(May 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, inductive reasoning resulting from presupposing the validity of natural theology.

Fixed.

There is no "one" natural theology; theologians disagree over the nature of "god", say, whether he/she/it is omnipotent or not, or omniscient or not.  There is no way to test any of these ideas, none of which are falsifiable.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically.  

But this directly contradicts what you said earlier in this thread...

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.

[emphasis mine.]

Which is it? Did God "decide" things one after the other, or not? Is timelessness essential, or contingent? You seem very confused for someone who so strongly asserts knowledge of God's nature.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal.

A truly timeless entity cannot do anything, including creating space-time. There is no moment of "change" without some form of time. Without change, there can be no cause and effect. God cannot exist sans universe, then suddenly create the universe absent some form of time to which he himself must be subjected to. You're addressing what happened after God created space-time without addressing how God  could have logically created space-time absent any form of time or change.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (neither intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.

If the B-theory based on Relativity is correct, then all times past, present, and future have always co-existed and there would never be a moment where a creation event was required, which is why Craig dismisses the B-theory in order to hang on, however tentatively, to his precious Kalam. He would also adamantly disagree with you that God currently "exists outside the block of time," as Craig believes God is now definitely temporal post creation.

So far, you have a God who possibly "decides" things (including, absurdly, "deciding to exist," which itself is a ridiculous contradiction), without any stream of consciousness because he supposedly knows everything, and then you have your timeless, changeless entity suddenly "change" after an eternity of changelessness, magically creating the universe and then deciding to exist inside of it or outside of it depending upon how things pan out scientifically vis-à-vis the A or B theories of time. Your definition of God is clearly self-refuting, ad hoc, and irrational. The scientists you quote don't support your conclusions, and even regurgitating Craig's mantra can't help you here. Who knew defining an imaginary friend into reality could be so difficult?

(May 3, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Fixed.

There is no "one" natural theology; theologians disagree over the nature of "god", say, whether he/she/it is omnipotent or not, or omniscient or not.  There is no way to test any of these ideas, none of which are falsifiable.

So I'm right.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal.

"Causally prior."  I like it.  If causes need not (chronologically) precede effects, then the creation event need not have happened yet.  If the Large Hadron Collider doesn't manage it, some later--even more powerful--collider may do the job.  If causes need not precede effects, your god is out of a job. 

If Jehovah can exist timelessly and changelessly, atemporally, causally prior to the rest of the universe, why can't other things?  Why can't the cosmic egg that caused the big bang have existed atemporally?  For that matter--I had a big mac for lunch--how do I know that my big mac wasn't causally prior to the partaverse?

(May 3, 2016 at 7:03 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal.

"Causally prior."  I like it.  If causes need not (chronologically) precede effects, then the creation event need not have happened yet.  If the Large Hadron Collider doesn't manage it, some later--even more powerful--collider may do the job.  If causes need not precede effects, your god is out of a job. 

If Jehovah can exist timelessly and changelessly, atemporally, causally prior to the rest of the universe, why can't other things?  Why can't the cosmic egg that caused the big bang have existed atemporally?  For that matter--I had a big mac for lunch--how do I know that my big mac wasn't causally prior to the partaverse?

Big Macs clearly exist atemporally in the Mac-averse. But they exist eternally in the lower intestine. Go figure.

(May 3, 2016 at 7:03 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal.

"Causally prior."  I like it.  If causes need not (chronologically) precede effects, then the creation event need not have happened yet.  If the Large Hadron Collider doesn't manage it, some later--even more powerful--collider may do the job.  If causes need not precede effects, your god is out of a job. 

If Jehovah can exist timelessly and changelessly, atemporally, causally prior to the rest of the universe, why can't other things?  Why can't the cosmic egg that caused the big bang have existed atemporally?  For that matter--I had a big mac for lunch--how do I know that my big mac wasn't causally prior to the partaverse?

Unseen things and/or entities, which have no evidence for their existence (except, in the imaginations of those who believe), can exist without cause and atemporally.  However, things which can be seen, or at least measured empirically, cannot exist atemporally, and therefore, that proves that unseen entities, for which there is no evidence, must exist atemporally.  Of course, we are limited in believing that only the "great" monotheistic religions of this World are eligible to be believed in, which leaves Jesus of Nazareth, because Mohammad, a historical figure, had some incorrect historical ideas.

(May 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:32 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Inductive reasoning grounded in a claim to certainty regarding the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, invisible, immaterial supernatural entity that exists outside of existence and authored the laws of physics and crafted every individual particle.

No, inductive reasoning resulting from a study of natural theology.

So thinking about finding a watch on a moor lead to all that? I'd like to see a map of you thought process.

How exactly do you study theology?

I'd really like to know. You can study religious texts, you can study religions, and you can study the reasons people might believe in religions. You can parrot bullshit arguments.

But how do you study theology? It just seems to be adults arguing about who has the best sounding fairy tale. You all have to be living in a fantasy world before the discussion can even begin. At best, all I can see is studying how internally consistent each religion is, in the same way you'd test a mathematical system.

It also seems to make the assumption that philosphy can continue to accurately learn about reality where science leaves off. No, it can't. It's idle speculation at that point. I get it, it's uncomfortable not knowing. It doesn't mean you have to make shit up.

And notice the huge gulf between the abstract deistic God that comes out of the theological waffle, and the specific characters in popular storybooks. That non sequitur alone should be enough to make people stop and think, surely. Is Yahweh a character "outside of space and time"? Hardly. He's fucking walking about, in book 1, very much in real time. So you're accusing your one and only evidence source of being entirely unreliable.

It's confidence artistry, the aim is to construct the most credible sounding sophistry.

(May 4, 2016 at 3:51 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, inductive reasoning resulting from a study of natural theology.

So thinking about finding a watch on a moor lead to all that? I'd like to see a map of you thought process.

How does one map a desert? It'd be like looking at a sheet of sandpaper.