Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Right, it doesn't work. Do you understand which things in this situation don't work?
It's 'Time doesn't apply to God' that doesn't work
God is not beyond rationality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Something from nothing...
- Thread starter ryanam
- Start date
It's 'Time doesn't apply to God' that doesn't work
God is not beyond rationality.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Once again where is your reasoning? You make a lot of noise without any substaintial reasoning to back up your claim.
As to "things just don't make themselves happen" I agree, but what makes you think the Big Bang made itself happen? Seems to be a common and critical error of those with a minimal understanding of the science. Furthermore, if "things don't just make themselves happen," how did God "make itself happen?" Seems like a double standard to me.
You can't deny one over the other. The claims appear synonymous with one based entirely on a whim and the other on 'yet-to-be-refined' science. At least the science based answer has some sound theory behind it without some key nuts and bolts.
What reasoning does God have? Not much. Its fine if that's your belief but I do believe your firmness without presenting anything substaintial is a concern.
illykitty... I know you said you were just giving your opinion on what you believe but you're asserting that god has always existed and you're giving rebuttal arguments with things like "again, you cannot apply things to god which exists for us".
There's no substance to these responses so they cannot be taken seriously in debate. Is there no way you can give at least some hint of why you believe these particularly fine details?
Thanks
There's no substance to these responses so they cannot be taken seriously in debate. Is there no way you can give at least some hint of why you believe these particularly fine details?
Thanks
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Right, it doesn't work. Do you understand which things in this situation don't work?
It's 'Time doesn't apply to God' that doesn't work
God is not beyond rationality.
How does it not work? If god is limitless how can you impose a limit on it? That's what makes no sense to me. God is not a human!
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Because God is not limitless. that concept is merely a failed philosophical pondering, that 'caught on' as a description of some false superpower which the Abrahamic God [even though that's not your full concept, it still has influenced you, as far as your statements show] has as part of a mishmosh of occasionally contrary omni-properties.
There is no such thing as 'limitless'. God can be 'as powerful as is possible'.
God may be immune to Time, for example in that he can appear anywhere on our Timeline he desires and pop back out again, in any order; but he cannot conceive of doing so without experiencing his own brand of a Time dimension. Time is not a thing you can have or not have; existence is essentially lacking without a Time component.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
A limitless God is an assumption is it not? You are applying personal bias (your thoughts) into the subject without telling us why you think what you do.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Well I'll just leave then, since it's not considered substantial. I have no way to explain it. It's just a matter of believing that science doesn't apply to God. Otherwise it's not a godly being since it is limited. I feel like it just can't be explained unless you know what it means.
This thread is useless if you cannot open your mind beyond what is in the universe. And it is useless to ask for proof... I don't understand why people keep making these threads expecting something like that. It's the definition of insanity.
I thought from the first posts it might be more open, but I'll just leave. :run:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Why didn't you state this before when asked. Your opinion is fine but it seems as if you expect others to adopt your line of thinking.
Open-mindedness should not be liberal but open in the sense that idea's become possibilities given the right reasoning.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It was too hot.
God is limited anyway; he cannot create a square circle.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What do you mean by 'limitless'?
As far as anyone knows any being is necessarily contrained by logic.
A being can not create time in itself because this action requires a cause/effect relation which only takes place when there is time.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Well you ask me why I think that, then I say in my opinion God is not bound by limits. So you cannot say to me your god has limits when it is not what I believe.
I was just saying what I believe. Not you have to believe what I believe. Just this is my line of thinking and my perspective of what god is You don't need to agree but since it was asked of me what I believed then I answered.
Never did I once say You HAVE to believe. Just that I can't talk about my view because you're forcing me to believe that god is limited and I kept saying in my opinion it isnt therefor your argument doesn't work for me.
This is all what I think, not what is the absolute truth. Besides, you tried to force me to believe that god is limited! I don't see why you're saying that when you've been doing exactly that to me. I cannot agree with it because that's not what I believe.
Last edited:
I'd rather you didn't leave. I know these questions seem like your beliefs are either being attacked or belittled... it's not the case though.
There seems to be a line to be drawn between opening one's mind and observing reality. If I opened my mind wide enough, I can begin, as I'm sure we all can, to imagine things which simply don't exist.
I understand that you have a point of view about god and the universe but you're using your opinions of how the laws of nature effect god as fact.
You'll notice that this practice hasn't served humans well over the last last few thousand years.
Feel free to continue your participation... questions will be asked though. Feel free to ask any questions yourself, too.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
No I tried to ask you to back up what you were saying, more than once. I asked for reasoning at least twice.
I apologise if you feel like I was trying to force anything on you, but i've seen enough wild speculation and not enough reasoning on these forums. Beliefs are beliefs, I respect them, but its nice to see a thought process behind the belief every now and then.
predavlad
Skeptic
The problem is that saying "god did it" isn't really an answer. Saying that god always existed is no different from saying the universe always existed. The truth is - we don't know, and we may never know. But to suppose you do know is a bit ... far-fetched to say the least.
And by the way - which god ? A deistic god, or a theistic god like Thor or Krishna ?
PS: Not sure if the OP had this in mind, there is a book called "A universe from nothing" by Laurence Krauss that explains exactly this.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You are going to get this kind of reaction every time you say that something illogical is possible.
I'll take on your challenge.
Explain in clear terms what it means to say God is ''beyond time and space".
Time cannot be created. Time cannot ''begin to exist''. Every beginning is temporally preceded by its absence. Therefore, if time began to exist or if time can be created, you have "a time when there was no time'' (a logical contradiction if ever there was one) rendering "God created time'' to be a meaningless collection of words.
Go through this OP below where this issue was discussed.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/126313-what-does-mean-say-god-created.html
Last edited:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
You are going to get this kind of reaction every time you say that something illogical is possible.
I think a thought process should be mandatory for anything subjective. Its like shwoing your working when doing a maths problem. Saves confusion, shows how one arrives at point B from point A. Is it too much to ask for a paragraph of explaination?
I dislike being told that I am closed minded for not adopting an approach without a thought process to follow other than arriving at a conclusion.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Doesn't that make it all the more interesting?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Surely not.
To some it will be though, because they probably haven't thought about this subject in details before.
You are not closed minded. You are reasonable.