by Terry 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Nothing in the Bible says God created time, just the heavens and earth. If God created time, when did he find the time to do it? Nothing could have been done without some passage of time. There would be no past, present or future. Nothing.
That's also a problem for a Universe that came into being without God. Current cosmological theories about the beginning of the Universe have time starting as part of everything else.
That's also a problem for a Universe that came into being without God.
It's not a problem, it's an exciting mystery to solve!
I'm not meaning to be disingenuous terry. But you can't get around the need for a spiritual dimension when discussing God. And by spiritual I mean unseen, unmeasurable (from a physical standpoint). I can't talk about the nature of god without it. It can't be done. Which is the main reason why I say I can't prove god to you and you can't prove his non existence coming from a purely physical perspective. I'm now on my phone, so I can't type much...
And I wasn't speaking for others in saying that most would attribute a supernatural event to a more "rational" way of explanation. I was saying it would be easy to imagine such a rejection.
My understanding of "self realization and logic" is that it only attempts to explain paradoxes that appear as a result of applying conditions that are themselves inferentially paradoxical in the first place. But we are at this time attempting to understand another dimension altogether - a dimension that encompasses metaphysical exploration to explain physical realitiies.
For instance: Why is there something instead of nothing.
We inhabit a realm of physical reality, and what we are discussing is the nature of this reality. The universe for instance is the ultimate reality. But what, ultimately, is the nature of this reality? For instance is it "finite" or "infinite"? It can't be both and there is no third alternative that I know of. The terms that we use to explore this concept, "finite" and "infinite" are themselves subject to paradoxical infractions of logic.
For instance: If the universe is the ultimate reality then is it finite? If it is, then where does it "begin" and where does it "end"? If it ends at point Z then whatever exits beyond that point must reveal some other potential reality. Which means that the universe is NOT the ultimate reality. Something else exists beyond its edges.
Otherwise the universe then must be infinite. But if it is infinite, what is the nature of this infinity? Is it infinite in all directions, encompassing space, time, and all the consequences that accrue from applying "logic"?
If it is, then we are using meanigless meanings that are simply interpolations of logic to explain what is in reality a preconceived notion.
And this is the fallacy that faces all rational discussions such as this. Preconceived notions, founded on, and sustained by, personal experience. It also opens the door to that hoary old debate of faith verses reason. All intellectual belief is a form of faith. If you believe that the physical universe is infinite and that this meaningless meaningful concept proves the non existence of an infinite God, it is based on the faith you have in this logical approach.
Thus the proposition that God CANNOT know all things, because self realization and logic deny this, is based on the intellectual belief that God cannot know all things in the first place. Hence one is importuning self realization as a reason for this belief by indulging in something that again paradoxically, can only be defined in terms that involve the understanding of the word "faith".
If, on the basis of one's own reflection on the nature of things, one is led to believe that this universe, or ultimate reality, is both self-sufficient and uncaused, then one has already formed an impression of this reality and it provides for no room for any other causual reality. But this intellectual belief can be sustained only on the basis of having faith in the notion that physical reality is the only reality that exits. To be intellectually sustaining, it must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be true. But logic is a trap here. The only way to prove that there is no reality beyond the material universe is to assume that there is no other kind of reality in the first place.
On the basis of my own reflection on the nature of things, I am led to believe that there IS a reality beyond the material. Logic can be pressed into service just as meaningfully to predicate one's intellectual belief in this transendent, causual reality. A reality that exhibits personal traits beyond the credibility of human reason, and exits in a realm that defies exploration. Brighter than a thousand suns and infinite in all directions, transcendent beyond all discursive knowledge, this Ultimate Reality nevertheless relates to propositional thought and verbal communication.
Beyond the apparent meanlessness of human existence, this Ultimate Reality personally gives significance to the most insignificant life.
Thus this Reality, logically, CAN know and know in fulness.
But then that is my intellectual belief, and ultimately, the source of my faith.
Moggy lover, I wish I could have stated that as beautifully as you just did.
It's not a problem, it's an exciting mystery to solve!
In other words, a problem.
But you can't get around the need for a spiritual dimension when discussing God. And by spiritual I mean unseen, unmeasurable (from a physical standpoint).
Well now...
To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable!
Science (which is knowledge) measures before it does anything else.
By locating and describing and measuring we pin down what IS and differentiate.
What is the biggest difference between something REAL and something UNreal?
Answer: you can measure it.
I asked a question a long while back in another topic. At first it sounds wacky. But, I asked it to make an important point.
The question was: HOW BIG IS A DEMON?
I asked it because of the NT story of the fellow possessed by a Legion of demons who were literally driven into swine and drowned.
My thought process was this:
If a demon is real and the man were real then we start with what we know about man. Man is of a certain size and shape.
In order for a LEGION (5,120 soldiers) to occupy the same space as a man---what size would they be?
You see what I mean? By reducing the problem to the point of absurdity it becomes clear (at least to me) what baloney demons really are. At least in THAT story:)
But are thoughts PHYSICAL? Can the mind be explained merely in physical terms related to the body? What is thought? What makes me self aware? We can try to explain it in terms of biological function, but we really don't know where or even what the MIND is.
Our thoughts are that BY MEANS OF WHICH we place objects before our mind which aren't actually there.
Here is a painting in the middle of a sidewalk which is a good analogy of how a thought works to represent something NOT REALLY THERE.
The only problem with "knowing what the mind is" comes from the illogic of self-reference. You cannot use the mind to define itself!
In other words, a problem.
No, not a problem. A mystery. Oh, what won't Christians say in a desperate bid to reduce science to the absurd level of religion?
