(December 5, 2013 at 11:50 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I 100% agree with you. So long as whatever a god is remains entirely in the realm of 'possibilities'. But you missed the point of my analogy. But that's ok.
Now you can obfuscate your response however way you want and claim that the thread (and your response) has nothing to do with evidence, but the fact remains is that you believe (I presume) that a god of some sort (again, whatever that is) exists and does 'things' the world/reality we inhabit. Right?
The assertion in the OP is "God is Timeless". What's the presumption there? That [a] god exists, naturally. So, to play the game, we have to start from that assumption and go from there.
My analogy was to say there's no more reason to accept that presumption either scientifically or philosophically than, say, whether a chair cares about seeing our arses every day when we sit down on it.
The fact that people not only talk about god on a philosophical plane, but a further, a scientific plane, and further interweave the two. means that this conversation isn't and never has been purely about "possibilities" and the implications of those "possibilities". It's started from a statement of scientific and objective fact, and built presuppositions on that.
That is why we dismiss it, and we ask why we should care about it.
Can you give us a reason?
there's a difference between accepting God exists and presupposing God exists. the OP presupposes God exists and asks how he can exist timelessly. I came here to answer that question which means no, I will not fall for your red herrings and divert the subject.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
