God can't think or create anything.

[The Parkus Empire]

Alright, here.

-Time is now multifaceted. That is, God exists within his own time, but it is wholly separate from our time.
-The universe cannot be said to be a closed system.

Sure, that's possible, but it's also no longer a "transcendent" deity. It's a god subject to his own sense of time.

Took six days, remember?

[Norvenia]

Again, why should anyone care? Why is this relevant? What is the point in this debate?

If you don't care, why are you here telling about how much you don't care? Wouldn't you just leave? Why spam the thread you don't care about in order to tell us that you don't care?

Because I honestly wonder why anyone does. I sure don't care; you're right about that. But I want to understand why you do. Those weren't rhetorical questions.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

We're not really discussing foreseeable, pragmatic, applicable, effective and real purposes here. If you want to actually talk about god and other supernatural shit, be prepared to accept that.

So there.

Your statement was absolute. It did not specify, "You know nothing of the supernatural," but then again, that would also be false.

What do you know then?

[Connopolis]

Logic is faulty.

What the hell does that even MEAN? You've failed to answer my charge that logic defines truth and instead you've responded with word salad.

You're attempting to argue against religion with logic - that alone, is foundation to disregard your arguments. Simply saying "God doesn't make sense, so He doesn't exist" is about as absurd as your perception of our arguments.

[Johz]

I think it should be noted at this point that our scientific knowledge is not infalible. To refer to something 'outside of the universe' is as fundamentally nonsensical in scientific terms as 'before the big bang', even when doing so proves the falsity of this god. Your discussion is flawed to begin with.

Goddammit! How many times do I have to explain that this is not a scientific argument? How many times must I explain that this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL, not empirical?

Well explain to me philosophically, what happens outside of the universe?

[Four-sided Triangles]

If you try to logically explain away G-d, all you do is demonstrate to the faithful that G-d is above petty human ways of thinking.

And all you do is demonstrate to those of us who understand that truth is defined in terms of logic that your god cannot be true in any real sense of the word. If your god's existence is "true," it's certainly not "true" in the sense that the word is normally defined. The only way for it to be true is to invent a new definition for "truth" which doesn't mean much of anything in terms of actual truth anyway. Your only possible victory is a very empty semantic one.

[Avenio]

I think what Four-sided Triangles is saying that though a transcendental deity would be able to act upon the world and influence it, but that it would likely be utterly incomprehensible and totally unlike the common conception of a loving, monotheistic deity.

Wrong. I'm saying that a transcendent deity which is "outside" of time and space cannot act at all. Any action it takes would contradict its being outside of time.

Ah. Apologies, then. My fault for reading quickly.

Eh, I think all of that's taken as a given in the Bible.

Which part? 'Cause I'm of the belief that the Bible doesn't take the time to explain why physical intervention in the universe doesn't happen anymore (If it did at all), or how a Bronze Age notion of divinity somehow relates to the modern understanding of the universe, particularly given how much we know about physics and cosmology.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well explain to me philosophically, what happens outside of the universe?

If all senses of time are part of the universe, then nothing at all happens outside of it, by definition.

[Nazi Israel Land]

If you try to logically explain away G-d, all you do is demonstrate to the faithful that G-d is above petty human ways of thinking.

And all you do is demonstrate to those of us who understand that truth is defined in terms of logic that your god cannot be true in any real sense of the word. If your god's existence is "true," it's certainly not "true" in the sense that the word is normally defined. The only way for it to be true is to invent a new definition for "truth" which doesn't mean much of anything in terms of actual truth anyway. Your only possible victory is a very empty semantic one.

Semantic, yes. Empty, no. At least you concede that G-d is above your ability to define or perceive, which is of course what G-d would be.

[Sovereign Spirits]

It's a pretty weak argument when you make up the rules. Who made you god of what can be and what can't be?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Logic may define truth, but you define neither. You saying that something is logically impossible does not make it so. You don't have enough understanding of logic to determine what being outside of time is like or how it would work.

Basically, if you were a perfect being with unlimited understanding then I might listen. Till then you're just another ass wipe like the rest of us.

Why do I have a feeling that, were you in a math class, after every proof, you'd say "Nuh uh, because you're not god! Thus, you so-called proof doesn't count! Nah nah!"?

That's logically flawed reasoning, BTW. Either explain why I failed to demonstrate a contradiction or stop posting nonsense. Put up or shut up.

[Alcase]

We are human beings. We, as homo sapiens, simply cannot comprehend the concept of God. And so that is why we argue constantly about it, but what we can do is go to Church, live by Religious laws and live a life that has been granted by God.

[Johz]

Wrong. I'm saying that a transcendent deity which is "outside" of time and space cannot act at all. Any action it takes would contradict its being outside of time.

Ah. Apologies, then. My fault for reading quickly.

Eh, I think all of that's taken as a given in the Bible.

Which part? 'Cause I'm of the belief that the Bible doesn't take the time to explain why physical intervention in the universe doesn't happen anymore (If it did at all), or how a Bronze Age notion of divinity somehow relates to the modern understanding of the universe, particularly given how much we know about physics and cosmology.

Well many Christians would believe that God is still acting today. Indeed, I've witnessed meetings where Christians say that they have been driven to uncontrollable emotion, 'slayed in the spirit' or even been given the gifts of being able to, supposedly, talk the language of angels, or prophesy with or without translation.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Semantic, yes. Empty, no. At least you concede that G-d is above your ability to define or perceive, which is of course what G-d would be.

Only because you assert a god whose existence cannot be possible without redefining the word "possible" so that it no longer has anything to do with reality.

I could likewise prove the existence of unicorns by redefining "unicorn" to mean "coffee table" and then providing coffee tables as proof of unicorns. The problem is that I haven't really proven anything about unicorns at all, not in the sense that anyone actually means when they use the term. All I've done is shuffle around labels on concepts, and that's all you do when you completely redefine "truth" and "possibility" such that "My formulation of god is possible." can be a "true" statement.

[1000 Cats]

Alright, here.

-Time is now multifaceted. That is, God exists within his own time, but it is wholly separate from our time.
-The universe cannot be said to be a closed system.

Did God's time exist before God did?

Dunno. The point is moot.

Alright, here.

-Time is now multifaceted. That is, God exists within his own time, but it is wholly separate from our time.
-The universe cannot be said to be a closed system.

Sure, that's possible, but it's also no longer a "transcendent" deity. It's a god subject to his own sense of time.

It is transcendent, because its time is completely separate from ours. If we could examine it, we may well not even recognize it as time.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Logic may define truth, but you define neither. You saying that something is logically impossible does not make it so. You don't have enough understanding of logic to determine what being outside of time is like or how it would work.

Basically, if you were a perfect being with unlimited understanding then I might listen. Till then you're just another ass wipe like the rest of us.

Why do I have a feeling that, were you in a math class, after every proof, you'd say "Nuh uh, because you're not god! Thus, you so-called proof doesn't count! Nah nah!"?

That's logically flawed reasoning, BTW. Either explain why I failed to demonstrate a contradiction or stop posting nonsense. Put up or shut up.

Math is self evident. A value plus a value equals a value. The nature god is more abstract. You can't say it's impossible to be outside time when you don't even comprehend what it is TO BE outside time.

Anyway it probably IS impossible. More likely god (if he does exist) would exist throughout time, time itself being simultaneous or something. But that doesn't mean it is impossible to be outside time. You simply can't prove that.

[Leepaidamba]

We are human beings. We, as homo sapiens, simply cannot comprehend the concept of God. And so that is why we argue constantly about it, but what we can do is go to Church, live by Religious laws and live a life that has been granted by God.

I prefer looking up to the sky, down to the ground and at the air surrounding me, at the life I can find on this earth, and the stars above, at the universe. That way we may comprehend God, not through closing our minds to the writings of Bronze-Age Jews and the third hand accounts of various Hellenes.
Regardless of whether you are a pantheist or not, that is the best way.

[Johz]

Well explain to me philosophically, what happens outside of the universe?

If all senses of time are part of the universe, then nothing at all happens outside of it, by definition.

And scientifically, we arrive at a similar conclusion. So when you write 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL, not empirical', you actually mean 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL but still based on the scientific concepts that I want to accept'.

Right?

[Seperates]

Ah. Apologies, then. My fault for reading quickly.



Which part? 'Cause I'm of the belief that the Bible doesn't take the time to explain why physical intervention in the universe doesn't happen anymore (If it did at all), or how a Bronze Age notion of divinity somehow relates to the modern understanding of the universe, particularly given how much we know about physics and cosmology.

Well many Christians would believe that God is still acting today. Indeed, I've witnessed meetings where Christians say that they have been driven to uncontrollable emotion, 'slayed in the spirit' or even been given the gifts of being able to, supposedly, talk the language of angels, or prophesy with or without translation.

And I've seen perfectly sane people freak out at music concerts. What's your point?

[Four-sided Triangles]

But that doesn't mean it is impossible to be outside time. You simply can't prove that.

Here comes the straw man. I never said existing outside of time was impossible. I said DOING SOMETHING outside of time is impossible. Processes are temporal by definition. God could exist outside of time, but he wouldn't ever do anything or have any thoughts.

[Seperates]

If all senses of time are part of the universe, then nothing at all happens outside of it, by definition.

And scientifically, we arrive at a similar conclusion. So when you write 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL, not empirical', you actually mean 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL but still based on the scientific concepts that I want to accept'.

Right?

Logic still must be contigent with observable reality or else it is not logical. Philisophy, on the other hand, can be espoused by drunkards in a bar at a whim.

[Four-sided Triangles]

And scientifically, we arrive at a similar conclusion. So when you write 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL, not empirical', you actually mean 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL but still based on the scientific concepts that I want to accept'.

Right?

No, not right at all. "Science arrives at a similar conclusion." does not imply "You used scientific reasoning."

[The Murtunian Tribes]

But that doesn't mean it is impossible to be outside time. You simply can't prove that.

Here comes the straw man. I never said existing outside of time was impossible. I said DOING SOMETHING outside of time is impossible. Processes are temporal by definition. God could exist outside of time, but he wouldn't ever do anything or have any thoughts.

Oh I'm sorry. You can just insert that after what I said. I still stand by it.

And scientifically, we arrive at a similar conclusion. So when you write 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL, not empirical', you actually mean 'this argument is PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL but still based on the scientific concepts that I want to accept'.

Right?

Logic still must be contigent with observable reality or else it is not logical. Philisophy, on the other hand, can be espoused by drunkards in a bar at a whim.

Pretty much.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Logic still must be contigent with observable reality or else it is not logical.

Not true. Logic only has to be self-consistent.

Philisophy, on the other hand, can be espoused by drunkards in a bar at a whim.

No it can't. Please don't confuse proper analytic philosophy with the crap spewed by stoners. I hate when people do this.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I still stand by it.

You still stand by the claim that "processes occurring outside of time" is a coherent concept? Please explain how it's coherent and not self-contradictory.