Question

...
Towards Reasoning

Is "God exists outside of spacetime a logically incoherent phrase?

This phrase is often used to justify a beginning of the universe, but the idea seems to be incoherent. Is such a state even logically possible,  or is the concept of "existing outside of space and time" simply meaningless?

asked on Saturday, May 08, 2021 09:13:52 PM by Towards Reasoning

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
Bill writes:

I don't see why it's incoherent. It's hard for the human mind to imagine something outside of space-time, but if Kant could talk about such a thing, it's fine with me. 

The statement might be wrong, but it seems coherent to me. 

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 02:15:56 PM
...
0
Bill writes:
[To Bill]

Well, let's parse it.

God exists outside of spacetime = God exists in no place, at any time = God does not exist

That's the opposite from what the statement is supposed to mean. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 03:02:22 PM
...
1
Daniel writes:

If God exists then He is necessarily outside of our comprehension, being unlimited while we are limited. It logically follows that categories that are within our comprehension such as space and time, are insufficient to describe God's relationship to what he has created. He invented the catogories of 'where' and 'when' therefore he is not bound by them as his creatures are, just as a programmer's mind is not bound by the the rules of the code he writes because his mind is levels above it, being the source of that code.

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 08:09:52 PM
...
-1
Towards Reasoning writes:
[To Daniel]

If God is necessarily outside of our comprehension, does that mean we are unable to comprehend God. Logically it must then follow that because we can comprehend God, therefore God does not exist? Logically speaking.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 04:17:51 AM
...
0
richard smith writes:

[To Towards Reasoning]

 argument from ignorance. Nothing is true or false unless it is proven to be true or false. if is not proven or disproven than it is an opinion.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 08:39:43 AM
...
0
Towards Reasoning writes:

It would depend on the possibility of existing outside of spacetime. If there is an existence outside of spacetime and if (a god/gods) exist, it would be logically sound.

posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 04:14:07 AM
...
1
Towards Reasoning writes:
[To Towards Reasoning]

Hello [Towards Reasoning]

Thank you for replying.

I would think we would have to define exactly what is meant by "outside of spacetime". For me personally, it is just a phrase, and  has no more meaning than "Saturday is in bed."

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 06:07:40 AM
...
0
Towards Reasoning writes:
[To Jim]

It definitely seems to be outside the scope of our present understanding of things. But great strides in scientific breakthroughs are also generally made by challenging the status quo. To deny something as possible because it doesn't align to our current understanding of things could even be an act of ignorance. The existence of any sort of deity could simply be a common cultural artefact of our desire to explain the unknown. Best not to try denying the existence of Black Swans, no matter how implausible they may seem.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 13, 2021 08:38:31 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
4

I don't think this is a question of logic, rather one of cosmology or even theology. The idea that something can exist "outside of space and time" is currently unfalsifiable. Also, it may be that we have an incomplete understanding of what space and time are (spacetime). In conclusion, I wouldn't say there is anything logically incoherent here. Having said that, I do see a logical problem when people say "before the Big Bang" for the same reason "north of the north pole" is a problem.

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 07:46:51 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
account no longer exists writes:

[Bo]

Well, I was trying to keep it within the realm of logic, rather than cosmology or theology.

Parsing it out, you get this : 

God exists outside of spacetime = God exists in no place, at any time = God does not exist

So, I see a problem there.

"Before the Big Bang" - I know what you mean. Obviously at least one event occurred before the Big Bang (to cause it), and time elapsed, but that time could not be measured.

"North of the North Pole" can only be south, but I know what you are trying to say ;)

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 03:20:05 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jim]

God exists outside of spacetime = God exists in no place, at any time = God does not exist 

The problem here is in the claim that spacetime is all there is. Again, this is where cosmology comes in, as well as theology. Theology, can claim, without evidence, that there is an "outside of spacetime." This would not at all be a convincing argument to the non-theist, but assuming that is true, there is no logical problem.

To claim that "outside spacetime" is the same as "no place" and "at any time," we assume the burden of proof. We can say that "outside spacetime" has never been demonstrated, but this would be the argument from ignorance . The reasonable position is that we don't currently know if there is an "outside spacetime." Or course, the theist would argue the cosmological argument, and the non-theist would rebut with the many refutations to that argument (this is not the forum to hash those out).

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 06:44:42 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo,

I'd also argue that if "outside spacetime"  cannot be defined, does it have any meani ng at all? Is it even coherent? Is it any more meaningful than "Saturday Is in bed"?

 

My problem in this case is with semantics, definition and meaning, and questioning coherency, rather than a truth value, which might as you say require discussion in another arena.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 06:53:08 AM
...
Dr. Richard
3

The proposition is flawed because it presupposes god exists. Before you can get to where a god exists, you must establish the existence of the god. In short, check your premises. 

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 12:18:44 PM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
account no longer exists writes:

Well, it's still valid for discussion as a hypothetical example, is it not?

Let's say God does exist. How can it exist outside of space and time?

Exists outside of space and time = exists in no place, at any time = does not exist

So, it's all a bit odd after that.

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 03:55:18 PM
...
Kaiden
1

Hi, Jim!

         There are a couple of kinds of logical possibility. When you asked your question, maybe you had in mind strict logical possibility. A strictly logically possible proposition is one that is free of contradiction when formally expressed in a logical language. The formal expression of the proposition God exists outside of space and time is free of contradiction. Therefore, God exists outside of space and time is strictly logically possible.

         You wrote to Dr. Richard, “Exists outside of space and time = exists in no place, at any time = does not exist.”

         What relationship do the equal signs signify? Are you saying that existing outside of space and time entails does not exist, or that it means does not exist, or some other relationship?

 

Thank you, Jim.

From, Kaiden

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 11:02:11 PM by Kaiden

Kaiden Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
2
Kaiden writes:

Offer me written criticism, please, rather than scurrying away after a downvote.

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 11:25:26 PM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Kaiden]

Hear, hear.

Better yet, avoid downvoting at all - just state your disagreement in the comments.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 07:12:42 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Kaiden]

Hi Kaiden, I certainly did not downvote your answer, or if I did, it was accidental (having 10 thumbs on a mobile phone :) )


[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 06:11:42 AM
...
0
Kaiden writes:
[To Jim]

I received two downvotes, which is fine with me as long as I am provided with a reasonable criticism backing them up. But it seems rather as if I’m being targeted when several other Answers defended the logical coherency of the sentence, and yet they were untouched while mine received two downvotes. Written feedback would help me know what’s really going on. But I’m glad you thought my post was helpful, Jim.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 09:37:46 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

[Kaiden]

I've had a rethink on this one. "God exists outside of space and time" is actually meaningless.

Just think what "outside of space" means. "Outside" refers to a spatial location, "space". It's not a specific location, but it is a general area. How can something be outside of an area, yet not be in another area?

"Outside of time" is pretty much a category error. It's meaningless, much like "the value of the number 2 is green."

posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2021 04:06:44 PM
...
0
Kaiden writes:

[To Jim]

“I've had a rethink on this one. ‘God exists outside of space and time’ is actually meaningless.

Do you mean that at first you thought the sentence was logically incoherent but now you instead think it is meaningless? In my May 13th reply to you, I explained how the sentence would be interpreted in classical theism. “Outside” does not denote location. See my May 13th reply, which can be found under Monique's answer, for more details. 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2021 09:59:39 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Kaiden]

[To Kaiden]

I've thought about his quite a lot, and this is my conclusion.

The problem is that although one can say "you don't know if something can exist outside of space and time", they still can't define what they mean by "outside of space and time", so the statement is . Both space and time are a requirement for existence. 

It's a bit like me saying, "there's nothing more dense than caxiphalia."

You cannot prove or disprove the above, because you don't know what caxiphalia is.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 20, 2021 09:12:38 AM
...
1
Kaiden writes:

[To Jim]

I've thought about his quite a lot, and this is my conclusion.

Right, you have your conclusion. My point is that you reached that conclusion with a bad argument. From what I read, your argument is that the word “outside” refers to a location, and it is meaningless to talk about a subject existing in a location external to space or external to time. So, the sentence “God exists outside of space and time” is meaningless.

Perhaps you have not read my May 13th post, yet. "Outside” does not have to denote a location, and it does not denote location in the context of the sentence “God exists outside of space and time.” Why do you go on thinking that the sentence is meaningless when I have explained that your argument for that conclusion is a bad one because it is not using “outside” in the same sense as the sentence?

they still can't define what they mean by "outside of space and time"

Who are “they”? Not classical theists, surely. I explained on May 13th what classical theists typically have in mind. See that post for details. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 20, 2021 12:46:24 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

Kaiden :

" Why do you go on thinking that the sentence is meaningless when I have explained that your argument for that conclusion is a bad one because it is not using “outside” in the same sense as the sentence?"

OK, it's difficult to navigate to another response that you reference (the nesting of comments is not particularly efficient), but maybe if I just quote the essence of what you are saying above, then you can explain it better. This is the real point that we seem to be stuck at :

Can you just give me an example where you use "outside", not in a spatial sense, and see how meaningful that is?

"God exists outside of space and time."

posted on Thursday, May 20, 2021 01:34:38 PM
...
0
Kaiden writes:

[To Jim]

"The ruler operates outside of the law”. This is about a lack of legal restrictions on the ruler’s activity and power, not a claim about where the ruler is located relative to the law’s location.

"I need some outside help." The utterer of the sentence is seeking help from someone who is not a member of a certain group.

"The outside estimates for this car are around $50,000." This is about the maximum price of the vehicle, not about a price that is outdoors somewhere.

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 20, 2021 01:48:11 PM
...
0
Monique Z writes:
[To Jim]

As I pointed out to you in another comment, you should focus on analyzing arguments based on your best understanding of what the person meant to say when they made the argument.You can insist that outside of space is meaningless because you don't believe anything can be "outside" of space. But your interpretation depends on defining things in a way that isn't actually being argued, so I fail to see how this would be compelling to the other side. 

I think your insistince on interperting the meaning "outside spacetime" in the specific way you want it be understood is a great example of the definist fallacy. IMO I would not recommend not using this kind of argument if you want to be convincing.

Outside of spacetime simply means not within our universe. Please explain to me why it is incoherent or meaningless to posit something outside of our universe (e.g. another universe) is logically possible. I and several commenters have also said it doesn't appear to be logically incoherent.

Nevertheless, I assume you believe the principles of reason youre using to arrive at these conclusions are not confined to our current spacetime. That is, the principles of reason would hypothetically apply to all other universes, including ours. So one could say, they exist "outside" of our spacetime. If you don't believe this is the case, then you have answered your own question because the principles of reason only apply within our own spacetime.

Therefore, "outside" of our universe, the principles of reason you used to conclude that "outside" of spacetime is a logically incoherent concept wouldn't apply. 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, May 21, 2021 08:27:02 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

Spacetime is a universal, and applies to all space and all time, so applies to "other universes" too. I use quote marks, because when you talk about other universes, what you are in fact referring to is the UNOBSERVABLE part of THE universe.

There's often confusion here, because if you take the classic meaning of "universe", that is effectively the totality of the cosmos, so in other words there is logically no such thing as " outside the universe".

When cosmologists mention the "universe",  what they mean is the OBSERVABLE part of the WHOLE universe.

The UNOBSRVABLE part is where (possibly) there are "other" universes, bubble universes, multiverses etc etc.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, May 21, 2021 09:04:11 AM
...
0
Monique Z writes:

[To Jim]

I understand that's your perspective of how the universe works, but that's just it--its  your perspective of how the universe works.

Theres plenty of credible scientific theories that infer the universe had a finite beginning and that means something "outside" of our current spacetime (observable and unobservable) had to cause our current spacetime to come into existence. You have not established that this particular concept is logically incoherent.

At best, you have proven the one definition of "outside" spacetime you're focusing on is incoherent. But what about the definition I mentioned? You have yet to show that this violates any logical principle

There's definitely arguments of both side of this debate, but I think this website is not the platform to be unpacking these discussions

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, May 21, 2021 10:06:22 AM
...
Monique Z
1

According to the prevailing view among scientists, our current spacetime did not always exist. The universe began about 14 billion years ago. So, many conclude something must have existed outside of our spacetime that caused our universe to come into existence. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that the state of things do not change unless there is something that causes the change. Put more simply, you cannot create something from nothing. So, one can argue since our universe exists at all it is logically necessary for something to exist outside of our spacetime that caused the universe begin to exist.

Philospher W.L.Craig has a put forward an popular form of this argument he calls the "Kalam cosmological argument" that states:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It would seem difficult to argue that it is logically incoherent for the universe to have been caused to exist. The reasoning, althought potentially incorrect, at face value, is not incoherent from a logical standpoint. Whether the content of the argument is sound is a different question though...

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 08:26:53 AM by Monique Z

Monique Z Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
account no longer exists writes:

[Monique]

Thank you. I'm well aware of the Cosmological argument, but I was trying to focus on the meaning of "God exists outside of spacetime." In other words, it could be taken to mean "God exists in no place, at any time", so if a theist ever used the phrase "God exists outside of spacetime" as an argument for the existence of God, it could easily backfire on them.

posted on Sunday, May 09, 2021 10:38:24 AM
...
0
Monique Z writes:

[To Jim]

Yes, you could assume that there is nothing outside of spacetime, and therefore it is incoherent to assert something may exist outside of it. But that assumption in itself would seem fallacious (argument from ignorance) because one is making the assumption that nothing exists outside of spacetime based on the lack of evidence of whether something can exist outside of spacetime. At best, we can say that there is no evidence that anything could exist outside of our universe. Granted, there may be other reasons for this assumption, but this assumption would need to be substantiated somehow.

However, as I said before, one could infer without direct evidence that something existing outside our spacetime is logically necessary given that the universe had a beginning. This debate ultimately would come down to one's beliefs regarding causation and the age-old question can something come from nothing?   Unfortunately, this is not the forum for this kind of debate. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 08:43:47 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

[To Monique]

The problem for me is the actual meaning of "outside of spacetime" - to me it is meaningless. "Outside" refers to a spatial location, so how can there be such a thing in reality as "no spatial location" ? Also, "outside of time" seems to be meaningless too.

So until we sort this out, for me it stays in the realm of semantics, rather than pushing out another discipline.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 06:20:16 AM
...
0
Monique Z writes:
[To Jim]

It would be more correct to interpret what  they mean to say is they do not exist in a location within our spacetime. As another poster pointed out correctly, to say what they mean is they exist "in no location" would be a fallacy of equivocation. Its important to interpret an arguers statements in the fairest way possible, trying to understand what  they mean  when they say "outside of spacetime", rather than what  you take it to mean

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 09:20:57 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

If anyone could actually explain what they mean by "outside of spacetime", it would help.

It occurred to me that since almost every cosmological concept can be represented in a very basic form in a simple diagram or picture, then "outside of spacetime" could be too.

Perhaps this could be a test of its value as a coherent concept.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 09:36:55 AM
...
0
Monique Z writes:

[To Jim]

I can't speak for all theists, but if we consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument, what is meant by outside of spacetime, is that God is not located within our universe. It is agued that God is an atemporal being that does not occupy space. In any circumstances it is important to interpret ones argument the way they intend it to be understood, not what you take it to mean.

Answering the OP, there is nothing incoherent about this phrase from a logical standpoint. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:48:31 AM
...
1
skips777 writes:

"Exists outside of space and time = exists in no place, at any time = does not exist".....This line of reasoning is a fallacy of equivocation

...."no place at any time" uses the word place differently than "outside of space..." Outside the universe is considered "possible places" to be or exist... signifying a "place" not strictly within the universe. Whereas exists NO "place" defines the word place to mean only inside the universe.

posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 01:14:23 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To skips777]

Perhaps we could take a step back and deconstruct the sentence/clause.

"Exists outside of space and time" -


I think "outside of space" really has no meaning, just like saying "beyond infinity". Since infinity is  unreachable, to say "beyond the unreachable" is at the very least, self-contradictory.
Since time is a measurement, does it make any sense to say that something is "outside a measurement"?

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 03:34:33 AM
...
0
Kaiden writes:

[To Jim]

I aim to do my best at explaining where I think the controversy should lie when it comes to "God exists outside of space and time."

You write, “’Outside’ refers to a spatial location…”

“Outside” is being used to mean that a subject does not have certain limitations. We use these kinds of phrases in everyday life, e.x. “the ruler operates outside of the law”. This is an analogy for a lack of legal restrictions on the ruler’s activity and power, not a claim about where the ruler is located relative to the law’s location. To say that God exists outside of space is not to make the silly claim that there is a space external to space and God occupies it. It is an analogy for God’s lack of spatial restrictions.

If the coherency of anything is in question, it is not be the coherency of “God is located in a space external to space”, but rather something like “God does not have spatial restrictions.”

You write, “Since time is a measurement, does it make any sense to say that something is ‘outside a measurement?”

As it happens, I basically agree with your view on the nature of time that time is a measurement. Time is the measure of change with respect to the succession of variations of a thing’s mode of existence. For something to exist outside of time means, on my view, that it does not vary in its mode of existence, so that there is no measurement to be made of the kind stated above.

If the coherency of anything is in question, it is not be the coherency of “God is located in a space external to a measurement”, but rather something like “God does not have varying modes of existence and so no measurement can be made regarding successive variations in his mode of existence.”

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:34:56 PM
...
David Blomstrom
0

Wikipedia: "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. The fabric of space-time is a conceptual model combining the three dimensions of space with the fourth dimension of time. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur."

Your question is probably better suited for physicists or philosophers. Judging from some online references I've checked, it looks like you could just about flip a coin. Some people believe it's possible for something to exist outside spacetime, while others disagree.

To answer your question more directly, I would argue that the question itself is clear. The only problem is the term "spacetime."

It's clear (to me) that spacetime is a thing that exists, but we don't know if it's possible for anything to exist outside or apart from it. In plain English, it's more than my brain can comprehend.

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 06:51:45 AM by David Blomstrom

David Blomstrom Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Kuda
0

This question would belong to the field of logic if it were affirmed that God exists and does not exist outside of time and space at the same time and in the same sense.

Nor does it belong to the field of fallacies.

Since there is nothing logically impossible with that assertion, the issue would probably be whether it is physically and metaphysically possible if God can exist outside of space and time. There is nothing metaphysically impossible since many Platonic atheists consider that non-espatial and timeless objects such as mathematical objects exist in that way, outside of space and time.

answered on Monday, May 10, 2021 02:02:17 PM by Kuda

Kuda Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
richard smith
0

"Is "God exists outside of spacetime a logically incoherent phrase" incoherent?

No, How do you define "outside of spacetime". How would you prove or disprove it. This is more of a philosophical question and not a question of logic.

answered on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 08:37:28 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
account no longer exists writes:

Well, logic underpins philosophy, doesn't it? I think you'd end up in the same spot as where you started, if you moved it to the area of philosophical analysis.

posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 05:59:06 PM
...
mchasewalker
-1

Well, the claim is certainly problematic if not entirely "incoherent".  Sadly, (judging from some of the mental aerobics on display) it is all too coherent to the theo-logically, teleo-logically and religiously-logically challenged. ( Dr. William Craig among them).

As Dr. Richard points out, the petitio claim presupposes a creator God exists beyond the constraints of the space-time continuum, which is either a special pleading, a colossal moving of the goal post, or, what the philosopher Daniel Dennett would call ludicrous "theological spin". 

The initial problem is that it deceptively superimposes a dubious theological hypothesis upon a mathematical model in physics (the spacetime continuum) or with tongue-in-cheek sarcasm,  the equivalent of inserting a chocolate souffle recipe into an auto mechanic's manual.

As Lawrence Krauss often reminds us: The [God] subject just doesn't come up in serious cosmological discussions or theoretical physics. So the claim here is yet another attempt of the eternally wistful to tag "Deum ergo" on to their endless litany of argumentum ignorantium. 

answered on Monday, May 10, 2021 02:06:32 PM by mchasewalker

mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
GoblinCookie
-1

Being outside of spacetime is a state very familiar to us, because it is a state in we ourselves exist.  *We* are outside of spacetime ourselves, since everything we perceive of it is a representation that claims to be a projection. 

God is itself a projection, it is basically the same concept as 'other people'.  We project to other human and perhaps animal bodies we see a subjective existence that we actually cannot directly experience, as opposed to a merely objective existence these bodies share with for instance rocks or light waves. 

God is simply the same projection directed towards the universe as opposed to other people's bodies.  The universe is perceived to possess a mental will at the core of it, just as we perceive other people as having a mental will at the core of their purely bodily actions.

Disbelieving in God creates an interesting situation.  We are saying that the universe, even though it contains conscious entities as part of it's composition, does not itself possess the characteristics of it's own elements. But our superiority over nature in general remains intact, we alone have minds and nothing else does, the parts are superior to the whole. 

Believing in God creates another interesting problem.  The purpose of the division between subjective entities VS objective things is to create a moral hierarchy.  A rock has less moral worth than a human child and we should not defend the boulders freedom to go where it wishes and blame the children for getting in the way.  The moral system is based upon the idea that boulders are just mindless objects but add God into the picture and the boulder's crushing movements are an expression of his will.  The rock crushing the small child was God discreetly getting rid of a future Hitler and by interfering through our seemingly 'good action' we brought about a terrible future. 

answered on Monday, May 10, 2021 11:37:45 AM by GoblinCookie

GoblinCookie Suggested These Categories

Comments