See the WORLD in a grain of sand

Yay! Holidays!

Like most people reading this you’ll understand the feeling. To friends who have just completed their first year of university, believe me, this feeling gets better every year. It’s a sign that you’ve survived, ready for more advanced stuff (but not until after the 3 ½ months of holidays of course, haha).

Then there are many friends who will graduate this year (who I will never see at uni again *sob*, but will always have a place in my heart), and make a significant transition from students to whatever they wish to be. To these friends, good luck!

Time is a wonderful thing isn’t it? People in and out of our lives, but never really gone. Such change…yet we’re still the same…


Anyway…to business. I would like to share with you all a certain….proposition. Which came from a discussion 4 weeks ago (though I couldn’t remember the exact nature of the discussion). I would recommend you to not read this in one go and give yourself time to digest it over a couple of days. Oh yeah and since you haven’t noticed before, what’s in italics are my comments and side notes. It’s divided into 3 parts so you can digest it easier, and so you can refer to which part if you want to comment/criticise it.

PART 1:

I’ve always wondered why Christians say that God can instantly make something or do something, because he is all-powerful and all mighty. Then I wondered what the word ‘instant’ actually means, because to many I assume it means ‘immediately’ as if it takes zero time. Many Christians would use the word ‘instant’ to describe how God created light/earth/man/whatever to demonstrate his omnipotence. Because saying that it took time to create whatever implies that he is restricted or constrained in some way implying a limit to his power, which is obviously absurd in the minds of Christians/Baptists/whatever.

This led me to ponder on the possibility to arrive at an ‘instant’, whether it is even possible. As one of my specialities is metaphysics, I am naturally inclined to do this. Because to an average (perhaps ignorant) person, ‘instant’ is actually possible.

Allow me to demonstrate something. You have what you call ‘INSTANT’. That is, the concept of it (something so quick and immediate that it takes no time at all). You also have something that takes time; this is the measurement of time as we perceive it (humans are a measurement of all things, we perceive time differently from other animals and even other people), which we will call (X). Illustrated below on a continuum:
INSTANT--------- (X)

It is logical that to get to INSTANT from (X) you must at least travel some distance (left) on the continuum (in terms of time, get faster). This point we will call (Y) and can sit anywhere on the continuum, as illustrated below:
INSTANT----- (Y) ---- (X)

As you can see, there is immediately an infinite loop. To put it simply (I know using this example isn’t appropriate, but it helps you visualise it. Just be sure to apply the example to in relation to time after), you want to travel from point A to point B. But to get to point B you must at least travel halfway there, and half of that half, and half of that half, and so on…

Note that we are talking about very very small periods of time here, so tiny that we perceive as ‘instant’ (as if time stops) when in truth it isn’t. It’s just that our measurement (objective or subjective) isn’t sensitive enough to detect it (i.e. using a 1-metre stick to measure millimetres).

[Note. Refer to speed of light, it has been shown that light can travel faster in different mediums (actually it was shown to travel faster in a specific gas), thus confirming the above proposition. We perceive a stop in time because our unit of measurement isn’t small enough or sensitive enough to detect a change in time when in truth time exists for that object, that in truth it still takes time.]

Therefore, you can never get to INSTANT because (Y) will always be the new (X). As you get closer to instant, there will always be a point that is faster than your new point. Therefore it is logically impossible for instant to exist, it is merely a concept that exists only in ignorant minds (like a married bachelor, can exist only in the mind, but not in real life) at least in my opinion. Since ‘instant’ cannot exist, God could not have achieved anything instantly. The subsequent conclusion is that God takes time to do anything. That is, to initiate an action or decide with his will.

Now that I’ve demonstrated the impossibility of ‘instant’, that even God in truth needs time to act or decide with his will…I will move on to the next part of the proposition.


PART 2:

Since instant is a logically impossible thing, how could God create time before it even existed?

[Of course, a smart person would bravely ask “how do you know that God created time?” Well firstly, it says it in the Bible (not in Genesis, but in Job 38). Second (and I prefer the second because the reasoning of it isn’t circular, as in “it’s true because the Bible says it’s true”), if time had existed before God it would mean that God had not always existed, which according to the Christian system is ridiculous. In addition, the very concept of God dictates that he is the greatest and most divine being, nothing therefore can exist before him. Because for something to exist before God indicates that that thing is equal or even greater than him, because this thing exists before God. The concept that something is even equal or greater than God is also seen as silly in the eyes of Christians.]

[Oh and by the way, I’ll demonstrate how all this is false.]

1. We know that logically it is impossible for ‘instant’ to exist.
2. We know that God created time (as stated in Bible).

A more suitable question to ask therefore is in fact “how can a decision (which takes time to make) to create time can even occur before time existed?” Since it takes time to decide if time should be created (refer to first part of proposition), in a world where time does not exist, how can a decision to create time even commence? Clearly, it can’t.

The only other alternative is that God exists in an alternate world where time exists, and he can use his will to decide to create time in this world. With this alternative, no. Because it also takes time to create time in that alternate world, you basically have the same problem but in an alternate world. The same problem exists even if you create an infinite number of alternate worlds for God to create time in this world.

To be honest, I would love to see if anyone could think of other alternatives for God to possibly create time given the circumstances (I really do). If not, it would be wise to accept this 2nd part and I will continue to the final part.


PART 3:

For the final part of the proposition, I’ll illustrate the ramifications of God in not creating time:

1. Since it is shown that God cannot create time, time must have always existed or created in the absence of a will. That is, without the presence of God (or without a will, as God is the will) and without any real purpose. Either way, does it therefore not indicate that God was created (note that when I say this it implies that implies an existence without any real purpose or from any will)?

For he existed after time, yet he exists as stated in the religious system. But since God is divine and almighty, the idea of God as a ‘creation’ impossible. What ‘created’ him (note that the concept of God is not physical, but abstract) must be greater than him, and what is created is not the greatest/most divine (because what created it is greater and more divine, yet it is not a God because it has no will). Yet this (which created him) is does not have a will, meaning that this is not a God (nothing can create itself). Nonetheless, the system/bible states that God is the greatest (nothing can be greater than God) and most divine. Either way, does it not demonstrate the impossibility for God to exist and that the system/bible is false?

2. The only alternative involving God to exist and not a creation is for both time and God to have mutually existed, that both had always been. Nonetheless, this alternative means that God did not exist first and is not the greatest. Because for something to be the greatest, it must exist first.

[If something (we’ll call this X, though it can be more than one thing) existed before it (we’ll call this Y, but in aspect of the proposition it is God), then Y would be the result of that initial existence (X). Which is logical as nothing can create itself.]

We know that time and God are independent of each other, as time cannot be God and vice versa (it says this in the bible, so I’m just working with it). Since this alternative has time and God to have mutually existed and that both had always been, both must be equal as either one cannot be greater than the other (because for something to be the greatest, it must exist first).

But the Bible states that God is most divine and greatest, and nothing can be equal or greater than God. But as logically demonstrated, time is. Either way, does this not demonstrate the illogicality for the concept of God to exist (because he is not the greatest)? And that what is said in the bible, that God is the greatest and most divine, is false? Since the bible implies that all in the bible is true and has actually happened. Does is proposition (which shows an aspect of the Bible to be false, because it is illogical) not demonstrate the ‘fact’ that ‘the Bible is true’, is false?


Thus ends my proposition. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading it, but what I hope more is for you to ponder on the points made. I would also hope for readers to comment and criticise the points made if they disagree with any of it or wish an explanation, because I’ve left out a lot of details as they were too boring to read. Unlike certain groups/individuals who take an aggressive stance on those who criticise (viewing them as outsiders and disregarding propositions/points with an ad hominem argument), I enjoy criticism because it’s unchartered territory. So yeah…all criticisms and comments welcome.

I would also like to in advance apologise to those who sense an anti-religious or anti-Christian tone in the proposition, as it was not intended. I’m merely applying logic on aspects of the religious system.

I probably might not make another blog after this one anytime soon, I’ll be very busy having fun (i.e. beach and overseas) during the holidays (mwahahaha!). I might update with a few pics if I feel like it though. :D

Happy holidays everyone!