Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[New Rogernomics]

There is no god, but a lot of great nightclubs and brothels.

[Neo Rome Republic]

He would have no ''time'' to do it. If God has no time he can't do anything. He doesn't have things like cause and effect, or change. Which is why it makes no logical sense.

For the last time.

God doesn't need "time" to do it. He isn't subject to it.

You have to remember, this is an infinite being that we're talking about.

Then logically, he could not have made the universe. You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects. Which involves time. Also, an infinitely powerful being cannot logically exist. Funny how you ask me to use logic, but use illogic to counter it. So if illogic is a valid argument then vampires exist and so does every other supernatural proposed being, because they are too powerful for science or logic to disprove them.

Again I've pointed out this is illogical as is an all-powerful being, you have yet to give a good justification why this ''being'' should get exemption.(IE special pleading)

[Grave_n_idle]

'God' doesn't need 'room' to exist. Your logic is illogical.

HOW??? If God is suppose to be the creator of the universe, and the universe were to always exist, a God could not have created it. Jeez, what's so hard to understand.

I dont know, but you're just not getting it.

If the universal is eternal, you're asserting that proves god doesn't exist - but that's not a logical claim, it's just something you've decided.

What if god created it always-eternal? What if it's always eternal BECAUSE of god?

[Grave_n_idle]

'God' doesn't need 'room' to exist. Your logic is illogical.

If it's illogical, it's logic, and if your only explanation is "God is magic", you have an awfully shitty hypothesis that I'm sure you have yet to provide proof for.

Isn't that the whole point, though - that 'god is magic'?

Because otherwise, a deity would just be a creature, no? If it couldn't do the miraculous?

[Grave_n_idle]

I know it hasn't...

No, you don't.

You keep mistaking things you think for things that are either axiomatic assumptions or evident fact.

[Neo Rome Republic]

HOW??? If God is suppose to be the creator of the universe, and the universe were to always exist, a God could not have created it. Jeez, what's so hard to understand.

I dont know, but you're just not getting it.

If the universal is eternal, you're asserting that proves god doesn't exist - but that's not a logical claim, it's just something you've decided.

What if god created it always-eternal? What if it's always eternal BECAUSE of god?

If the universe were eternal then it could not have a cause therefore God could not exist, so it would disprove God. Seriously why do you consider ''it's magic'' a valid argument for God? It uses special pleading, which is fallacious reasoning. Which is also a reason i don't believe God exists.

[Grave_n_idle]

And?

God isn't subject to time either.

There isn't a "past", "present", or "future" for God.

There simply "is"

If you have no evidence to back up your claim and you're giving special exemption to something, you are special pleading which is fallacious reasoning. Exactly why I don't consider people saying ''it's God'' or ''it's magic'' an acceptable answer. Unless you have evidence that shows this exemption to be possible.

Again, you're not being logical.

Claiming that something is unique IS arguing a special exemption. If this universe is the only universe that exists, we';re claiming a special exemption to the nothing-exist assumption. If only one 'magical' (godlike) entity exist, it would - by definition - be a special exemption to a universe populated by mundane entities limited by the rules of the universe.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. The Bible was written by people. So of course it will be wrong/inconsistent/etc.
2. How is an intelligent designer logically improbable?

(I'm an agnostic, to clarify)

An intelligent timeless being could not create the universe because, he could not do anything, as their would be no time to do it. He could not ''change'' anything, let alone his own mind.

According to the rules as you understand them.

But given that you've never been "an intelligent timeless being" existing outside of the confines of time-space, your understanding of the rules is compromised.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If you have no evidence to back up your claim and you're giving special exemption to something, you are special pleading which is fallacious reasoning. Exactly why I don't consider people saying ''it's God'' or ''it's magic'' an acceptable answer. Unless you have evidence that shows this exemption to be possible.

Again, you're not being logical.

Claiming that something is unique IS arguing a special exemption. If this universe is the only universe that exists, we';re claiming a special exemption to the nothing-exist assumption. If only one 'magical' (godlike) entity exist, it would - by definition - be a special exemption to a universe populated by mundane entities limited by the rules of the universe.

I would have a valid justification to give it the exemption(evidence). You however have no valid reason to do that for God. If you had evidence such a being exists then that exemption should be given.

[Neo Rome Republic]

An intelligent timeless being could not create the universe because, he could not do anything, as their would be no time to do it. He could not ''change'' anything, let alone his own mind.

According to the rules as you understand them.

But given that you've never been "an intelligent timeless being" existing outside of the confines of time-space, your understanding of the rules is compromised.

It's ''magic'' is not a valid answer, unless you have justification(evidence) to show that it's true.

[Grave_n_idle]

Then logically, he could not have made the universe. You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects.

No, you don't.

You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects IN A SYSTEM GOVERNED BY CAUSE AND EFFECT.

If you aren't in such a system, or can somehow transcend those restrictions in some other way - then you don't need to have a cause and effect.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Then logically, he could not have made the universe. You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects.

No, you don't.

You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects IN A SYSTEM GOVERNED BY CAUSE AND EFFECT.

If you aren't in such a system, or can somehow transcend those restrictions in some other way - then you don't need to have a cause and effect.

Prove it exists first, until you do it's illogical. Give me a evidence of such a being to give it that justification. Otherwise I could simply do that for any magical being I want.

[Grave_n_idle]

If the universe were eternal then it could not have a cause

False assumption.

...therefore God could not exist,

Second false assumption, compounding the first.

so it would disprove God. Seriously why do you consider ''it's magic'' a valid argument for God? It uses special pleading, which is fallacious reasoning.

I consider 'it's magic' as a valid argument for 'god' because that's basically the definition of 'god'.

Which is also a reason i don't believe God exists.

There are actual good arguments for the non-existence of an interventionist, miraculous god.

Yours isn't one of them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, you're not being logical.

Claiming that something is unique IS arguing a special exemption. If this universe is the only universe that exists, we';re claiming a special exemption to the nothing-exist assumption. If only one 'magical' (godlike) entity exist, it would - by definition - be a special exemption to a universe populated by mundane entities limited by the rules of the universe.

I would have a valid justification to give it the exemption(evidence). You however have no valid reason to do that for God. If you had evidence such a being exists then that exemption should be given.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of god. I'm showing you why your argument doesn't DIS-prove god.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If the universe were eternal then it could not have a cause

False assumption.

...therefore God could not exist,

Second false assumption, compounding the first.

so it would disprove God. Seriously why do you consider ''it's magic'' a valid argument for God? It uses special pleading, which is fallacious reasoning.

I consider 'it's magic' as a valid argument for 'god' because that's basically the definition of 'god'.

Which is also a reason i don't believe God exists.

There are actual good arguments for the non-existence of an interventionist, miraculous god.

Yours isn't one of them.

So special pleading is a valid answer in that case, vampires and ghosts exist because they are by definition ''supernatural''.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I would have a valid justification to give it the exemption(evidence). You however have no valid reason to do that for God. If you had evidence such a being exists then that exemption should be given.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of god. I'm showing you why your argument doesn't DIS-prove god.

Yes it does. It logically disproves him. Fallacious reasoning isn't a valid rebuttal.

[Grave_n_idle]

According to the rules as you understand them.

But given that you've never been "an intelligent timeless being" existing outside of the confines of time-space, your understanding of the rules is compromised.

It's ''magic'' is not a valid answer, unless you have justification(evidence) to show that it's true.

You're discussing the concept of 'before' space and time, and we're discussing what the characteristics of an entity that could exist in that environment would be - but for some reason you think such an entity would be limited by the rules of space and time.

You're making illogical assumptions.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not trying to prove the existence of god. I'm showing you why your argument doesn't DIS-prove god.

Yes it does. It logically disproves him.

No, it doesn't.

You can't disprove the unmeasurable by failing to get a measurement of it, and then claiming it as proof it doesn't exist.

[Neo Rome Republic]

It's ''magic'' is not a valid answer, unless you have justification(evidence) to show that it's true.

You're discussing the concept of 'before' space and time, and we're discussing what the characteristics of an entity that could exist in that environment would be - but for some reason you think such an entity would be limited by the rules of space and time.

You're making illogical assumptions.

If such a being exists it could not make the universe. Which was my point.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, you don't.

You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects IN A SYSTEM GOVERNED BY CAUSE AND EFFECT.

If you aren't in such a system, or can somehow transcend those restrictions in some other way - then you don't need to have a cause and effect.

Prove it exists first, until you do it's illogical.

That's not what 'illogical' means.

What was 'illogical' was your assertion that a god unbound by cause and effect would need cause and effect to be true, in order to exist.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Prove it exists first, until you do it's illogical.

That's not what 'illogical' means.

What was 'illogical' was your assertion that a god unbound by cause and effect would need cause and effect to be true, in order to exist.

WRONG. I said such a being could not logically create the universe, meaning it would not be our creator.

[Grave_n_idle]

You're discussing the concept of 'before' space and time, and we're discussing what the characteristics of an entity that could exist in that environment would be - but for some reason you think such an entity would be limited by the rules of space and time.

You're making illogical assumptions.

If such a being exists it could not make the universe. Which was my point.

Your point was wrong, then.

Being able to create the universe is not inherently or intrinsically linked to being eternal. Nor is it disqualified by it.

[Blasveck]

That's not what 'illogical' means.

What was 'illogical' was your assertion that a god unbound by cause and effect would need cause and effect to be true, in order to exist.

WRONG. I said such a being could not logically create the universe, meaning it would not be our creator.

You can't apply the same rules of the universe to God, because of the inherent nature of God and how it isn't supposed to follow the same rules of the universe.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's not what 'illogical' means.

What was 'illogical' was your assertion that a god unbound by cause and effect would need cause and effect to be true, in order to exist.

WRONG. I said such a being could not logically create the universe, meaning it would not be our creator.

You said: 'You need things like cause and effect to have causes and effects" - which is what I just commented on.

So your all-caps 'wrong' was, well - wrong.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If such a being exists it could not make the universe. Which was my point.

Your point was wrong, then.

Being able to create the universe is not inherently or intrinsically linked to being eternal. Nor is it disqualified by it.

The universe being eternal was a separate hypothetical, which I still say would disprove God if it were true. My actual argument about such a timeless being unable to create our universe and therefore even if he did exist, would not be our creator still stands.