-3

Let's assume that the our universe's physics allows time travel. This is my main assumption!

Let's further assume that there is an quite intelligent, invulnerable being, that found a way to achieve this and is able to consume any kind of energy source. It could change everything in our universe; no matter, what and when.

This being could behave like a god as long as our universe exists or at least as long as there is a kind of energy source for them to consume.

Doesn't this, in the contrary, mean that if we could once prove, that time travel is not possible in our universe, that, if there is anything that behaves like a god, then it is really a god (or a god-like thing) outside our universe?

EDIT:

Assuming the possibility of Faster-than-light communication is, by Einstein's theory of relativity, equivalent to time travel. So we just need: "Warp speed, Mr. Zulu..."

draks ...
  • 718
  • 9
  • 25
  • 1
    No, it could also be a sort of [demon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon). This is meant as a serious answer, because most religions (even monotheistic religions) acknowledge the existence of demons, and clearly separate them from god or god-like beings. – Thomas Klimpel Dec 19 '13 at 00:09
  • Because I would then have to read more about it. I'm also not sure whether this site, with its tendency towards analytic philosophy, would understand how such a "scholarly" answer should be interpreted. More appropriate for this site would be an answer explaining which essentially god-like attributes are missing from the thing you describe in your question. – Thomas Klimpel Dec 19 '13 at 00:22
  • But if we once find out that *e.g.* time travel isn't possible, then this means that it could be proved that demons also live outisde of our universe? – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 00:24
  • @Thomas wouldn't that sort of demon neccessarily find that [altruism is better](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/9072/1127) and turn into an angel? – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 07:41
  • time travel is possible in our universe but needs required science. any being having power less than God is not God although relatively can be similar to God. it can be an angle of God responsible for enforcing some laws to nature. – Battle of Karbala Dec 20 '13 at 07:05
  • how does *change anything not matter where and what* follow from time travel? could it change water into wine? – artm Dec 28 '13 at 16:50
  • Is the answer not simply in how you define "real god"? – stoicfury Jul 04 '14 at 03:51
  • How would you prove that backward time travel is impossible? Through science? Science can't do that, that's nonsense. – user132181 Jul 05 '14 at 08:15
  • @artm you just change the past to effect the now. And yes water will turn into wine... – draks ... May 01 '20 at 11:07

1 Answers1

3

You seem to focus on one attribute alone to define that something is god, omnipotence. For sake of simplicity lets consider that omnipotence is enough to be (a) god.

(For general monotheistics, common attributes are: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.)

If time travels are proven impossible, and a being exists that is capable of time travelling, i'd see that miracle as omnipotence. Since omnipotence is only attributable to god, i'd assure that that being is, at least, the god of time.

If his powers dont limit to time travelling, he is completely omnipotent.

In an universe were time travel is possible, you could appear to be omnipresent by moving instantly all around the universe for any given moment. But to me, that would not be enough to be considered a god, although it has one if its attributes, because i know that's doable by anyone with proper technology.

Some other attribute would be needed to label that being as god.

Natxo
  • 307
  • 1
  • 8
  • If you can travel in time, you can also travel in space. Not even restricted to the [cosmological horizon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon) since can travel back till the big bang. Which makes the being a god of space-time. Albert might have liked this...+1 for your thoughts – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 12:46
  • @draks... Sure! I'd say that it's necessary to be able to travel in space also, since the space we are in now didn't even exist many years ago. – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 12:55
  • I thought I focused too much on omnipresence here. Omnipotence can be thought as a result of omnipresence. Omniscience would be needed to achive omnipresence, *i.e.* time-travel. Eternal existence is assured by invulnerability and the ability of consume any energy. Finally we are left with omnibenevolence, so we need to sort out demons. See my [reply](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9070/if-there-is-anything-that-could-behave-like-a-god-is-it-then-a-real-god#comment22580_9070) to Thomas' comment above. What do you think? – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 14:13
  • @draks... I'd say that is the opposite: omnipresence can be thought as a result of omnipotence. Then why should we need to say that it is omnipresent? Because omnipotence gives the ability to do whatever it wants, as long as it doesnt go against the nature of god itself. So if by nature god is not omnipresent, he could not change that. Hence the need to name those other attributes, omnibenevolence included. – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 14:36
  • But you don't need onmipotence, not even omniscience. You just need to be smart enough to build a time machine. And a willing universe's physics... – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 14:46
  • @draks... If time travel is forbidden in our universe, it's impossible to buid a time machine, no matter how smart you are! – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 14:49
  • But that's my main assumption... – draks ... Dec 19 '13 at 15:04
  • @draks... Time travelling does not mean omnipresence. Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere. You said "It could change everything in our universe" thats also why i thought you were focusing in omnipotence. – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 15:18
  • @draks... i edited my answer complete this point. – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 15:38
  • @draks... not needed man, this exercises are fun. Sorry if i wasn't clear at some point. Cheers! – Natxo Dec 19 '13 at 15:49
  • I finally agree with you and found a criteria for a real god...merry X-mas! – draks ... Dec 24 '13 at 14:41
  • In fact "X is impossible, Y can do X" is a meaningless statement. What is correct is "No one except Y can do X". However, what is the cause of that? – rus9384 Jan 20 '19 at 08:34