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


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.

  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: Friends,
    8/01/2013 Let's not forget Maria Mitchell (8/01/1918) American astronomer who, in 1847, by using a telescope, discovered a comet which as a result became known as "Miss Mitchell's Comet".

    We are almost to a close,but not before saying THANK YOU to ALL participants in this thread, I appreciate the fact that all of you took the time and effort to write down your thoughts, read others and shared- I've learned a lot-. I know that this question which borderlines between the metaphysics and science can get controversial-and that's OK- My main quest seeks process more than answers, and then more questions (at the end answers are boring -just like finishing a 1200 pcs. puzzle).

    I would also like to thank TED for providing and monitoring the forum.

    I do hope to "see" All of you within TED in one form or another. I feel privileged that all of you took time from your schedules to read & post in this thread.

    As far as the question itself : How can God exist beyond space and time? to the best of my understanding in the thread metaphysics: There is a realm beyond our natural universe where the divine with such attributes exists;

    Physics says is not possible.

    The question forced us to examine some basic structures of the Universe, spacetime, origins of the universe,/// History of deities ,different religious views, agnosticism, atheism and plain'ole common sense.

    Part of me see that we are "trapped" inside this universe in our planet,in our time, in our language, in our history, in our science , in our theologies, in our cultures and in our minds.And the fact that my question is also "trapped" inside those boundaries makes any answer somewhat limited. And part of me asks: What sense the question makes outside the "trap" if there is any "outside" at all.

    Thank you ALL!

    Carlos Marquez

    PS. We still have little over 72 hrs left so we can still put them' to some good use!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 1 2013: Alberto ,
        Thanks to you man!

        OK so you seem to state that :There are natural laws which govern the universe,All laws have a law giver, That law giver is God -I hope I've got it-
        Now some laws(human creation-concept-) are prescriptive-established by us to tell us what is acceptable or not as behavior- and if we break those laws we may be punished Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive(another human creation-concept): they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion "F=ma" describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe. However, there are natural laws that are at odds with one another and are still taken to be true because there is a clear and consistent pattern. For example, entities governed by the laws of quantum mechanics do not follow the same thermodynamic laws that govern the macro universe.Like Russell used to say"You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."
        IMO there is a difference between a conceptual abstraction and concrete reality.
        The laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do. As such they do not require a law giver, Then if , you would have to select which out of about 37,000 deities or such created those laws
        Prof. Einstein disapproved QM(dice) – it was(is) probabilistic, nonlocal, and linear. Despite this opposition he realized that it was a successful theory within the scalar domain of its applicability. And 57 years after Prof. Einstein death mainstream Physics opts for QM-That is until another "Einstein" comes along.

        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: Carlos,
          Your comment here is very valid for scientific laws of nature. The problem is that such laws don't exist for human behavior. It is too complex and diverse to say that any specific law pertains to human thought. We have no way of quantifying a law pertaining to thought. That creates a quandary that can't be defined specifically, thus the difference between science and religious presentations.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2013: Funny how even calling the fundamental physical constants and their relationships laws encourages some people to put these in a human context and assert a law giver agency is required.

          Any way the premise all laws have law givers is false or unproven depending on what is described as a law.

          Also bit of a categorisation fallacy if bunching everything we call laws together.
          Constitutional law
          Law of the jungle
          Law of attraction
          Law of gravity

          Not same casteghories.
      • Comment deleted

    • J R

      • +2
      Aug 2 2013: Hi Carlos hang on a minute mate its not over yet ! first lets recall that the universe has been here long before man came along, it is then only our race that has accumulated information of mans surroundings using mechanical instruments and adding his theoretical assumptions based on his observations which are calculated using measurements made by mankind. Based on these calculations we now have an understanding as best mankind has in order to continue his understanding of the universe and all within it.
      These measurements however whilst providing a scientific picture are not absolute proof ?
      There is a link between the observable universe and our minds too much to explain here , but the universe reflects similar to the nuerons and the void reflects similar to our limitless conscience.
      However my point as stated that our observations of a big bang or space or time or gravity etc are not absolute proof then the reality for all on here that general relativity and special relativity are the two main gods of science then remember this that einstein never gave us a proper scientific explanation for GR or SR, ?? space and time are two entities which have no material existence ? ok time is man made and has no material form , space is also an area of emptiness, if you do not believe me then look up space in a dictionary and argue with the intelligent individuals who write the dictionarys to explain or define the term SPACE ? OK SO CAN ANYONE HERE EXPLAIN HOW EINSTEIN MANAGED TO FUSE TIME AND SPACE CONSIDERING THEY HAVE NO MATERIAL EXISTENCE IN ORDER FOR THEY TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MASS IN SPACE ? how did einstein come to fuse these two entities to form spacetime ? on paper yes but that does not prove their existence let alone actually fuse them ? as for the existence of God then why should the universe itself not have a conscience considering it resembles our own minds, God himself states that there are to his knowledge no others like him or where God himself orginates.
    • Aug 2 2013: Carlos
      Thank you for hosting an interesting talk. This was my introduction to TED and I really enjoyed it.
      I wish you the best my friend.

      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: Shawn,
        Thanks kindly Shawn I hope to "see more of you around the TED world!

        Best Regards

        Carlos M
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: I'll join Shawn in thanking you, Carlos, for hosting this busy thread and working to keep it civil and professional through your always cheerful and courteous example.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: Fritzie,

        Thanks for your kind words, I hope all of us took something useful from this thread, -I'm still learning- and stick around I'd hope to get back at it yet again.

        Thank you.
      • Comment deleted

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.