Simply that there is no past and no future. All occurs at once and there are no distinctions in the occurence of events. It's somewhat an extension of omniscience if you will. If you read The Watchmen (the graphical novel), doctor Manhattan gives a pretty good explanation of the whole existing outside of time, space and whatnot in his discussion with his girlfriend on mars.

From what I read, I think you(I'm talking to everyone now) would need to define God before even trying to prove whether or not he exists. Not in terms of his powers or knowledge but in relation to us. The existence of an all-powerful being is completely irrelevant if we have no means of interacting with it. For most people, God is simply a vehicle of moral values. As I stated it time and again in another topic, some people come to the conclusion that we have no means to determine objective moral values by ourselves and therefore need to rely on the existence of a superior being.

Also, God could be defined as a mean to escape death. It's odd that some people repugnate this. I find that my existence is the most wonderful thing and it's a prodigious talent not to take it for granted. You can't toss death aside as if it were just an ordinary event in every ordinary life like going to school or learning to ride a bicycle. Of course, you're free to think of yourself as a worthless being whose existence is just as worthless as that of any grain of sand or any rock.

What tyrant said, sort of. The God in the bible created everything, including time. Before then, there just was. (Or something. I wasn't there so I don't know for sure ). We know this also because God is all-powerful, and if He were limited by time, that would mean He wasn't all-powerful, ergo, He is 'bigger' than time, or 'outside' time. It's hard to explain or understand because we're used to time, and can't imagine time not being there, or not very well.

I don't really see how that proves how God is inside space and time; assuming this is all true, the seven day schedule/sabbath is his own creation. Just because God allegedly created a form of time for human, does not mean it signifies anything to him.

Wrong! Your assuming a monotheistic view of God...

No one has yet to make the distinction between deistic and theistic views of God, hence why we are all just wallowing around in the muck that represents a series of meaningless questions.
Deistic Gods we know nothing about. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that says there is a God/s.

When you talk of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-fucking-whatever you must ask yourself how you know this. You don't know it. You got that info off your precious holy book! For Christ sake (pun intended) recognize that fact! I advise that we stop spouting nonsense about said traits of God, when the simple fact is - we know nothing of the traits of God, or if he even exists, except what your holy books tell you about him.

Now I ask you all again, which God exactly are you trying to debate for, theistic or deistic. If you don't make the distinction, this thread will get absolutely NOWHERE.

Thank you for your time.

EDIT: @Jack - there is absolutely no evidence that says that the universe is even an isolated system, and even if there was, your ridiculous second law theory would still be destroyed. Because earth is an open system, and the reason you even bring up the second law is to say that evolution would not occur in an isolated system, whereas we already know that Earth is an open system. Admit it, you were wrong about the second law. It's OK to accept defeat, this is a serious discussion forum not a serious debate forum, you don't have to keep trying to hammer your point even though you know your wrong.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 27 2010, 4:18 am by Pinky.

God, whether theistic or deistic, is all those omnis. If He wasn't, He wouldn't be God. There, now we know for sure some characteristics of God, without using any holy book.

There can only be one God, not several gods. Otherwise, you come across a problem if one god decides to do something and the other decides to do the opposite. Unstoppable force meets immoveable object, anyone?

While I realize my 2nd law argument is flawed, it's fun watching you 'disprove' it. At least MasterJohnny found the obvious flaw when we talked; you still haven't.

Evolution isn't limited to the earth, in theory at least. It is limited to the universe, which is the isolated system the 2nd law covers. It isn't possible for the universe to be anything other than an isolated system, because that would mean there is something beyond the universe that is transferring energy. If there was, then the universe wouldn't be the universe, and we'd have to expand our definition of the universe.

Is the dictionary a holy book now? http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Agod

Definition one.

As for your counter-argument: FINALLY YOU GOT IT! WOO :applause:

Yes, because God generally means Yahweh, the Christian God. That's why its there on google, because its the popular definition. I am seriously beginning to question your intelligence, no joke. I will say it a third and final time: we have absolutely no information about God, his abilities, or his traits. Anyone who claims to know of God (or to avoid confusion - a "deity") is reading from a holy book.

Do you understand what I am saying, would you like me record it in audio over the microphone? I am not even being sarcastic, I am genuinely trying to get this point across to you and you don't seem to have the capacity to understand what I am saying.

Which counter-argument are you referring to?

If God didn't experience time, the narrative of Genesis wouldn't make sense. In God's own words (by the words of His Christians), the Bible states that God created the Universe in 6 discreet steps, with a measurable time for each. Then he rested.

The Bible also states that in an ongoing fashion, he interfered with the events of man. (Talking to Adam & Eve, burning bush, ten commandments, Jesus).

If God existed outside of time, all of these things would've been simultaneous.

Wrong.

We're talking about Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, יהוה,the Judeo-Christian God. The capital G means we're talking about a system of belief in which no other gods are possible. (Ironically, this God evolved from El Elyon, the highest god in the pantheon of gods worshipped by Canaanites.) The reason the word god in English gets to be the name of this god is because the vast, vast majority of English speakers worship the same god. If you want to talk about a different god, use their name.



Evidence the Universe is an isolated system: Entropy hasn't decreased.


The Universe can still be an isolated system while part of a larger multiverse.

I don't get it.

Why are we discussing this?

We're trying to validate faith with logic.
or
We're trying to prove our logical/religious superiority by cutting someone down
or
We're trying to convert someone.

Christians, at least, look up Hebrews 4:12...and really think about what it means for God's word to be a double edged sword. Look up the prodigal son...sometimes someone needs to run away and find out the hard way that there is something better. In other words...you can't turn their hearts on your own...you're risking the wrong side of the sword by beating this in.

Everyone, if you are here because you want insight into a religion/lack thereof, you are better off contacting your local [holy building of religious choice here]. That's who you should be talking to, not a bunch of internet tough guys.

I don't put much stock in comic book explanations of physics. The point here is, if this "outside time" idea has some meaning, how could we actually have any idea what its like, and what its application to God is, considering we have no idea of the real meaning. Simulataneous occurance of all events isn't "outside time," it would simply be a single instance of time. Perhaps it was meant to mean that God exists at all times, whereas we are mortal, or perhaps there really is some notion of "outside time," but the closest thing I can think of would be "unaffected" by time, or unchanging in time, which God may very well be.

What limits would time impose upon an all-powerful being such that he must be "outside" it? If he is able to manipulate it just as he would anything else, I would still call him all powerful. This raises the interesting question of what exactly all powerful means. The more classic example is, can God make a square circle? But a similar question may be, can God make a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? If he can, then we would say he isn't all powerful because he can't make that rock. If he can, then he can't lift it, but we would again say he is not all powerful, typically. So is "all powerful" impossible? Perhaps, but it may be more appropriate to limit the definition of "all powerful" to "the ability to do all that is possible." For example, we cannot make a square circle because it simply isn't possible. If something has the properties of a square, it is not a circle. So why would we expect an all powerful being to be able to do something like make a square circle, or exist outside time?

Because that is what we're talking about, God with a capital G. Like I said, there is only one "God"
It'll get nowhere anyway, this is SD on SEN lol
Circular reasoning doesn't apply to definitions because they're not arguments.
Instead of repeating "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" over and over, you may want to explain why he is wrong.

I may be being overly nitpicky here, but it's possible that God didn't experience time despite the creation of the universe in six steps. If we're sticking to what it says in genesis, then yeah I agree with you, but if we consider the possibility that "outside time" might have a meaning, then it could simply be a product of his omniscience that he spoke at certain times and did things in a certain order. I'm just speculating here, but it could look something like this perhaps:

Depending on the spacing of the tick marks, you could fit as much time in that circle as you want, even easier if you use a logarithmic scale, and to god what might be the difference acting radially in one direction versus another? Of course, this could be completely ridiculous but I find the idea interesting. It might not be a "when" he did something in God's eyes, but a "where" he did something.

What about you? Are you an internet tough guy, trying to beat us with a giant klobberknocker into not talking about this? I for one find the topic interesting.

Assuming we're talking about the Biblical God now, He's also infinitely wise. Why would He do something stupid like making an immoveable rock or a super hot burrito? Plus He isn't a physical being like us, which makes it more complicated. But if you want a straight up answer to the unliftable rock: Yes He can make an unliftable rock, and then He'd lift it anyway.

But really, it's a silly question, like asking how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

Nevertheless, there is a profound idea hidden in the question. If he lifts it anyway, then he hasn't made a rock he can't lift. The idea isn't "would he make it" but is he capable of making the rock, or the burrito or whatever. If he lifts the rock, he isn't capable of making one he can't lift, and if he can't lift the rock, then he isn't capable of lifting the rock. Either way you look at it there is something he isn't capable of. It doesn't matter which question is used, as long as there is an unavoidable contradiction, like a square circle. Or can God Act in such a way that he cannot undo his own Act? Can God contradict himself?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 27 2010, 11:19 pm by Vrael.

Isn't that how Islam came to be? Appearently God spoke to Jesus and then hundreds of years later he told Muhammad things that contradicted with what he told Jesus. I'm not big on religion so correct me if I'm wrong.

This sort of response is skewing the meaning of what I was talking about. The sort of contradiction I was talking about, is that 1 + 1 = 3, not that God said one thing at one time and a different thing at another time. If your skewing was intended as rhetoric designed to take a shot at God, it's simply irrelevant to the discussion.

How about: Can God create a reality in which love and free will can exist without evil?

Yep.

@Vrael, I can't answer that. Not intelligent enough

See that's what I don't get. If God can create a reality in which evil and suffering is not necessary, why doesn't he? He seems to be working within the limits of our current reality, and trying to make the "best" of it, almost like he's bound to our rules as well.

Consider a bee sting. To a few allergic people, it may be fatal, but to the rest of us, it's nothing more than a passing pain, soon forgotten in the span of our lives. Now, consider that heaven and hell are real, and that after your death you will still exist for an eternity under God's watchful eye, and the pains and evils you've experienced during your mortal life may seem like nothing more than that long forgotten bee sting. Is the bee who stung you evil? Doubt it. If God is real, especially as described in the bible, then we must consider a view of the world through a completely different lens. Such a powerful force acting on the universe would have a huge impact on our reality and the scope of our world.

Well I was mainly talking about hell, which is the ultimate suffering. If there are realities that don't require hell, yet we live in an existence in which it does exist, then God is evil by my definition.