[Home]History of Cosmological argument

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 8 . . December 6, 2001 1:28 am by Paul Drye
Revision 7 . . December 5, 2001 2:59 am by H.W. Clihor
Revision 6 . . (edit) December 4, 2001 6:25 am by Zundark [I?m -> I'm]
Revision 5 . . (edit) December 4, 2001 6:24 am by Zundark [I?ve -> I've]
Revision 4 . . (edit) December 4, 2001 6:23 am by Zundark [add a link]
Revision 3 . . (edit) November 6, 2001 11:00 pm by Seb
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Removed: 64,70d63
H.W. Clihor takes a different view. Perhaps a criticism of all these views is that they tend to be ethnocentric to the theorist and temporally driven.
Causality may be influenced by limited human perception. In fact linear causality may be true at the cosmological level at some point, but that is how we see the universe as humans. Sub-molecular theories have weakened the causal argument somewhat. A macro levels things do appear to follow a linear format, but at quantum levels this seems not to apply. This contradiction has not been resolved in mathematics, nor has it been incorporated into our cosmological views of the diety to any great degree. According to H.W. Clihor and his writings 1992 - 2000, the idea of God might be a-temporal. That is, our archetypical views might be based on not only biology, but actual matter interactions within the universe itself, totally apart from temporal restrictions. His thesis states: "We will never truly know what God is until we first come to know what time is." If time is a-linear and is only linear to our limited perceptions, then the Diety might not be the creator, but the "progeny and creator" of the same process. Our future might be where the universe is created...not the past and therefore causality is a process of our perceptions and the beginning of time has no more importance than discussing the future since they might be one and the same thing.






HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: