design it. The fact that many physically separated people groups independently developed various religions that all preach the same basic principals of goodness would suggest that there is an attainable spiritual influence present in our world.

This falls very nicely to Richard Dawkin's greater complexities argument.

If the universe's great complexity necessitates a designer, then surely that designer must be considerably more complex. After all it had to contain within it at the very least the knowledge of the complexities of the universe and almost surely a great deal more besides. If great complexity required a designer, then the even greater complexity of the universe's designer must require a designer itself. Of course that designer most especially requires a designer as well for it must be even more complex that the universe's designer . . .

And so on ad infinitum.

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) The universe is not a thing itself, like a jar containing bugs. It is the totality of all that is (substances, forces, and their relationships—including dimensionality and causality).

(2) “Outside the universe” is an incoherent notion. (It is like asserting that there is something “outside of” everything.)

(3) Time is a dimension of the uni ...[text shortened]...

(a) the universe needs an “external” cause/prime-mover;

(b) ergo, there is a prime-mover.

When you say that outside the universe is a “incoherent notion”, do you mean it is something we cannot understand? If that is what you are saying, I would agree, we cannot understand God beyond what he gives us.

(a) the universe needs an “external” cause/prime-mover;
(b) ergo, there is a prime-mover.

The external cause would also be God who is outside of the universe and time and thus is "incoherent" (imposable to fully understand)

So I think we are agreeing… I think *laughs*

Originally posted by telerion
This falls very nicely to Richard Dawkin's greater complexities argument.

If the universe's great complexity necessitates a designer, then surely that designer must be considerably more complex. After all it had to contain within it at the very least the knowledge of the complexities of the universe and almost surely a great deal more besides. If gre ...[text shortened]... st be even more complex that the universe's designer . . .

And so on ad infinitum.

That is a decent argument for infinite regression to deal with but if you work with the theory “uncaused cause” it doesn’t hold any weight.

I suppose it depends on what side of the fence you decide to sit on and which one you find has the least problems.

Personally I find infinite regression a conundrum with no answer. An uncaused caused, though difficult to understand seems at least possible to me. And lets face it… it has to be one or the other.

There is no way to prove who is right on this but there is also no way to prove who is wrong. Just gather up your belief systems and find the one the fits the best until you find a better one that fits closer.

Originally posted by HumanHeaven
When you say that outside the universe is a “incoherent notion”, do you mean it is something we cannot understand? If that is what you are saying, I would agree, we cannot understand God beyond what he gives us.

It is not a case of "we cannot understand it" but rather a case of "it is meaningless nonsense".
To say something exists outside of everything is self contradictory. If God exists then he cannot exist outside himself. It makes far more sense to say that there may exist something called God that is dimensionless (and hence everywhere and nowhere simultaneously) but to specifically place him 'outside' of the universe is actually creating a dimension in which the entity has bounds and all you are doing is saying that the true universe is bigger than the 'observable universe'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not a case of "we cannot understand it" but rather a case of "it is meaningless nonsense".
To say something exists outside of everything is self contradictory. If God exists then he cannot exist outside himself. It makes far more sense to say that there may exist something called God that is dimensionless (and hence everywhere and nowhere simultane you are doing is saying that the true universe is bigger than the 'observable universe'.

Well if he does mean "it is meaningless nonsense" i would have to disagree. I believe it would have a meaning and mean something to know it though it would probably sound like nonsense to someone since they could not understand it with what they know.

for the recorded i am not saying something exists outside of everything, you are right that would come across as self contradictory but only because we are making the assumption that "something" has to be made out of "everything" which of course we mean "everything that we know of and could possibly understand" not actually "everything"

Perhaps saying something like

(i hesitate to use the word "something" because it relates to material that we know)

Something exists outside of everything that we can possibly know and understand within the universe. I don’t find this contradictory at all.

Originally posted by HumanHeaven
Well if he does mean "it is meaningless nonsense" i would have to disagree. I believe it would have a meaning and mean something to know it though it would probably sound like nonsense to someone since they could not understand it with what they know.

for the recorded i am not saying something exists outside of everything, you are right that would com bly know and understand within the universe. I don’t find this contradictory at all.

Twhitehead’s got it.

I do not claim that we are the singular species for which there are no aspects of the natural universe that are beyond our cognitive grasp. The “grammar” of our consciousness may simply not be exhaustive of the “syntax” of the universe.

Acknowledging that does not require speculation about a supernatural (or extra-natural) category of any kind. We cannot even speculate except in terms of the grammar of our consciousness—no matter how rudimentary or sophisticated our language in attempting to do so. Whatever cannot be explained (or understood) meaningfully within that grammar (events, experiences, whatever) remains unknown by that grammar. Attempts to speak of things that lie beyond that lead to meaningless—incoherent—concepts.

However, we are capable of bewitching ourselves with our own language: we think that using definable words in a properly constructed sentence means that we know what we are talking about. And we sometimes think that the internal consistency of a philosophical system that we acquire or construct is a sufficient (rather than merely a necessary) condition for that system to be true, or even just plausible.

For example, because the grammar of our consciousness includes spatiality, and we use phrases like “within the universe,” we can conjure the illusion that the universe has an “edge,” an inside and an outside, like a ball. When scientists speak of the universe expanding, we are likely to imagine a ball expanding into empty space—forgetting that space is a dimension of the universe itself. We image the universe as a container of sorts—as a thing that, like other things, is an effect in need of a cause “outside” itself.

So we end up speaking (and thinking) in incoherent phrases like “beyond the universe” or “before the beginning” or “outside of time.”

The word consciousness itself may be an example, if we begin to assume that because we have a noun in our language there must be some real corresponding substance—when, in fact, it may simply be a kind of catch-all label for a complex of patterning neuro-biological processes; that is, “it” may properly be a “verb.” And while consciousness itself seems mysterious enough—and trying to use the mind to know the mind might be a bit like trying to cut a knife-blade with itself alone—we nevertheless often seem to assume that certain mystical experiences cannot be a product of the engagement of that consciousness with, simply, the world; albeit in a way that we are unable to “grammatize.”

Just because we can experience in some way aspects of the natural order that transcend our grammatical abilities to understand—what I call the mystery—does not imply that there must be a way to understand it. Nevertheless, our grammatical mind often struggles to translate such experience into mental representations such as visions, auditions, and the like. The Zen masters call such translations makkyo, meaning “bedeviling illusions.” I tend to be a bit more sympathetic in that I think that such translations, created by our own mind in that engagement, may offer valid (often aesthetic) insights into ourselves—as long as we realize that such translations are essentially metaphors, and not objective fact.

If you want to assume God as a premise for a religious/philosophical system that you find aesthetically pleasing and helpful for you in living out your daily round, I can raise no objections. [Note: I do not use the word “aesthetic” in any disparaging way, or as something that is merely entertaining: the very coherence of the world, and how we find ourselves living in it, seems to be profoundly aesthetic.]

Originally posted by vistesd
Twhitehead’s got it.

I do not claim that we are the singular species for which there are no aspects of the natural universe that are beyond our cognitive grasp. The “grammar” of our consciousness may simply not be exhaustive of the “syntax” of the universe.

Acknowledging that does not require speculation about a supernatural (or extra-natural) categ ...[text shortened]... herence of the world, and how we find ourselves living in it, seems to be profoundly aesthetic.]

Very well put. Thank you for sharing your time.

Originally posted by telerion
Very well put. Thank you for sharing your time.

Thanks, Tel. Nice to see you about.

Originally posted by vistesd
Twhitehead’s got it.

I do not claim that we are the singular species for which there are no aspects of the natural universe that are beyond our cognitive grasp. The “grammar” of our consciousness may simply not be exhaustive of the “syntax” of the universe.

Acknowledging that does not require speculation about a supernatural (or extra-natural) categ ...[text shortened]... herence of the world, and how we find ourselves living in it, seems to be profoundly aesthetic.]

We cant speak or what we do not know, and by trying to we create things that do not exist. This happens by using words that are not sufficient and essentially creating very inaccurate "truths".

Because of this using phrases like "outside of the universe" is likely to be inaccurate because of the words used which generates images much similar to outside a jar, and thus creates false information of what "outside the universe" actually is.

Unable to explain things or understand things within our world creates experience that our consciousness would relay and or interpret as mystical. Just because we experience these does not mean we can understand them

------
I did my best to translate what you said. Let me know if i am off. To be frank, your writing style is similar to many poor texts i have come across. Good writers communicate efficiently. If you need to, I would appreciate it if you would put the Thesaurus away. It would be a shame to have your ideas be lost in winded garble.

I do agree with what you said if i did sum it correctly. However what would we do instead? Should we not talk of the universe or experience since it could not be understood or create possible error? I hardly think so. Nor does this refute anything said other then imply we stop talking about this subject.

For all those that think this was plainly said and I am in error, I salute you, though I envy how you understood what was typed better then I, surely I hope that you are aware of your uniqueness and how this would qualify as poor writing.

“It is not there writing that made them famous, it is their ideas! There writing is horrid!”
-Dr Steve Black

Originally posted by ryunix
We cant speak or what we do not know, and by trying to we create things that do not exist. This happens by using words that are not sufficient and essentially creating very inaccurate "truths".

Because of this using phrases like "outside of the universe" is likely to be inaccurate because of the words used which generates images much similar to outside a j ...[text shortened]... iting that made them famous, it is their ideas! There writing is horrid!”
-Dr Steve Black

Should we not talk of the universe or experience since it could not be understood or create possible error? I hardly think so. Nor does this refute anything said other then imply we stop talking about this subject.

(1) Nothing I said precludes all talk, or attempting to understand what we can of the universe. It is aimed at bewitching metaphysical (and religious, in this case) speculation.

(2) If someone cannot present a coherent concept of “God”, or goes to the point of saying that such a God cannot be understood because it transcends our cognitive ability, then maybe they ought to stop talking about it—at least as a presentation of fact. (I recall people on here who have said that God’s notion of justice or morality is simply not one that we can comprehend—in which case, those words lose all meaning.)

(3) I don’t have any problem with metaphorical or symbolical or even deliberately paradoxical language, recognized as such.

______________________________________

Here’s an efficient statement:

Don’t seek “the truth”,
just drop your speculations.

—Zen master Foyan

If you have sufficient context, perhaps you’ll get it; if not, then not. 🙂

Originally posted by ryunix
We cant speak or what we do not know, and by trying to we create things that do not exist. This happens by using words that are not sufficient and essentially creating very inaccurate "truths".

Because of this using phrases like "outside of the universe" is likely to be inaccurate because of the words used which generates images much similar to outside a j iting that made them famous, it is their ideas! There writing is horrid!”
-Dr Steve Black

Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone has an education level at or below you own. He was trying to relate some rather abstract concepts in a manner free of ambiguity and excess. I think he did quite well. As a testament to his success, I found his post very easy to understand*.

(On many occasions I have used the word perspicuous rather than "clear" or "easy to understand." I chose to make an exception for you.)

Originally posted by telerion
Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone has an education level at or below you own. He was trying to relate some rather abstract concepts in a manner free of ambiguity and excess. I think he did quite well. As a testament to his success, I found his post very easy to understand*.

(On many occasions I have used the word perspicuous rather than "clear" or "easy to understand." I chose to make an exception for you.)

The fact that you said that shows your ignorance.

You know nothing of my education or my background and it is not an assumption that the majority of the people in the States, Canada or any other country you pick; have a lower level of education then myself.

I can deduce this because I know my level of education. You cannot, and make a fools allegation.

Yes he was trying to relate abstract concepts but did so poorly. The point of communication is to be clear and easily understood buy your audience, this was not done.
The fact that you understood it clearly is trivial since you are not his sole audience and are not a representative of the majority.
The fact that you are unable to understand this, or simply know it or even see function at such a low level of actualization, I doubt your claims about clarity in regards to the post but rather assess you as a fanboy who is latching onto someone who sounds smart and probably is in order to validate yourself.
Congrats fanboy, talk about something you know next time.
enjoy

Originally posted by ryunix
The fact that you said that shows your ignorance.

You know nothing of my education or my background and it is not an assumption that the majority of the people in the States, Canada or any other country you pick; have a lower level of education then myself.

I can deduce this because I know my level of education. You cannot, and make a fools allegation. ...[text shortened]... order to validate yourself.
Congrats fanboy, talk about something you know next time.
enjoy

Oh you have me read perfectly, Doctor. BTW wouldn't your post above be a perfect example of sacrificing coherence for verbosity?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Should we not talk of the universe or experience since it could not be understood or create possible error? I hardly think so. Nor does this refute anything said other then imply we stop talking about this subject.

(1) Nothing I said precludes all talk, or attempting to understand what we can of the universe. It is aimed at bewitching metaphysica ...[text shortened]... en master Foyan

If you have sufficient context, perhaps you’ll get it; if not, then not. 🙂[/b]

I am not sure I’m following point #2

Can it not be a fact that we are unable to understand God? I mean we are unable to prove or Disprove God, everything is speculation. So why should we stop talking about it 😕

To use your example:
I recall people on here who have said that God’s notion of justice or morality is simply not one that we can comprehend—in which case, those words lose all meaning

They lose all meaning because we don’t understand what this "higher morality" is. But this does not mean talking about a “higher morality” and relating it to something we do understand (morality) does not help us understand, and if it is creating understanding it surely has meaning. Sure it is not specific understanding because that is imposable (which is what they are saying) but it gives a ballpark idea, so the person kind of gets and idea of a "higher morality"

How else would you state this? God is good and cannot do wrong. So when someone says "but look at how he opened the earth to swallow people whole" and you have to explain that you are taking your view of good and applying it to God. To someone that knows all things, including the future, your good is less. God is not forced to judge things individually but globally and for all time. Killing one person can change the future, God knows the future and thus can do good in ways we would perceive bad. He has a higher level of good and morals when it comes to these things. I can’t fully understand it however I can get an idea of it.

It is similar to when someone asks what my slerpee tastes like and i say "bananas". Does it actually taste like a banana, what type of banana, how ripe etc, who knows and who cares but it is banana like in taste and they have an idea. Not a specific fact on its exact flavor but they know it tastes like something they can understand. Just like a higher morality. These statements are not useless be required