How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

So a timeless, changeless entity thinks and has the potential to perform action? This is his inductive reasoning?

Christian first, philosopher second.  Start with a theology and forcibly drive the conclusion that way.

Whoa. How could a changeless entity think? That's nonsense. Actually I have repeatedly said that God does not think! If you are going to butt in, you can at least follow more carefully.

[SteveII]

You are equating inaction with mindless. In a timeless state, God would have to be changeless. That is not to say that while in that state he looses all of his other attributes. I think having omnipotent potential to do anything is a pretty big way to distinguish between God and a supercomputer.

So a timeless machine/computer with infinite information necessary to solve all solvable problems and run all tasks is not omniscient/omnipotent while a timeless God is, how? Or are you saying such a computer would be omniscient and omnipotent?

What is with the machine/computer thing? How could a machine be timeless? It is physical. What is your argument? That God could not exist timelessly? Then say that.

[GrandizerII]

So a timeless machine/computer with infinite information necessary to solve all solvable problems and run all tasks is not omniscient/omnipotent while a timeless God is, how? Or are you saying such a computer would be omniscient and omnipotent?

What is with the machine/computer thing? How could a machine be timeless? It is physical. What is your argument? That God could not exist timelessly? Then say that.

Computer. Shouldn't have said "machine" since that indicates some physical structure to it.

My argument is that, outside of time, God is mindless, no different from a computer (referring to software here) with infinite necessary information to solve all problems and run all tasks.

The implication is that, even disregarding the absurdity of a timeless entity moving into time (or creating time), God is nothing more than a computer software that just happens to not be bound by space and time.

[GrandizerII]

Do you ever watch Ali G indahouse? Once he has asked Buzz Aldrin when man will walk on the sun. When Buzz told him that you can't because its too hot, he replied, well why not during its winter? Your questions sometimes reminds me of Ali G, except you're serious

I'm serious because I see a logical absurdity in the idea of a timeless mind. Don't you?

[SteveII]

What is with the machine/computer thing? How could a machine be timeless? It is physical. What is your argument? That God could not exist timelessly? Then say that.

Computer. Shouldn't have said "machine" since that indicates some physical structure to it.

My argument is that, outside of time, God is mindless, no different from a computer (referring to software here) with infinite necessary information to solve all problems and run all tasks.

The implication is that, even disregarding the absurdity of a timeless entity moving into time (or creating time), God is nothing more than a computer software that just happens to not be bound by space and time.

So if you are talking about describing God in his timeless state, all of his attributes still apply but he is changeless. Not changing. You seem to think that there is a period where God is dormant. There is no period. This state passed away, as a whole, at the moment of creation. 

If you want to draw a parallel with your computer it is only because you have arranged the comparison to have two common attributes: infinite amounts of information and a changeless state. That is where the comparison stops but each of those things would have other properties you cannot ignore for your point.

[Nihilist Virus]

So a timeless, changeless entity thinks and has the potential to perform action? This is his inductive reasoning?

Christian first, philosopher second.  Start with a theology and forcibly drive the conclusion that way.

Whoa. How could a changeless entity think? That's nonsense. Actually I have repeatedly said that God does not think! If you are going to butt in, you can at least follow more carefully.

1. God is not analogous to a supercomputer
2. God does not think
3. ???
4. God uses logic

[surreptitious57]

Parallel lines do not intersect

Nihilist Virus already invalidated this statement of yours but instead of accepting it you repeated it which makes it just as wrong as the first time when
you said it. So once again : parallel lines do not intersect in one dimensional or two dimensional Euclidean space but do in three or higher dimensional
non Euclidean space. Now if you draw a line on a flat sheet of paper it will be straight but if you bend the paper the line will be curved. So that is why
curved lines will at some point intersect with each other because equidistance is only possible in one or two dimensions. Curvature distorts shapes too   
For example a triangle in two dimensional space is a hundred and eighty degrees but in three dimensional space is two hundred and seventy degrees

[GrandizerII]

Computer. Shouldn't have said "machine" since that indicates some physical structure to it.

My argument is that, outside of time, God is mindless, no different from a computer (referring to software here) with infinite necessary information to solve all problems and run all tasks.

The implication is that, even disregarding the absurdity of a timeless entity moving into time (or creating time), God is nothing more than a computer software that just happens to not be bound by space and time.

So if you are talking about describing God in his timeless state, all of his attributes still apply but he is changeless. Not changing. You seem to think that there is a period where God is dormant. There is no period. This state passed away, as a whole, at the moment of creation. 

If you want to draw a parallel with your computer it is only because you have arranged the comparison to have two common attributes: infinite amounts of information and a changeless state. That is where the comparison stops but each of those things would have other properties you cannot ignore for your point.

I'm trying to go by what you are arguing. The problem is that you have to contradict yourself in order to maintain your position, which is problematic for both of us, as it's rather hard to be consistent with my response to such a blatant contradiction.

Your attempt to maintain your position also keeps putting us through an unwanted loop, similar to the argument: The Bible is true because it is God's Word; what God says is true because the Bible says so.

I'm going to try one last time, and then I'm done with this discussion:

What does it mean to have a mind outside of time?

More specifically, when time and the universe had not yet been created, what is one logically possible answer for how God brought about time and the universe through the exercise of certain mental tasks.

If God timelessly had the "purpose" or "will" to create time and the universe, then there was no time to plan or think about it. This is a spontaneous and mindless act then, no different from how a theoretical metaphysical timeless super advanced computer, with all the necessary information to create stuff, would bring forth time and the universe.

[SteveII]

So if you are talking about describing God in his timeless state, all of his attributes still apply but he is changeless. Not changing. You seem to think that there is a period where God is dormant. There is no period. This state passed away, as a whole, at the moment of creation. 

If you want to draw a parallel with your computer it is only because you have arranged the comparison to have two common attributes: infinite amounts of information and a changeless state. That is where the comparison stops but each of those things would have other properties you cannot ignore for your point.

I'm trying to go by what you are arguing. The problem is that you have to contradict yourself in order to maintain your position, which is problematic for both of us, as it's rather hard to be consistent with my response to such a blatant contradiction.

Your attempt to maintain your position also keeps putting us through an unwanted loop, similar to the argument: The Bible is true because it is God's Word; what God says is true because the Bible says so.

I'm going to try one last time, and then I'm done with this discussion:

What does it mean to have a mind outside of time?

More specifically, when time and the universe had not yet been created, what is one logically possible answer for how God brought about time and the universe through the exercise of certain mental tasks.

If God timelessly had the "purpose" or "will" to create time and the universe, then there was no time to plan or think about it. This is a spontaneous and mindless act then, no different from how a theoretical metaphysical timeless super advanced computer, with all the necessary information to create stuff, would bring forth time and the universe.

[SteveII]

Parallel lines do not intersect

Nihilist Virus already invalidated this statement of yours but instead of accepting it you repeated it which makes it just as wrong as the first time when
you said it. So once again : parallel lines do not intersect in one dimensional or two dimensional Euclidean space but do in three or higher dimensional
non Euclidean space. Now if you draw a line on a flat sheet of paper it will be straight but if you bend the paper the line will be curved. So that is why
curved lines will at some point intersect with each other because equidistance is only possible in one or two dimensions. Curvature distorts shapes too   
For example a triangle in two dimensional space is a hundred and eighty degrees but in three dimensional space is two hundred and seventy degrees

So, then your point is that in non-Euclidean geometry there are no parallel lines, because parallel lines do not intersect. I fail to understand at all how this makes a point about anything.