> With all due respect, I'd disagree.

Yes, it's been quite obvious through the whole conversation that we disagree. It's great to be able to have such a conversation, disagree, and continue with the conversation. I appreciate that from you.

> I answered that it wasn't a case of "endless loops". It was about a feedback or plurality of causes.

If it's not endless loops, however, then there has to be a moment somewhere, at least one (but obviously many), where a conscious, self-aware being makes a decision and starts another chain. Granted, such decisions are not make in vacuums, but they are made nonetheless.

> the traits that are said to be embedded, such as syntactic structures and so on, are manifest in this universe.

This makes me *very* curious. Our neural syntactic structures manifest in the universe? And to the point where you can conclude some derivational properties between the two realities? Please help me to understand what you're claiming.

> the truth might be difficult to find.

Agreed. "Might be." For some it seems to be easy; for others very difficult. Interesting, it has taken us 500 years of "modern" science to arrive at the point we are now. 500 years qualifies as "truth that is difficult to find." And yet the difficulty of the discovery is no assessment on the truth claim.

> But we've covered this ground before that if it's an endless loop it is therefore necessarily absurd with no personal first causes: Nothing can ever begin a chain, ever.

With all due respect, I'd disagree. It seems you proclaimed that to be so, and I answered that it wasn't a case of "endless loops". It was about a feedback or plurality of causes. The circuit board analogy we discussed is an example; the circuit board as a whole influences the parts, but the parts also have some bearing upon the whole due to their own properties.

> I'm curious what you'd answer: Did you have a "nature" in the womb? Did you already have genetic predispositions, brain waves, and experiences? See, I don't agree with the "tabula rasa" theory of B.F. Skinner. Science tell us that we come into being with a genetic nature.

Sure. I would say it's a mixture of nature and nurture. Nevertheless, the traits that are said to be embedded, such as syntactic structures and so on, are manifest in this universe.

> The nature and content of the revelation leads us to conclusions about the attributes of the deity. First, if he has lied about himself, then we throw the whole thing out because of unreliability and misdirection. So we have to assume truth if we regard it as legitimately leading us somewhere. Second, therefore we analyze the revelations as far as internal consistency, criteria of truth, evidences, etc.

I'm not saying we throw out the idea of truth. I'm saying the truth might be difficult to find. It could be the case that Jesus was a supernatural being but that there is nothing beyond that. In such a case, "God" as he is conceived of in literature is not lying, because he doesn't exist in the way he is depicted, in a literalist biblical conception at least.

> How do you know this is actually God and not the pronouncements of some other cosmic entity?

The nature and content of the revelation leads us to conclusions about the attributes of the deity. First, if he has lied about himself, then we throw the whole thing out because of unreliability and misdirection. So we have to assume truth if we regard it as legitimately leading us somewhere. Second, therefore we analyze the revelations as far as internal consistency, criteria of truth, evidences, etc.

Therefore we know, for instance, that the God of the Bible is not Allah. If you want to call him Allah, that may be fine, but you have to ignore all the Qur'an says about Allah because it's contradictory to the Bible. If YHWH is also Allah, then we have to regard the Bible's revelation as truth and not the Qur'an's.

And therefore we know the God of the Bible, YHWH, is also not Zeus, Odin or Zarathustra. If He were, then He is self-contradictory, which is an untenable position.

In addition, Christianity is a historical and evidentiary religion. In that sense it can be held up to scrutiny, contrasting Hinduism which is a philosophical religion. But we can hold Hinduism up to the screen of reality, and it fails miserably.

That's how we can walk with confidence that this is actually God and not the pronouncements of some other cosmic entity.

> The environment where we are working and the systems we operate on generate a response within us;

I have no problem acknowledging a steady chain and even some loops in the cause-and-effect continuum. But we've covered this ground before that if it's an endless loop it is therefore necessarily absurd with no personal first causes: Nothing can ever begin a chain, ever.

> Our nature is influenced by what exists.

I'm curious what you'd answer: Did you have a "nature" in the womb? Did you already have genetic predispositions, brain waves, and experiences? See, I don't agree with the "tabula rasa" theory of B.F. Skinner. Science tell us that we come into being with a genetic nature.

> In the same way, God has revealed to us (somewhat confirmable by science and history) a description of what He is like.

How do you know this is actually God and not the pronouncements of some other cosmic entity?

> Just interview hard-core prisoners who are unaffected by their crimes and incarceration.
> (I know we are always part of the natural world, but I am speaking of the kinds of experiments, for instance, where we are testing velocity and distance by rolling a ball down a track to see its speed and how far it goes before hitting the ground.) Or, as I already mentioned, as computer programmers. We are completely independent of these systems, with traits of our own completely distinct from the systems and environment where we are working. I don't see a problem that God has traits independent of the universe he created, observes, and functions in.

Depends how you define "completely independent". The environment where we are working and the systems we operate on generate a response within us; the circuit board is produced within environmental constraints and made up of parts which have certain properties which compel us to use them. The circuit board as a property has its own traits, but it's influenced by the parts, just as the parts are influenced by it. It doesn't exist before the parts do, and neither do the parts have "circuit board functions" before the board is complete.

All of these things change us in so far as we are conscious of them, even if we have traits distinguishable from them. This is in part what I'm referring to when I say "What was God conscious of before the universe?" Our nature is influenced by what exists. I am inclined to do certain actions and not others because of my experience of them as good or bad.

The prisoners example shows that some people are stubborn and have longer lasting tendencies or inclinations compared to some people, but they are still subject to change in so far as they experience something new each day that they didn't before. (The new experience might be similar to last experiences, but ultimately within the universe it is new, and not entirely identical.)

> I would say that omnipotence and goodness manifest their legitimacy within a changing landscape.

I don't see the problem with this. Suppose I am at one of those carnival shooting ranges. The landscape is subject to continual change (ducks crossing, targets popping up, etc.), but I am outside of that system and a consistent and continuous presence. I can operate within the system (shoot the ducks and targets) but not be subject to its changes.

> Can you point to a conscious experience that doesn't have some element of change?

There's a difference between experiences having elements of change (which they always do) and my character being changed by those experiences (which doesn't always happen). Just interview hard-core prisoners who are unaffected by their crimes and incarceration. But add to that that God sees it all as present tense, with a nature and character that are already perfect. While he sees the changes going on, His character is removed from those while at the same time operating within those. Picture a master at a poker game. He can observe the vagaries of the progress of the game while at the same time hold his hand that he may know is a winning hand. He doesn't have to change just because he is functioning in an evolving environment.

> A conclusion like this shows that the very idea of God, let alone the evidence for a fixed idea, is elusive.

Obviously I disagree. The depths of our musings about time, space, and matter don't make it implausible that there is a causal mechanism outside of the system but able to still have his fingers in the system. As computer systems designers and programmers, we do this all the time.

> Regarding the article, it doesn't say science is universally unfalsifiable. It simply lists different opinions on how falsifiability applies, how wide it can be applied, and how much it should cover, particularly in the basis of how people obtain knowledge and do research.

Correct. I saw that as well. I was just intrigued by the premise and the conclusion.

> which becomes difficult (as you said) when talking about which traits God has independent of the universe.

I think this becomes clear in the world of science where we do experimentation, observation and manipulation as those outside the system. (I know we are always part of the natural world, but I am speaking of the kinds of experiments, for instance, where we are testing velocity and distance by rolling a ball down a track to see its speed and how far it goes before hitting the ground.) Or, as I already mentioned, as computer programmers. We are completely independent of these systems, with traits of our own completely distinct from the systems and environment where we are working. I don't see a problem that God has traits independent of the universe he created, observes, and functions in.

> Theories Karl popper considered unfalsifiable, like Marxism, still had a clear description of what it believed to be true, even if it was, in Popper's eyes at least, unfalsifiable.

In the same way, God has revealed to us (somewhat confirmable by science and history) a description of what He is like. Though unfalsifiable from a scientific standpoint, logic and reasoning are not worthless in this pursuit of truth.

> Through our conversation you have yet to identify, as far as I can recall, where the logical or theological inconsistency is with Jesus being God.

I'm not saying it's logically impossible, or theologically impossible. At least not yet. I think such an issue could be discussed and perhaps concluded upon, but I haven't gone there yet, and I'm not doing so here. What I'm saying is that it seems to me plausible that the non-divine interpretation is true. I'm also discussing whether it's more plausible than the Christian interpretation.

> I don't understand. What is it that makes you doubt, and about what are you having doubts?

I doubt that the Christian God has all the attributes his followers say he has. (Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, etc) The aforementioned about vagueness of evidence and the problem of evil are what make me doubt this. I also am I sure over whether he even exists. I'm not an atheist, but not theist either.

> Christian theology teaches that God's nature is consistent, non-contingent, and unchanging (Mal. 3.6). Nothing about God's attributes (righteous, holy, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) are subject to adaptions to a changing universe or of human activity.

Ok, but that needs to be covered in more detail. I know you might point me to theological sources outside this discussion as a means of me doing so, but interpretations vary. My issue is that these qualities you have listed (righteousness, omnipotence, etc) are things we can theoretically understand, but his timelessness you seem to suggest we can't (correct me if I'm wrong). Moreover, I would say that omnipotence and goodness manifest their legitimacy within a changing landscape. Can you point to a conscious experience that doesn't have some element of change? You could depict some experience that is less changing, but that doesn't exclude change altogether.

> About a year ago I proposed to a group of scientists the paradoxical idea that moving backward in time also required simultaneously moving forward in time: I am moving forward in time as I, second by second, observe my moving backward in time.
> With these kinds of "time" conundrums all around us, it's not far-fetched to perceive of God being outside of time but being able to function inside of time with its boundaries and constraints. Time is "fluid" enough, and the nature of God metaphysical enough, for the two to theoretically be able to interaction and mesh.

The idea you described still operates in time and space, just differently to usual. The time traveler is not even going beyond time, let alone operating without there being any time at all. He is simply interacting differently. To expand on this, some might use the example of near death experiences, where some people claim to have experienced time differently, or even experience timelessness, in some sense. This might constitute going "beyond time", but the issue remains that they have still operated in a temporal world prior, before reaching that timeless state. Also, the issue remains unsolved of how a timeless state could go from being timeless to creating a temporal thing (this universe, presumably). Such would require, I think, a space time continuum in order for a being to go from "I exist alone" to "I exist alongside a universe".

> No, because time is a stable enough staple (as far as we know) that it can exist in different forms simultaneously (the bending of time doesn't alter the reliability of time elsewhere). Fascinating stuff. Bending time in one place doesn't change time in another place, which is weird to think about.

Sure, but time in some sense still exists.

> Yeah, it really is fun to toy with all this stuff, but it's all so speculative, theoretical, and philosophical, I wonder if there will ever actually be proposed answers or any kind of resolution on the stuff.

A conclusion like this shows that the very idea of God, let alone the evidence for a fixed idea, is elusive. This kind of elusiveness seems to conflict with a God that would want to make himself known.

> I read an interesting article recently about the general unfalsifiability of science, so if we're going to question God on that basis, maybe we have to question science also. [url]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/[/url]
> So I guess I'm not convinced we can consider God to be an unreasonable belief, especially given the logic of the arguments about His existence.

I'm not claiming it's an unreasonable belief, necessarily. I'm disputing whether or not it's completely unreasonable to have doubts.

Regarding the article, it doesn't say science is universally unfalsifiable. It simply lists different opinions on how falsifiability applies, how wide it can be applied, and how much it should cover, particularly in the basis of how people obtain knowledge and do research.

Also, following from what I said previously, even if we were to throw out falsifiability, we would still have to have some clarity on what we were discussing, which becomes difficult (as you said) when talking about which traits God has independent of the universe. Theories Karl Popper considered unfalsifiable, like Marxism, still had a clear description of what it believed to be true, even if it was, in Popper's eyes at least, unfalsifiable.

> Because it takes things towards unfalsifiable territory and vagueness.

I read an interesting article recently about the general unfalsifiability of science, so if we're going to question God on that basis, maybe we have to question science also.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

So I guess I'm not convinced we can consider God to be an unreasonable belief, especially given the logic of the arguments about His existence.

> Depends if you're using the B theory of time, which is possibly more accomodating to this conception. I'm not a physicist, so like you I'm limited (like we all are), but B theory seems to me to not require a conscious creator of the universe, as it "begins" only the same way a yardstick "begins" at the first inch. So to put it differently, it's possible in a B-theory universe that the second year of the universe simply follows from the first, and is thus temporal, but "comes into existence" in a similar way to the yardstick analogy. So you have an eternal existence or fact of a temporal universe, perhaps.

Yeah, it really is fun to toy with all this stuff, but it's all so speculative, theoretical, and philosophical, I wonder if there will ever actually be proposed answers or any kind of resolution on the stuff. Like you, I'm not a theoretical physicist, so it's tough for me to meaningfully engage these conjectures.

> Would this exclude his responses to our actions?

No, because time is a stable enough staple (as far as we know) that it can exist in different forms simultaneously (the bending of time doesn't alter the reliability of time elsewhere). Fascinating stuff. Bending time in one place doesn't change time in another place, which is weird to think about.

About a year ago I proposed to a group of scientists the paradoxical idea that moving backward in time also required simultaneously moving forward in time: I am moving forward in time as I, second by second, observe my moving backward in time.

With these kinds of "time" conundrums all around us, it's not far-fetched to perceive of God being outside of time but being able to function inside of time with its boundaries and constraints. Time is "fluid" enough, and the nature of God metaphysical enough, for the two to theoretically be able to interaction and mesh.

> Moreover, what thoughts, aspects of him etc exist which are not these kind of adaptions to a changing universe?

Christian theology teaches that God's nature is consistent, non-contingent, and unchanging (Mal. 3.6). Nothing about God's attributes (righteous, holy, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) are subject to adaptions to a changing universe or of human activity.

> All these aspects (along with evil) make me doubt

I don't understand. What is it that makes you doubt, and about what are you having doubts?

> Jesus seems more likely a superhuman or alien being

Through our conversation you have yet to identify, as far as I can recall, where the logical or theological inconsistency is with Jesus being God. You entertain the possibility that he is supernatural but not God. Where is the problem here?

> That gets very tricky, because we're talking about timelessness. It is theorized by most scientists that before the Big Bang, time did not exist, which is something we can't even hypothetically comprehend. So phrases like "prior to creation" and "What was he doing" take on a twilight-zone haze.

Indeed. This becomes problematic when trying to discuss God, especially one that wants to reveal himself and be known, all the more so when the kalam or first cause arguments are used. Why is it problematic? Because it takes things towards unfalsifiable territory and vagueness. You might argue that something doesn't need to be falsifiable to be worth pursuing, as Feyerabend did. This may or may not have intellectual weight. Even so, it would still be reasonable, I think, for me to demand at least some clarity on what we're discussing, if (part of) the proof of God is in this very discussion of a timeless origin of the cosmos, even if we were to ditch the value of empirical testability and falsification. It's also a reasonable demand because it's a determining factor in our lives and conduct, both regarding judgement or a lack thereof in the afterlife, as well as our mindset and actions in this world.

> Yet there are those who say that God existed in timelessness through eternity past, but how can one exist where there is no "just a moment ago"? It's beyond my pay grade.

Some would argue for simultaneous causation, (one analogy is sitting and creating a "lap" from sitting). The issue I have with this is that it still uses an example that occurs within space and time, even if the two things still occur simultaneously. They require that metaphysical predicate of temporality in order for there to be an action, as well as the requirement of a decision to make it so, which is temporal and in flux itself.

> Speculating: in a timeless environment, wouldn't the universe be eternally existent while being temporal in nature, since for someone in timelessness, all is in the present? Again, it makes my brain hurt. A paradox perhaps, but possibly also true?

Depends if you're using the B theory of time, which is possibly more accomodating to this conception. I'm not a physicist, so like you I'm limited (like we all are), but B theory seems to me to not require a conscious creator of the universe, as it "begins" only the same way a yardstick "begins" at the first inch. So to put it differently, it's possible in a B-theory universe that the second year of the universe simply follows from the first, and is thus temporal, but "comes into existence" in a similar way to the yardstick analogy. So you have an eternal existence or fact of a temporal universe, perhaps.

> But if I'm even close to right, all aspects of Him, including actions and thoughts along with ontological attributes, existed (there I go with a past tense) prior to our universe.

Would this exclude his responses to our actions? Moreover, what thoughts, aspects of him etc exist which are not these kind of adaptions to a changing universe? All these aspects (along with evil) make me doubt, which leads us back to the original question. Jesus seems more likely a superhuman or alien being.

That gets very tricky, because we're talking about timelessness. It is theorized by most scientists that before the Big Bang, time did not exist, which is something we can't even hypothetically comprehend. So phrases like "prior to creation" and "What was he doing" take on a twilight-zone haze. I read this article a year ago ([url]https://www.sciencealert.com/mind-bending-study-suggests-time-did-actually-exist-before-the-big-bang[/url]). Buzchshzsch (raised hands, head exploding). Yet there are those who say that God existed in timelessness through eternity past, but how can one exist where there is no "just a moment ago"? It's beyond my pay grade. If time isn't passing or progressing, there is just existence and no "prior," "during," "since," or "after." Speculating: in a timeless environment, wouldn't the universe be eternally existent while being temporal in nature, since for someone in timelessness, all is in the present? Again, it makes my brain hurt. A paradox perhaps, but possibly also true? Intriguing, but ultimately not a place I can go. I'm just not that smart.

But if I'm even close to right, all aspects of Him, including actions and thoughts along with ontological attributes, existed (there I go with a past tense) prior to our universe.

> I regard God as the First Cause of all things. But God is also part of the cause-and-effect series. Jeremiah 18.1-12 shows this quite clearly, as do hundreds of other texts. God is responsive to our decisions and actions.

Sure. I'm talking more about the first point of the first cause. What was he doing prior to creation? What aspects of him and actions and thoughts of his exist prior (either metaphysically, temporally or causally) to our universe?