The Argument from Temporal Relationships
Presenting my defeater for William Lane Craig's "first cause" argument...
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
C: A timeless being cannot be involved in cause-and-effect relationships.
P1: Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature.
P2: A timeless being cannot be involved in anything temporal in nature.
C: A timeless being cannot be involved in cause-and-effect relationships.
posted by The Jolly Nihilist at 10:35:00 PM
12 Comments:
ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS
PART A
Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it from eminent philosophers. Richard M. Gale has said that if time is unreal, then 1) there are no temporal facts, 2) nothing is past, present or future and 3) nothing is earlier or later than anything else (Book: The philosophy of time, 1962). Bertrand Russell has also said something similar to that. But he went so far as to say that science, prudence, hope effort, morality-everything becomes meaningless if we accept the view that time is unreal (Mysticism, Book: religion and science, 1961).
But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “What is your purpose here? Are you trying to popularize mystical world-view amongst us? If not, then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? When his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in a letter to his widow that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Another scientist Paul Davies has also written in one of his books that time does not pass and that there is no such thing as past, present and future (Other Worlds, 1980). Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS
PART B
Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become two meaningless words, because by these two words we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, it is none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no connection whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
I dispute premise 2 and don't see how you can demonstrate it to be true.
I believe you contend that god created, which is to say caused, the universe. So, one can think of it this way: According to you, there is a relationship between god (the cause) and the universe (the effect). Thus, god (the cause) and the universe (the effect) have a cause-and-effect relationship.
It already has been acknowledged that cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature. This means that a generic cause and a generic effect have a temporal relationship. In other words, that generic cause and that generic effect are temporally bounded--bounded by time--which is a necessary condition for having a temporal relationship.
At the same time, you seemingly would contend that god is timeless. A timeless being exists outside the bounds of time. A timeless being is completely independent of time. A timeless being, in short, is an atemporal one.
Violating the law of noncontradiction is the problem here. To serve as the “cause” in a cause-and-effect relationship (or to serve as the “effect,” for that matter), the thing in question must be temporally bounded--bounded by time. Cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature, meaning any generic cause and any generic effect are temporally bounded. If you contend that god is timeless (or atemporal, or non-temporal) at the same time you posit god as the cause of something--of anything--you are simultaneously saying that god is atemporal and temporally bounded.
You are saying, in essence, that god is a triangular circle.
"It already has been acknowledged that cause-and-effect relationships are temporal in nature."
There is no reason God cannot enter temporal reality. You can assert otherwise, but your assertions are just that.
There is no reason God cannot enter temporal reality. You can assert otherwise, but your assertions are just that.
You want god to be both ways, depending on what might be argumentatively convenient. You want god to be, by definition, timeless--which is to say atemporal--but you also want god to enter temporal reality, which is to say god becomes temporally bounded.
If an atemporal being can become temporally bounded sporadically, then presumably a nonspatial entity can become spatially bounded sporadically, correct?
Please explain. Show your work.
"You want god to be both ways, depending on what might be argumentatively convenient. You want god to be, by definition, timeless--which is to say atemporal--but you also want god to enter temporal reality, which is to say god becomes temporally bounded."
You have yet to demonstrate that God could not enter time. You have asserted it. There is a difference.
"If an atemporal being can become temporally bounded sporadically, then presumably a nonspatial entity can become spatially bounded sporadically, correct?"
"Please explain. Show your work."
Jesus.
You have yet to demonstrate that God could not enter time. You have asserted it. There is a difference.
Assuming that you do not dispute the law of noncontradiction, I have, in fact, demonstrated it. You define god as timeless, which is to say atemporal. To "enter time" is to become temporally bounded. A being that is atemporal but, at the same time, temporally bounded is absurd. Your god is a triangular circle... a nonspatial entity "entering space."
Jesus.
...is a triangular circle?
You haven't explained why God's being involved in temporal events necessitates His being bound by time(If I were going to nitpick I would rather call Him eternal than timeless). You have asserted it and nothing more. You haven't shown that it would violate the law of non-contradiction for an eternal being, say Jesus Christ, to enter time freely. You have asserted it. You have basically said that outside the constraints of time=unable to operate in time. You have called the notion a contradiction but have not shown it to be contradictory. Why don't you go back to your first principle and show me some hard evidence that God cannot be eternal and operate in time?
We are going ’round and ’round in circles, but I seem to be having a difficult time homing in on the words that will make this point clear to you.
You are talking about an atemporal being “entering time” sporadically. To “enter time” is to be temporally bounded...bounded by time...under the jurisdiction of time...affected by and subject to time.
A being cannot simultaneously be atemporal and temporally bounded. If a being is under the jurisdiction of time, that being cannot be atemporal. If a being is atemporal, that being cannot be under the jurisdiction of time.
You have failed to deal with my analogy, which illustrates precisely the same point.
Explain how a nonspatial entity could “enter space” while still remaining nonspatial.
I think I comprehend your point well enough. I just reject it. Perhaps I have been unclear. You think you have proved something. I say you have merely asserted it (albeit rather verbosely). Do you really understand the nature of time and space so well that your answer to a question of this magnitude, "does God exist?", can rest on this one little syllogism? I am skeptical; and like any good skeptic I want a good reason to accept your claims about reality. Your premises assume knowledge that you don't have and I therefore reject your conclusion.
How can a non-spatial entity enter space? I don't know how one can; but I do know that they can. I know that because my mind is non-spatial and yet here it is with my brain and me, in space. Laws of logic are non-spatial and yet we perceive them as realities with our non-spatial minds. There are all sorts of non-spatial things that are realities to us in our "spatial-ness". So the burden of proof is not really on me to prove that it could happen in another case. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it is suddenly impossible in this special case (Jesus Christ's entering of time and space) just because it would be convenient to your argument.
Do you really understand the nature of time and space so well that your answer to a question of this magnitude, "does God exist?", can rest on this one little syllogism?
Of course not. Such a belief would be breathtakingly egotistical, as well as extraordinarily foolhardy. I merely offer The Argument from Temporal Relationships as a defeater to Craig's fallacious argument.
Your premises assume knowledge that you don't have and I therefore reject your conclusion.
And, yet, you offer no genuine counterexamples to illustrate how my premises are unsound. If you think one, or both, of the premises is wrong, provide an example of something that would serve to contradict them.
How can a non-spatial entity enter space? I don't know how one can; but I do know that they can. I know that because my mind is non-spatial and yet here it is with my brain and me, in space.
Your “mind” sits alongside your brain and you in space? What is this, Cartesian mind-brain dualism? Consciousness, and attendant mental properties, is a self-organized emergent property of billions of neurons firing in patterns in the brain.
Laws of logic are non-spatial and yet we perceive them as realities with our non-spatial minds.
You are conflating being spatial and merely existing. Laws of logic exist, to be sure. To declare them spatial, or as having “entered space,” is another matter. To “enter time” is to be temporally bounded...bounded by time...under the jurisdiction of time...affected by and subject to time. To “enter space” would be analogous. Understanding that, there is no indication the laws of logic have “entered space.”
There are all sorts of non-spatial things that are realities to us in our "spatial-ness".
You are again conflating being spatial and merely existing. Laws of logic exist, as I said, but there is no evidence to suggest that they have “entered space” in the sense of being spatially bounded—bounded by, and under the jurisdiction of, space—and having spatial relationships with other spatially bounded entities.
Post a Comment
<< Home