Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The Argument from Temporal Relationships, as Applied to a Timeless Causative Actor

Following a very long period of inactivity, I here present an argument that, I believe, demonstrates the untenability of the notion that a causative actor—such as, for example, a creator deity—can be timeless while still being causative.

To start, I will define two key terms:

"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."

"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."

Now, the argument:

Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."

If this argument is, as I believe, sound, then a creator (causative) deity that is ostensibly a timeless being is, in fact, a non-existing manifestation of absurd reasoning.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Tommykey said...

Welcome back!

5:15 PM EST  
Blogger The Jolly Nihilist said...

Thank you, Tommy! I hope that you're well, and enjoying life.

11:18 PM EDT  
Blogger -blessed holy socks, the non-perishable-zealot said...

If you say there isn't a God, I say we shall ALL return to Jesus when you croak (your soul is indelible) and because I was an actual NDE, lemme share with you what I actually know Seventh-Heaven's gonna be like for you/me if you get in the boat, brudda: meet this ex-mortal Upstairs for the most-extra-groovy, pleasure-beyond-measure, Ultra-Yummy-Reality-Addiction in the Great Beyond for a BIG-ol, kick-ass, party-hardy, 1011011011...-yummy-flavors you DO NOT wanna miss the smmmokin’-hot-deal. YES! For God, anything and everything and more! is possible!! RSVP? Cya soon.

7:22 PM EDT  
Blogger The Jolly Nihilist said...

Thank you for your reply, Dr. kold_kadavr_flatliner.

There is no persuasive evidence that a "soul" exists, let alone that it's eternal and that it persists beyond corporeal death. Indeed, inasmuch as the typical conception of a "soul" incorporates elements such as consciousness, personality and memories, the "soul" is rendered highly doubtful because all of those things — consciousness, personality and memories — are centered in the brain. Proponents of a "soul" have also failed to elucidate how an immaterial entity such as that — something wholly unlike the material world — could interact with a human corpus, which is clearly a material entity.

You muddle things further by describing a (non-existent) immaterial afterlife in terms rooted in, and probably restricted to, the material world: "pleasure," "party," "yummy," etc. These are terms whose meaning is principally derived from our sense organs and their interaction with our brain. How feelings derived from sensory input could be experienced in the absence of sensory input, as well as brain function, remains baffling.

It is well established that NDEs are products of brains in distress, whether because of illness, injury, oxygen deprivation or some other stress-inducing factor.

2:01 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home