Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[The Grey Wolf]

Then how could he cause anything? If he has no ''time'' to cause it to exist? You need ''time'' to do that.

Because he's God. God doesn't follow the rules of our universe. God doesn't need time to create anything. A God simply is, does, and exists.

Else he wouldn't be God.

[Mavorpen]

Because physical laws don't apply outside of the universe. It's YOUR burden of proof to demonstrate that they do.

But ''cause'' and ''effect'' is something that is part of our universe? How can one make anything without time, if there is no time to make it?

Yes. That's the point. God isn't a part of our universe. So what in the world are you talking about?

[Neo Rome Republic]

But ''cause'' and ''effect'' is something that is part of our universe? How can one make anything without time, if there is no time to make it?

Yes. That's the point. God isn't a part of our universe. So what in the world are you talking about?

Then how can God logically make the universe? It makes no sense. The most logic option is that the universe has no ''cause''.

[Dyakovo]

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid. Even though I point out, they have no evidence for God and are using fallacious reasoning(special pleading). Until they have a good justification, why I should give God special exemption, I ain't going to.

All Grave and I were saying was that you kept trying to apply the laws of the universe to God, when there is no way that you can do that, because a God exists outside of our universe.

[citation needed]

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes.

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid.

'They' claimed your argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. They claimed that your explanations for why god was impossible based on the properties of our universe are irrelevant to an entity beyond the properties of our universe.

We've been using the phrase 'magical' to represent this 'unbound' nature.


By the way, I'm not saying ANY argument against him is invalid - just the shitty ones you keep presenting.

[Mavorpen]

Then how can God logically make the universe?

What?

It makes no sense.

What doesn't make any sense are your posts.

The most logic option is that the universe has no ''cause''.

Again, what?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Grave and Blasveck. They claim because God is ''magical'' means any logical argument against him is invalid.

'They' claimed your argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. They claimed that your explanations for why god was impossible based on the properties of our universe are irrelevant to an entity beyond the properties of our universe.

We've been using the phrase 'magical' to represent this 'unbound' nature.


By the way, I'm not saying ANY argument against him is invalid - just the shitty ones you keep presenting.

What's wrong with it? Why should I give God special exemption, if you have no valid justification for doing so?

[Blasveck]

All Grave and I were saying was that you kept trying to apply the laws of the universe to God, when there is no way that you can do that, because a God exists outside of our universe.

[citation needed]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I'm simply arguing that Neo's trying to apply the laws of our universe to a supposedly infinite being that exists outside our universe.

Unless you can find a religion that says that God exists within our universe.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Then how can God logically make the universe?

What?

It makes no sense.

What doesn't make any sense are your posts.

The most logic option is that the universe has no ''cause''.

Again, what?

You need time to have ''cause and effect''.

[Grave_n_idle]

What does logic have to do with God existing outside the universe?

You're not making sense.

Could logically could not create a universe, because he would not have any time to ''create'' it. You need time to have things like ''cause and effect'' and change. .

Absolutely.

WITHIN the confines of our time and space existence.

But you're talking about the act of creation, which is BY DEFINITION not going to be bound by those same parameters.

Seriously, why are you having such a hard time with this?

[Mavorpen]

'They' claimed your argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. They claimed that your explanations for why god was impossible based on the properties of our universe are irrelevant to an entity beyond the properties of our universe.

We've been using the phrase 'magical' to represent this 'unbound' nature.


By the way, I'm not saying ANY argument against him is invalid - just the shitty ones you keep presenting.

What's wrong with it? Why should I give God special exemption, if you have no valid justification for doing so?

It's the opposite, actually. YOU'RE claiming that the physical laws of the universe applies to things outside of the universe, when the null hypothesis is that it doesn't. YOU must demonstrate that cause and effect requires time outside of the universe.

[Neo Rome Republic]

[citation needed]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I'm simply arguing that Neo's trying to apply the laws of our universe to a supposedly infinite being that exists outside our universe.

Unless you can find a religion that says that God exists within our universe.

But an infinite being is illogical.

[Mavorpen]

What?

What doesn't make any sense are your posts.

Again, what?

You need time to have ''cause and effect''.

Yes. Within our universe.

We're talking about something not in our universe. Why the fuck are you making this more complicated than it is?

[Grave_n_idle]

The point is that Neo thinks he can 'prove' that god doesn't exist, if he can prove that the universe is infinite.

Well actually we've gotten past that argument. We're on a different topic, now.

No, we're not, actually. This is all still connected.

Are you not seeing how this is connected?

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, you've just illustrated why your comparison is flawed - the spoon is man-made.

God is a man-made concept.

Our concept of god is a man-made concept.

If god actually exists, then he's obviously NOT man-made, even if our concept of him is.

[Blasveck]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I'm simply arguing that Neo's trying to apply the laws of our universe to a supposedly infinite being that exists outside our universe.

Unless you can find a religion that says that God exists within our universe.

But an infinite being is illogical.

We aren't talking about logic.
We're talking about the laws of our universe and how a God doesn't play by those rules, because they don't affect it in any way.

[Neo Rome Republic]

What's wrong with it? Why should I give God special exemption, if you have no valid justification for doing so?

It's the opposite, actually. YOU'RE claiming that the physical laws of the universe applies to things outside of the universe, when the null hypothesis is that it doesn't. YOU must demonstrate that cause and effect requires time outside of the universe.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying for things like cause and effect, you need ''time''.

[Grave_n_idle]

'They' claimed your argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. They claimed that your explanations for why god was impossible based on the properties of our universe are irrelevant to an entity beyond the properties of our universe.

We've been using the phrase 'magical' to represent this 'unbound' nature.


By the way, I'm not saying ANY argument against him is invalid - just the shitty ones you keep presenting.

What's wrong with it?

Already pretty thoroughly explained.

[Blasveck]

It's the opposite, actually. YOU'RE claiming that the physical laws of the universe applies to things outside of the universe, when the null hypothesis is that it doesn't. YOU must demonstrate that cause and effect requires time outside of the universe.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying for things like cause and effect, you need time.

And God doesn't need time, nor does it affect him.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I'm not saying that, I'm saying for things like cause and effect, you need time.

And God doesn't need time, nor does it affect him.

Then he can't ''cause'' anything.

[Mavorpen]

It's the opposite, actually. YOU'RE claiming that the physical laws of the universe applies to things outside of the universe, when the null hypothesis is that it doesn't. YOU must demonstrate that cause and effect requires time outside of the universe.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying for things like cause and effect, you need ''time''.

What?! Are you or are you not discussing a being outside of the universe?

[Blasveck]

And God doesn't need time, nor does it affect him.

Then he can't ''cause'' anything.

He can.

He isn't bound by cause and effect.

[Mavorpen]

And God doesn't need time, nor does it affect him.

Then he can't ''cause'' anything.

Please, prove this applies to things outside of the universe. Go ahead.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Then he can't ''cause'' anything.

He can.

He isn't bound by cause and effect.

If there are no such things as ''cause and effect'' outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

[Mavorpen]

He can.

He isn't bound by cause and effect.

If there are no such things as cause and effect outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

What? No, it means that you don't need time to cause something to happen. It doesn't mean you can't cause things to happen.