man to be 30 years old one day ago, how old is the man?

I don't know if I should post this here or in the religion section. I decided to post it here because it deals with ontology (I think) and perverted metaphysics. It is also a question of logic.

Here is the question: If God created a man to be 30 years old one day ago, how old is the man?

I have an ulterior motive for asking this question, I will post it if I get some replies (or you may try to guess what it is)

what are we assuming about God

I would assume he is omnipotent, since he is creating this man.

That seems non-sequitur to me

the thought of the man was created long before and since the man

there is no beginning and no end to eternal soul.

If your identity is formed by the physical world then you'd be a 30 year old body created yesterday with the spirit of God, which is eternal life.

does God need to be omnipotent to create something ex nihilo.

God does not think, he creates.

Define some'thing'. When you sleep at night and have a 'dream', are 'you' creating this dream world from nothing? Is it actually 'something', or does it simply appear so? When engaged, non-lucidly, in your dream, is it not as 'real' as your 'waking dream'? There is no 'material substance created, much less from 'nothing'.


A 'physical brain' is required for (the illusion of) 'thought'.

It would make answering your comments easier if you quoted the names of the posters to whom you are replying. Especially if you are responding to multiple posters in one post.
Peace

When speaking strictly of something being created ex nihilo, I wonder if it matters at all what that 'something' is.

If it is truly 'out of nothing', it must become 'something' when it is created, because the way I see it, either it (the 'it' being anything that is created) is either something or nothing.

When you speak of the images in my dreams, they are something,

but they come from something that is already created, therefore they cannot be created ex nihilo.

What do you mean by: 'the illusion of thought'?

I don't know if you were agreeing with me or rendering my statement irrelevant.

Why is a 'physical brain' required for thought?

One of the great problems God presents to thinking people is that if God is, nothing else is. If God created all we know, then there need be nothing but God, and everything not God tends to diminish the possibility of God as any sort of reality.

Now, I think it is possible that if God is, then he had the power to make this reality out of his own stuff, and his own being.

Yet, if God has the power, and the power to make all we know, then certainly God needs to make nothing to give the illusion of knowing.

We could be a dream and all of reality could be an illusion in us as dream.

There needs to be no underlying reality to any of it or to us, but only to God.

On the other hand it is possible that God could have transformed God into energy and matter, and gave life to reality at the expense of existence on any level.

To consider the infinite is to build temples out of conjecture.

Is this statement valid: A thought comes from the different parts of my brain being configured and working in such a way as to produce thought?

I would even venture to extend this to the mind. If this statement is correct, then would thought not be the same 'thing' as an apple?

However, I do have very little experience with the philosophy of mind. But I can see no other way to reconcile what we know of the brain and what we 'know' of our minds.

How is life an illusion?

I have different memories that are organized by my internal sense of time.

I am experiencing myself typing right now, I experienced my wife saying goodbye to me 10 minutes ago, I experienced by child going down for a nap 30 minutes ago, however, if I am to say that these events being organized in time is simply an illusion, how can we have experience at all?

Because, if I don't experience the world in the same manner that my wife or child does (sequentially through time) how can we ever relate to each other?

Part of the difficulty I am having with Kant right now is trying to understand how space and time are only subjective 'forms' of reality.

They must, out of necessity of a functioning universe, be objective properties of the universe.

If they were merely forms of my sensible intuition, how could one object interact with another?

It seems to me that time is both an objective property of the universe and a subjective form of my experience.

If I am correct in my above exposition of what thought is, then thought is truly linear,

because my brain gets reconfigured sequentially,

and thus my thoughts are sequential (linear).

Kant says that if we did not possess the knowledge of time, we could not organize our experience of objects.

I think the same goes for thoughts, it is necessary that they flow sequentially, otherwise we could not organize them as such.

Not a problem. There can be no 'other' than 'Consciousness/God/Tao/whatever..', otherwise it would be relative/contextual/defined/existent.. Created, not Creator. All we are is a momentary 'memory' within Mind/Consciousness. The only 'Reality' is 'Consciousness/God/...', what quantum theory (Copenhagen Interpretation) has indicated to be the 'Ground of all Being'.
My tentatively accepted definition, at the moment, is, again, Vedic;
"Reality must strictly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
This 'non'-definition leaves no room for 'other'/context/definition. Which is why it is considered 'idolatry' in religious circles to fill in the blank following "God is_____" with anything. That demotes 'It' into existence by definition.


Memory from Mind. Dream. If you consider that to be 'stuff', so be it.


God cannot 'know' himself but by us. God cannot know anything without us (perspective/memory of stuff to 'know').

BINGO!!
Its all in your head.... even your head! *__-


'God/Consciousness' is the 'only Reality'.


Nope, not possible.


Upon a foundation of misty idle speculation and 'non'-concepts.
Yep. How poetic!
'Timeless' would be a more 'accurate' (and meaningful) term than 'infinite', though.

It has always intrigued me to see people make rules for God. God cannot this, or God cannot that.

Infinite works for me. Thanks. Thou art God.

Again, I merely speak as I must, from this perspective.. for what its worth...
If you 'partake' of the Judeo/Xtian biblical concept of 'God' with all those (idolatrous) 'qualities'; 'omni' this, and omni that.. 'God is this, God is that..', fine.
I prefer to use the term 'Consciousness' as it drags much less baggage than 'God'.
Be that as it may, though, according to all 'enlightened visions' (in relative agreement) throughout the millennia, 'Consciousness/God' is 'non-contextual', 'permanent' and 'unchanging'.. "..must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
According to this 'definition', and the 'scriptures' which can only say what 'God' is not (created, for instance, nor is part of creation) (like the Sikh writings) rather then attribute human characteristics (make 'It' in our image) such as the Judeo/Xtian mythology does, yes, it gives a very different 'definition' of a 'God/Consciousness'. No, a whale cannot fly through the sky, and 'Consciousness' does not becoma a 'fish'. Unless you imagine all those self-referential 'omnis', making your concept of 'God' (idolatry to have a concept of God) merely a reflection of 'self' with super powers built from your mundane 'powers'. Vanity...


Thats fine. I don't use the term as there is absolutely no evidence to support any 'reality' to the word. We cannot even form a proper concept around it. It is no more than a 'belief' in a meme, from this perspective. Science would support this. There is 'science' that will also support other perspectives as well. Though, little by little, the 'meme' is dying from lack of oxygen.

Giving a name to all that people cannot comprehend gives them the sense that they do comprehend it. Our reverence for concepts in part follows from the magic of the name. The mana of a name gave one a certain power over the one who possessed it, and this name taboo shows up in the Bible. We want power over God, and if we knew the first thing about God it would be the name of God, and this we do not know. So we say, the God. The God will be with us as long as people pray or curse.