A timeless God can exist.

People keep telling me that I am not using logic and that there reasoning is objective and superior to mine, thus they are correct and my thinking is invalid.So, since I am apperantly not thinking logically, I will now request assistance in learning logic. I will now attempt a logical statement.
Note that I am not using subjective assersions so my perspectives and religious beliefs will either not be included or will be contradicted.
This is my very own reasoning. I did not read it anywhere else, so you will have to tell me if YOU THINK it is valid. I may or may not agree with you.I use the following premises:1. Time is the medium by which things occur.
2. Things that exist within time have time and things that have time exist within time.
2. Time does not exist within a higher time.
3. Anything that does not have time is static and does not change.
4. Change is an event in time.
5. A life span is the amount of time that something exists.
6. Time exists.I will now logically deduct the following:1. It is evident that time does not change.
2. It is evident that anything that changes has time.
3. It is evident that the future cannot be changed.
4. It is evident that time has no life span.
5. It is evident that time does not have time.Now from that we proceed with.
1. Since time exists without having a life-span, things can exist without time.Now we get:
1. Since things can exist without time, a timeless God can exist.I am not going to get any further because then it would get complicated and it would be difficult to logically prove the existance of my God.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Do you think this suits Faith and Belief?Before I consider promoting it I'd like to see a further premise formally declared 'There is a God', it is implied by premise 7 but I think it should be explicitly put forward as a premise.Other Admins may promote without.Abe: the topic needs a better name. How about 'God exists outside of time' or something more suitable as you think.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---

I have removed the premise concerding God all together. I am trying to use godless-arguments to come to the conclusion that a timeless God CAN exist, not that he DOES actually exist. I don't want to use God in the premise.

OK, things look good for a promotion in my opinion. Now, you need to think of a 'theme' for the thread.If we promote this to one of the science fora (for example Misc Fora) you will probably find people questioning your scientific concept of time etc.To avoid that as being a problem you can try the Faith and Belief forum, but if you want to concentrate on logic then that might not be something you are comfortable with.A final possibility is to discuss this in the coffee house, which might be the best bet in general.However, its your choice depending on how you want this to proceed.

Put it in the Miscellanous Forum or The Big Bang and Cosmology forum.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

These are essentially the same premise. This is a double premise. Except you don't.Usually a deduction is shown by:P1 = Premise A
P2 = Premise B
C = Therefore CAs an example:P1 = All things that exist within time have time
P2 = All things that have time exist within time.
C1 = Therefore all things that do not exist in time do not have time.
C2 = and all things that do not have time do not exist in time.
(C1 and C2 form a mutually exclusive set of {in\with} and {out\without})P1 = All things that do not exist in time do not have time (C1 above).
P2 = Anything that does not have time is static (= does not change).
C3 = Therefore all things that do not exist in time are static.P1 = Any God that created time cannot exist in time
P2 = All things that do not exist in time are static (C3 above).
C4 = Therefore God is static (does not change).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi, welcome.If people accuse you of not being logical, it's no big deal. Everyone forms opinions that aren't logical, because we aren't robots. So anyone acting an authority towards you is probably best just ignored. Most people just seek to baffle with science, rather than actually knowing what their big words suggest they know. That's not a statement without merit. For example, blackholes exist but time and space is destroyed inside them.Also, the Big Bang suggests that time had a beginning. The Big Bang is the opposite of a black hole. It births space and time. So things can exist(causes) that don't require time.The only thing I would suggest, is that you didn't make long lists of assertions, but rather to take one idea and build on it. It's better to start with a few bricks rather than trying to build a whole house. Example;(X)All things have an overall (Y)purpose because of their genuine intended functionings.(Z)You are a person, which constitutes coming under "all things", therefore you have an overall purpose.Z (you) is X (comes under all things) therefore has Z (overall purpose).Googling syllogisms might help, and perhaps symbollic logic.

Your therefore conclusion numero uno makes a conclusion based on the premise that something can even exist apart from time. *edit to add: its safe to say that without time there is no space, and without space there is no change. Edited by 1.61803, : futher clarification.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Giving the problems I see from the least important to the most1) You have two premises numbered '2'2) I am not sure how you derived the conclusion that the future cannot change, although if you include the possiblity that the future does not exist then I suppsoe it is meaningless to say that it could be changed. (Note that "the future" typically refers to the future state of the universe).3) It is not clear that tiem does not have a lifespan, it might be said to have an infinite lifespan (if time is infinite) or a finite lifespan if it is finite (since it cannot exist before or after itself)4) It would be best to show your working. It is hard to tell if your derivations are valid when they are not provided. Equally your definitions need to be clear - consider the point above about "lifespan", for a start.5) To show that a timeless god can exist you need to show that the definition of "god" is compatible with timeless existence. For instance if a god is required to be capable of acting it could be argued that that entails change and thus is incompatible with timeless existence. It would certainly be odd to talk of a god who was incapable of doing anything..

My dear guido, have you ever taken a logic geometry class? more specifically, a logic section witin a geometry class, aka geometric/logic proofs?
It doesn't appear so. Lets jump in.GIVENs: (I would change around the order for effect)
let a: Time exists
let b: Time is the medium which things occur
let c: Change is an event in time
let d: Anything that does not have time is static and does not change ( i would change this line to "anything that does not change does not have time," as you are defining lack of time using static. )
let e: A life span is the amount of time that something occurs
let f: Time does not exist within a higher time (by which i believe you mean that time began, and there was nothing before that start)
let g: Things that exist within time have time and things that have time exist within time.Now your proof is lacking and very iffy, but there are extreme sections where you use absolutly NO LOGIC! Want an example? see below.In your contorted and illogical proof, you say:
(#3)You assume something that you do not list as a premise (illogical) and you dont link it to any other premises. lets see...
Let z: future exists within time
Let Y: Object exists outside of time
if Z then Z is not C (If the future exists, then it does not change. contorted, ik, but i didn't write it originally and i wanted to do it using all the source premises)
if not C then not G (if the future does not change, then it is
static. If it is static, it has no time ( premise C).
If not G then y (if it does NOT have time, then it cannot exist within time.)
Therefore: using the Law of Syllogism, if Z then Y. This contradicts premise F which says time does not exist within a higher time. Therefor the "people" were right when they told you you were illogical and their reasoning is superior to yours. This is the first contradiction of MANY, but the post is long and monotonous already.A few more non-proof points:
You say that time does not exist within a higher time, so therefor time must have existed forever. If as later you colclude from your contorted logic that things can exist without time, then they must be following their own, external time, which our time MUST BE SUBJECT to only by coexisting with it. Contradiction? yes.Another one. If you say time exists and is the medium by which things occur, then ALL things are subject to time, because there is no higher time by which they can occur (as you state). Therefor a timeless god CANNOT exist, since nothing can be timeless, as it would operate off the medium which all things occur AND in its own, higher time. Double contradiction.In setting out to prove you logic, you destroyed any hope of establishing a logical, functioning chain of events. Instead you use ad hoc repeatedly, create points from thin air, and don't support any of your conjectures with either fact or logical proof.Edited by Damouse, : oops.

---

I believe in God, I just call it Nature

Damouse, Guido is currently suspended for "abusing his privileges in chat." I did not witness the offense, so I cannot tell you exactly what he did.But name-calling would be one way to get suspended. Let me add that those who call another forum member "Fool!" announce their own candidacy for the title.In the future, please avoid insults in your posts.And please do not reply to this post.Edited by AdminOmni, : guido->GuidoEdited by AdminOmni, : ibid

---

Trust me.

Guido,In logic, a premise is a statement presumed true within the context of the deduction. The deduction itself is the application of certain rules on the premises, which then yields the conclusion.Normally, in deductive syllogistic reasoning, you state two premises, and then follow with a conclusion. Next, You can use your conclusion as one of the premises in another syllogism.In your reasoning, you say you deduct the things in your second (five-point) list. But I see no deduction going on. The only deduction I see is at the end of your post, in your two statements beginning with "Since...". Actually, your second list contains your premises, and your first (six-point) list is superfluous.If you want to know more about logic and deduction, this is a good place to start. You can also search wikipedia for information.Finally, a question about your thoughts on time and existence. What, according to you, is the meaning of "to exist"? On the one hand, it seems it means something like "to be, in time", but on the other hand you say that time "exists", but not "in a higher time". It would help if you tried to make your thoughts a bit more explicit.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Since we are talking logic I've got a question to ask. If evolution is true, where did the original matter come from?

actually, that question is totally irrelevent to evolution. big bang cosmology, sure -- but that has nothing to do with the variation of heritble features from one generation to the next in biological creatures on this particular planet.

---