TED Conversations

Carlos Marquez

This conversation is closed.

How can God exist beyond space and time?

I'm trying to make sense of this "existence" outside space and time. How can something , anything exist yet not exist in space-time? Something completely disconnected from length, width, height, or point in time....
Is this a "truth" that is beyond human comprehension? For maybe this may be one the "truths" that escapes the human intellect. However there are also non-sense statements that require filtering, I believe that existence beyond space and time is one statement that requires filtering.
Does God pops in and out of existence along with virtual particles? Or is God tightly curled up( about a Planck length?) in one or more dimensions of a Calabi-Yau manifold? Or is this existence as useful as the Cosmic Peanut Butter Theory?
Asking if it's possible means nothing, however. The question to ask is, what makes anyone say this? What is the evidence for such assertions? Show me how does anyone got to this statement.
Please as you deploy your arguments don't conflate suppositions with explanations, for these are not interchangeable. Just because it can be imagined, does not make it valid, or even explanatory.
And no scripture as proof.("Behold, heaven and the highest heavens cannot contain Thee... (1 Kings 8:27)) etc, Please and thank you.
Keep the mental contortions civil & courteous, even artful which is always cool. Let's learn from each other!

"You're everywhere and no where, baby
That's where you're at"
Hi Ho Silver Lining

Share:

Closing Statement from Carlos Marquez

The operational word in my question was "how" could god or anything exists beyond space and time?, And the core answer after the often heated exchanges is that some folks believe such a fantastic particular possible yet unable to render a demonstrable explanation -why?- because it is impossible.
The incredible thing is that folks believe dogmas as such without questioning. Is similar to lets say slavery or interracial marriage or the prohibition, many in power used (still do ) the Bible to back up such views and today-thanks in a big part by Secular Humanism- are not active policies in our country. Many a Christian believed that all above mentioned stances were correct just as god exist beyond space and time.

I think that as a whole mankind is evolving away from dogmas into new horizons, faith based or divinely revealed knowledge will take a backseat to reason based knowledge. And for that process there is a demonstrable "How".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 17 2013: With all due respect, it seems to me like you are trying to mix water and oil. God and science belong to two different realms that shouldn't be mixed. You can ask theological or even philosophical questions about God, but in the moment you assume a scientific point of view your question becomes invalid, just in the same way a scientific question becomes invalid the very second you make God part of the equation. So if you want to make sense out this conversation you must first realize that what is theologically relevant is scientifically irrelevant. Theological truths may never be translated into scientific truths, therefore if you use the word "evidence" is a scientific sense then you are completely lost and confused. God is a matter of faith not evidence, which means regarding God you can ask for logical coherence but never for evidence.

    The answer to your question is quite simple: God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The only possible way for that definition to be true, is for God to exist both inside and outside space and time, because space and time are constraints God is not subject to, otherwise it wouldn't be neither omnipotent nor omnipresent and the whole definition would collapse. I don't know if this implies that God has to simultaneously exist and not, however I know that if it is a requirement to satisfy the definition then it must be undoubtedly true. Again, this is a matter of faith exclusively, if you believe or not it's ok in both cases, as long as you don't try to assume a scientific perspective.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: George: I agree with you fundamentally. The only discrepancy is with the notion "this is a matter of faith exclusively". I don't think so.
      There are quite many very good scientists, specially in Quantum Physics and Mechanics which expose fabulous reasoning and solid explanations of the immanent presence of GOD, in every material process!
      And the most important element of God certainty is not to believe but to KNOW Deity.
      Once you know something you don't really need to believe. Do not forget God CAN reveal Himself (or Herself to avoid gender allegations) to anyone.
      Believing is good. Knowing is better!
      Readers, please do not ask for "evidence"! If you want to know ask deeply in your heart up to total exhaustion There are no books, priests, philosophers, lecturers or forums which can get you the knowledge. It is something you have to acquire yourselves!
      • Jul 18 2013: I would very carefully examine the context on which those statements are made. I refuse to take very seriously any remark made by scientist regarding God, just as I will quickly discard any scientific reference made by a preacher. If I want to explore the natural world I stick with science, knowledge rules and beliefs have no place to be, but if I want to explore the spiritual world then science becomes drag, since there is nothing to measure, count or sample.
    • Jul 18 2013: George/Carlos,
      Why do you assert that science and religion "should not be mixed"? They are simply two ways to look at the same reality. Wouldn't the mixture result in a more complete or well-rounded view of reality? Why would asking a philosophical or theologically based question be made invalid based solely on viewing it from a scientific point of view? Or vice versa, a scientific question from a philosophical/theological point of view? I think Einstein, Augustine, Plato and many others did just the thing.
      I think all that is required for the two views to congeal is first an open and honest acknowledgement by all that we all have some sort of belief system (we all take some things by faith). Second an open and honest willingness to examine our own belief systems and the things we take by faith. And thirdly, an open and honest willingness to understand, perhaps even learn from the other viewpoint.

      I think the idea of transcendence (i.e. existing both within and outside) is one that applies to both science and religion. At one point humans believed that earth was flat and was the center of he universe, until we transcended that understanding to realize that the earth is not. It does not mean that earth ceased to be round (elliptical) when humans still thought it flat, it was our own understanding which transcended. In that sense the round (elliptical) earth always existed both within and outside our own conception of the world. So what changed? It was our understanding, our ability to see something larger than what was our current worldview, an ability to see something that existed both inside and outside our current world view. In this very same way some claim God both exists in the known world and outside it. Dare i say both inside and outside of time and space. How is this an unscientific idea?
      • Jul 18 2013: When we allow ourselves to mix science and religion we cross a very dangerous line, we enter in a field in which people wrongly think they can scientifically validate their faith, and to do so they create all sorts of absurd cults (they are neither science nor religion), like creationism, intelligent design, and others that have rooted deeply into society threatening real science education, and which will be very hard to eradicate. So that's the main reason I oppose to mix science with religion.

        You are right Einstein, Augustine, Plato and many others did it, but they knew the boundaries and if they dared to express such remarks it was in a philosophical context only, fully aware (at least the contemporary ones) their words had no scientific validity. Perhaps they forgot to say: "this trick was done by a professional, don't try this at home kids".

        If you ask a theological question hoping for a scientific answer, then what ever answer you get will be anything but scientific, that's why it becomes invalid, it might have a whole lot of philosophical relevance and importance, but it will be worthless scientifically speaking. Because of that the argument: "God is both inside and outside space and time" is philosophically relevant and important, but its scientific weight is zero, unless you have the means to design an experiment to test it, but such a thing is just impossible, because if God is omnipresent then it cannot be separated form the rest of the universe, therefore you cannot sample, count or measure God's substance, making you unable to design any kind of scientific experiment. Consider also the fact that in the moment God's substance can be sampled, measured or counted, it will be proven that God is not omnipresent which will also prove God doesn't exist.
        • Jul 18 2013: George,
          Again you are employing a straw man. Mixing science and religion does not necessarily result in "absurd cults"' and certainly does not necessarily result in any threat to "real science education". Given your dichotomy that you've outlined above, would you say, does the work of Plato answer purely scientific or philosophical/theological questions? Does Einsteins theory of relativity answer purely scientific or philosophical/theological ones? Does the work of Augustine have anything to say to the "ethics" of science?
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Steve,
        In science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality.Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

        See my post to Ted Friend for Faith , Scientific Theory, Scientific proof.

        Thanks !
        • Jul 18 2013: I'm not sure how your response relates to my original message, but Plato and Aristotle were Greek. The Greek word for knowledge is Gnosis. Are you suggesting that the mathematical/scientific knowledge (Gnosis) conveyed to us by Plato and Aristotle has no modern meaning/equivalence?
          Einstein did not believe in a personal god, but the pantheistic god described by Spinoza. Again, what's your point?
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Steve,
        No Steve, Plato's Theory of Forms is what is not akin to the scientific method, for you can examine the computer in front of you but the"perfect ideal computer" will always be hidden from your ability to measure it or test it. That is the point, and -yes- Einstein views on God were influenced by Spinoza. Now from your back to your first paragraph I do not think that any of these men mixed theology with their views (-example in Einstein field equations or extrapolations there is no Theological ground that was intrinsic part of any formulation) IMO
        There's he point.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.