God, Heaven and Hell

[Byblos]

Can immaterial mind count?

What is counting?

[1over137]

Can immaterial mind count?

What is counting?

The mind.

[Kurieuo]

Huh? How in the world did you reach that conclusion? Care to lay that out in some kind of coherent syllogism please?

Timeless is someone who does not experience time. Mind means according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com the faculty of thinking, reasoning and applying knowledge. You can experience time when you count in your
mind. Therefore an entity which does not experience time is mindless.

Care to elaborate in syllogistic form? For example,

1) A entity who can count is not timeless.
2) God can count.
3) Therefore God is not timeless.

However... I beg to differ that this argument is sound. As Silvertusk alluded to, the most you would have is:

1) A timeless entity who counts gives up timelessness.
2) God possesses timelessness and can count.
3) Therefore if God counted then He gave up timelessness.

To believe that God's willing to count, thereby entering into temporarily, somehow retrocauses temporarily to then exist in His timelessness is just illusory. In actuality, God's eternal decision to enter into time "by counting" would not cause God's timeless state to change prior to his entering into time. It would only follow that God was timeless, and now God is temporal. To think otherwise makes no real sense and is just a trick played on your mind. Retrocausation is also something amusing to entertain in movies involving time travel like Back To The Future.

Now given the impossiblity of an infinite regress, something must be timeless possessing the quality of aseity. However, in order to change from a timelessness state and enter into temporality, such an entity must possess a will and power. For, if the timeless entity was simply matter, then such matter must remain forever static in its timeless state since matter has no will to change itself. As an example, consider a world that is timelessly made of ice. It will remain forever ice because it has no power to will a change to be otherwise.

Thus, not only is a timeless entity logically necessary as the originator of creation and time, but such an entity must have intelligence possessing a will and power.

[Byblos]

Can immaterial mind count?

What is counting?

The mind.

Lol, ok so now you're attributing to the immaterial mind an abstract idea like numbers? But that's an inherent contradiction since abstract ideas such as numbers don't exist in and of themselves (they don't exist period but that's besides the point). What an abstract idea to be an idea in the first place, it requires wait for it ... a mind. So before numbers can even be conceived of, the absolute necessity of a mind is required.

But I suspect your point is that if a timeless, immaterial mind can count then it would have counted infinitely. But if it were to count infinitely then we would never have reached the point we are today. The problem with this of course is that what you actually are doing is attributing a meaning to counting by ascribing it the concept of time. But time is a created thing, it is not timeless (pun intended). Moreover, time implies change and by definition a timeless immaterial mind is also changeless. So let's go back and refine our definition a bit shall we? Rationality demands creation ex nihilo, and creation ex nihilo demands a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind. Over to you.

Post edit: K, wow! My thoughts exactly (slightly reworded).

[1over137]

Care to elaborate in syllogistic form? For example,

1) A entity who can count is not timeless.
2) God can count.
3) Therefore God is not timeless.

Yes, I meant that.

1) A timeless entity who counts gives up timelessness.
2) God possesses timelessness and can count.
3) Therefore if God counted then He gave up timelessness.

Concerning the point 2: How do you know that God possesse timelessness? You have to prove it.

To believe that God's willing to count, thereby entering into temporarily, somehow retrocauses temporarily to then exist in His timelessness is just illusory. In actuality, God's eternal decision to enter into time "by counting" would not cause God's timeless state to change prior to his entering into time. It would only follow that God was timeless, and now God is temporal. To think otherwise makes no real sense and is just a trick played on your mind. Retrocausation is also something amusing to entertain in movies involving time travel like Back To The Future.

I do not fully understand what you wrote here (esp. the 1st sentence). Can you reformulate? (Or you Byblos explain?)

Now given the impossiblity of an infinite regress, something must be timeless possessing the quality of seity. However, in order to change from a timelessness state and enter into temporality, such an entity must possess a will and power.

So, God could count but He did not and therefore was timeless? But He had (and has) will and once He willed to start counting?

But I suspect your point is that is a timeless, immaterial mind can count then it would have counted nfinitely. But if it were to count infinitely then we would never have reached the point we are today. The problem with this of course is that what you actually are doing is attributing a meaning to counting by ascribing it the concept of time. But time is a created thing,

My point was to argue that God cannot be timeless since He posseses mind. But not timeless God means
problem because He could count infinitely and we would never reach the point we are today. Alltogether,
there is a problem with the existence of God. Btw, how do you know that time is a created thing?

[Byblos]

But I suspect your point is that is a timeless, immaterial mind can count then it would have counted nfinitely. But if it were to count infinitely then we would never have reached the point we are today. The problem with this of course is that what you actually are doing is attributing a meaning to counting by ascribing it the concept of time. But time is a created thing,

My point was to argue that God cannot be timeless since He posseses mind.

You keep asserting this without a shred of proof. An assertion without proof can be summarily dismissed so please prove it if you want us to take it seriously.

But not timeless God means
problem because He could count infinitely and we would never reach the point we are today. Alltogether,
there is a problem with the existence of God.

And again, you ascribe the concept of time to counting. You haven't proven why that is the case, it's just an assertion.

Btw, how do you know that time is a created thing?

Because if time were uncreated then time would be timeless and changeless. Since time implies change (by definition) it could not be changeless, again, by definition.

[1over137]

And again, you ascribe the concept of time to counting. You haven't proven why that is the case, it's
just an assertion.

Time is "a nonspatial continuum in which events occur". Counting number 1 is one event and counting number 2 is another event and so on.

My point was to argue that God cannot be timeless since He posseses mind.

You keep asserting this without a shred of proof. An assertion without proof can be summarily dismissed so please prove it if you want us to take it seriously.

1. We can ascribe the time to the process of counting.
2. Mind can count.
3. Therefore, mind is not timeless.
4. God posseses mind.
5. God cannot be timeless.

Because if time were uncreated then time would be timeless and changeless. Since time implies change (by
definition) it could not be changeless, again, by definition.

Please, proove your assertion: "if time were uncreated then time would be timeless and changeless."

[Byblos]

And again, you ascribe the concept of time to counting. You haven't proven why that is the case, it's
just an assertion.

Time is "a nonspatial continuum in which events occur". Counting number 1 is one event and counting number 2 is another event and so on.

Did you even look at the very definition you are providing? ... EVENTS OCCUR ...

My point was to argue that God cannot be timeless since He posseses mind.

You keep asserting this without a shred of proof. An assertion without proof can be summarily dismissed so please prove it if you want us to take it seriously.

1. We can ascribe the time to the process of counting.
2. Mind can count.
3. Therefore, mind is not timeless.
4. God posseses mind.
5. God cannot be timeless.

Your problem is with 1. You keep asserting that but you haven't proven it.

Because if time were uncreated then time would be timeless and changeless. Since time implies change (by
definition) it could not be changeless, again, by definition.

Please, proove your assertion: "if time were uncreated then time would be timeless and changeless."

All I have to prove is that time is created, simple,

1. Change requires time
2. Change cannot go on forever
3. Time is created

[jlay]

My point was to argue that God cannot be timeless since He posseses mind.

Anyone else see a problem here? Would you care to define mind, and how one possesses it?

[Kurieuo]

Care to elaborate in syllogistic form? For example,

1) A entity who can count is not timeless.
2) God can count.
3) Therefore God is not timeless.

Yes, I meant that.

1) A timeless entity who counts gives up timelessness.
2) God possesses timelessness and can count.
3) Therefore if God counted then He gave up timelessness.

Concerning the point 2: How do you know that God possesse timelessness? You have to prove it.

No I don't. It's a syllogism. If the first two are true, the the third follows.

In your argument though, you have unreasonably assumed that an entity who can count is not timeless. You have overstated your case, making your whole argument unsound. It is not obvious, and I have argued not the case, that a timeless entity who can count is not timeless.

Futhermore, my reasoning you don't get provides justification for why "timelessness" must necessarily be the property of an intelligent being such as God would be.

To believe that God's willing to count, thereby entering into temporarily, somehow retrocauses temporarily to then exist in His timelessness is just illusory. In actuality, God's eternal decision to enter into time "by counting" would not cause God's timeless state to change prior to his entering into time. It would only follow that God was timeless, and now God is temporal. To think otherwise makes no real sense and is just a trick played on your mind. Retrocausation is also something amusing to entertain in movies involving time travel like Back To The Future.

I do not fully understand what you wrote here (esp. the 1st sentence). Can you reformulate? (Or you Byblos explain?)

Sorry, no I can't. I feel it is as simplistic as I can put it. If you don't understand, then try harder to do so or perhaps you should give your argument away.

Now given the impossiblity of an infinite regress, something must be timeless possessing the quality of aseity. However, in order to change from a timelessness state and enter into temporality, such an entity must possess a will and power.

So, God could count but He did not and therefore was timeless? But He had (and has) will and once He willed to start counting?

I believe God "started counting", when He from eternity willed creation and as such time into existence. Thus, God was timeless prior to creation, and is now temporal subsequent to His creation. While God's timelessness is now prior to God's temporality, this by no means retrocauses time to now exist when there was timelessness.

There you go. I ended up reformulating, but if you don't get it, then we're at a dead end in our discussion.

[1over137]

Time is "a nonspatial continuum in which events occur". Counting number 1 is one event and counting number 2 is another event and so on.

Did you even look at the very definition you are providing? ... EVENTS OCCUR ...

What's the problem? What is the definition of time according to you?

1. Change requires time
2. Change cannot go on forever
3. Time is created

It is not obvious that the point 2 is true.

Anyone else see a problem here? Would you care to define mind, and how one possesses it?

I already defined mind above: "Mind means the faculty of thinking, reasoning." To posses mind = to have mind = being able to think and reason.

Sorry, no I can't. I feel it is as simplistic as I can put it. If you don't understand, then try harder to do so or perhaps you should give your argument away.

Sorry, but your sentence "To believe that God's willing to count, thereby entering into temporarily, somehow retrocauses temporarily to then exist in His timelessness is just illusory." is not gramatically correct and I do not understand it.

I believe God "started counting", when He from eternity willed creation and as such time into existence.

So, He was in some kind of state of hibernation and then He started counting.

I was thinking about what you wrote: "Now given the impossiblity of an infinite regress, something must be timeless possessing the quality of aseity. However, in order to change from a timelessness state and enter into temporality, such an entity must possess a will and power. For, if the timeless entity was simply matter, then such matter must remain forever static in its timeless state since matter has no will to change itself. As an example, consider a world that is timelessly made of ice. It will remain forever ice because it has no power to will a change to be otherwise." And I do not find any mistake there. But it's strange that something that has mind and will was in a timeless state. I thought that as soon as you have mind you also have time.

[Byblos]

I thought that as soon as you have mind you also have time.

Keep asserting that, maybe one day it will become true. Just give it time.

[1over137]

If you have not noticed I used the word "thought". I did not assert that statement again.

[Byblos]

If you have not noticed I used the word "thought". I did not assert that statement again.

In that case, my apologies. I should be careful not to assume.

[1over137]

If you have not noticed I used the word "thought". I did not assert that statement again.

In that case, my apologies. I should be careful not to assume.

Accepted.
And what is according to you the definition of time?