What was God doing?

[JimL]

No, you have not understood me correctly. I have not argued that God existed before the [temporal] universe. It makes no sense to speak of before temporality.

Well if your argument is that there is no such thing as before time, then how can you argue that there was anything, including god, that existed before the universe of time. If you can't give a clear and logical explanation, then, like Feyman said, I'll just have to assume that you don't know what your talking about.

[robrecht]

Well if your argument is that there is no such thing as before time, then how can you argue that there was anything, including god, that existed before the universe of time.

Again, I have not argued that anything existed before time.

If you can't give a clear and logical explanation, then, like Feyman said, I'll just have to assume that you don't know what your talking about.

If you cannot explain what a square circle is, then I must assume you don't know what you're talking about.

[JimL]

Yes, to illustrate one of the three ways something can be a cause.

You said explicitly: "To say that god acts, is to acknowledge that he changes"

So if we are already aware of entities that cause a change in something else, then unless you can argue why passibility is important, then merely pointing out that my analogy exists in time amounts to special pleading. God is impassible, He is the Prime Mover, and His acting on the world did not change Him.

Well actually Leonard, I think you are the one doing the special pleading here. You are asking me to believe that change can occur timelessly without any evidence or sound reason to support your assertion.
I mean if thats how you make determinations then you don't really have an argument to make, its just, "God is timeless, deal with it."

[JimL]

Again, I have not argued that anything existed before time.

If you cannot explain what a square circle is, then I must assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Its not me thats asserting the illogical robrecht, its you, so its up to you to give a sensible explanation for what it is you are asserting. If you can't or just don't want to fine, thats up to you.

[robrecht]

Its not me thats asserting the illogical robrecht, its you, so its up to you to give a sensible explanation for what it is you are asserting. If you can't or just don't want to fine, thats up to you.

You have yet to identify anything illogical that I have asserted.

[firstfloor]

I would kindly suggest that you spend more time thinking about what God WILL do when you stand before Him.

[JimL]

You have yet to identify anything illogical that I have asserted.

Sure I have, its illogical to argue that god created the universe but that he didn't exist before the universe.

[robrecht]

Sure I have, its illogical to argue that god created the universe but that he didn't exist before the universe.

Can you please try and quote where you think I have made this argument? It seems like you are completely missing the point about temporality.

[JimL]

Prosecutor: Father why didst thou forsaken me? Defendent: I'm sorry son, did I forget to tell you?

[Leonhard]

Well actually Leonard, I think you are the one doing the special pleading here. You are asking me to believe that change can occur timelessly without any evidence or sound reason to support your assertion.

I could give you the classical arguments that God must be timeless and the cause of the universe. If that's what you want. Both are simple corollaries to Aquinas argument from motion.

That's what I base this on, however you asked what it meant, and you asserted something that literally no theologian holds with regards to God's relationship to time and creation. It's not good to proceed on an argument when the one you're arguing with doesn't understand what you're saying. Therefore I felt it was best to explain, and point out what I saw as problems with your statements.

Anyway its past midnight here, I'll be dropping out of the discussion for now.

[shunyadragon]

Sigh! Always the veiled threats with you lot.

Actually, not so veiled.

[One Bad Pig]

You can make a threat without the person you're threatening taking it seriously. Who says we feel threatened?

Those who are whinging about being threatened obviously do. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother bringing it up.

Regardless, it's pretty dumb to tell non-believers that they'd be better off spending their time worrying about the actions of a being they don't believe exists.

When, instead, they're spending their time worrying about the actions of a being they don't believe exists, like they're doing now? Wouldn't it be better to ponder what would happen if, in fact, the being does exist rather than something unlikely to have an impact either way, and is logically fallacious besides?

[One Bad Pig]

There is an answer to every question whether the answer is known or not.

Not necessarily. What is the smell of the color nine?

What we are doing here is speculating as to whether or not the idea of creation and a timeless creator makes logical sense.

That's not the question you asked.

[Tassman]

Hmmmm.... you perceived a threat in that?

Oh, so you referring to endless torture in the pits of hell as prescribed by the eternally loving deity? My mistake! Perhaps what

[Tassman]

Those who are whinging about being threatened obviously do. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother bringing it up.

When, instead, they're spending their time worrying about the actions of a being they don't believe exists, like they're doing now? Wouldn't it be better to ponder what would happen if, in fact, the being does exist rather than something unlikely to have an impact either way, and is logically fallacious besides?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager