(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 11:35 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: metaphysics is bollocks ... I'm using straight logic!

What you are doing is metaphysics, whether you like it or not.

No, it's not ... whether you claim it is or not!

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 11:35 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If something has always existed then it has no beginning, no end and (2) therefore cannot have been created.

You are wrong on both accounts.

No, I'm not ... if something was created then it was created at some temporal (or supra-temporal) juncture) therefore it has a beginning (either in a temporal or supra-temporal sense). IT alsoi has an end even if that end is in temporal (or supra-temporal) motion (extending).

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote: if something has always existed, that means that it has existed for the totality, indeed for the "all" of temporal reality. It does not mean that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, it is entirely irrespective of that question. If you want to go into that, then you must specifically demonstrate that temporal reality is somehow infinite.

And again you ignore the fact that I SPECIFICALLY stated a multiverse where I am referring to its equivalent of time i.e. super-temporal concepts.

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Even something which exists wholly apart from temporal reality (for instance angels) and therefore has not temporal beginning nor end, is not self-subsistent simply because it is nontemporal. Indeed you are confusing subsistence versus contingence with temporality, which is nonsensical.

No ... I am raising a reasoned argument against your fairy tale bollocks!

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 11:35 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Your view is insane .. you offer no evidence for your god yet you claim it is real!

I do offer evidence for my God, many times in this thread. But whether I offer evidence for my God or not, is a completely different proposition than the one your question deals with, which is what createdness or uncreatedness means. And that question you have completely confused because you lack a basic understanding of what you are even saying and thinking.

You have NOT offered a single validatable piece of evidence for your god or any other. Created means it started, simple as that ... if it started it has a beginning, a point which can be identified that the creation event occurred. If you can claim your god has always existed then I am EQUALLY entitled to claim the multiverse has always existed ... do you get it yet?

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 11:35 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I repeat I am talking about the multiverse ... it is beyond time, beyond space! Your angels and gods are just fairy tales.

The multiverse, if it means other universes which are temporally or spatially connected with our universe, are not other universes then, but a part of this one. The multiverse, if it means other universes which are not so connected with our universe, is an unverifiable dogma beyond all limits of reasonable hypothesis, beyond verifiability through empirical knowledge of what we do know exists - this universe.

The multiverse refers to the environment within which all other universes exist, it is understood to pre-exist this universe and all others (IOW to have always existed) and to post exist them all. It has no beginning and no end and, as such, cannot have been "created" by any other thing.

(August 4, 2009 at 11:52 am)Jon Paul Wrote: In either case, and in any case, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

No it's not ... it is relevant because the multiverse, having always existed, directly opposes your claim to the ever-exiting god. But then I see you are dismissing my argument purely because you are UNABLE to deal with it.

Kyu

"We are not "held accountable", not by God certainly, for the sins of others."

Really?First of all Adam and Eve were tricked into disobeying God and since they were innocent as new born babes they did not know any better.And yes although we are not being held accountable for anyone's sin but our own based on the biblical story of creation it is not entirely true.We are being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve and because of this from the moment we are born we bear the burden of sin.

"God does not force us to love him. He loves us no matter what we do, and he wants us to love him. But love doesn't work by force. Every man is born with the right to death and the right to hell."

Honestly this biblical monster you call God does not give us much of a choice.It's akin to putting a gun to someones head and giving them the option to give up their wallet or die.

Frodo,I don't believe in the biblical god or any god or religion for that matter.I woke up and saw the bible for what it really is; a collection of plagiarized myths and legends mixed with some fabricated history.

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: if something was created then it was created at some temporal (or supra-temporal) juncture)therefore it has a beginning

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: (either in a temporal or supra-temporal sense). IT alsoi has an end even if that end is in temporal (or supra-temporal) motion (extending).

Now you are simply continuing with the same nonsense.

None of this is part of the orthodox Christian definition of creation. Creation does not entail temporality.

You are welcome to entertain your own definitions if you want to. But I'm not going to waste my time discussing them, because they have nothing to do with what I believe.

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You have NOT offered a single validatable piece of evidence for your god or any other. Created means it started, simple as that ...

Started? It certainly does not.

Uncreated means that which is God. Created means anything which is not God and is therefore contingent upon Gods creative activity.

It does not mean anything which is "started".

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No it's not ... it is relevant because the multiverse, having always existed, directly opposes your claim to the ever-exiting god.

How does it "oppose" my claim of an "ever-existing" God, which is not even my claim? (mine is the one of a God wholly transcendent to any temporal denotations)

(August 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm)chatpilot Wrote: "We are not "held accountable", not by God certainly, for the sins of others."

Really?First of all Adam and Eve were tricked into disobeying God and since they were innocent as new born babes they did not know any bettter

They were not merely "tricked". This is your interpretation, and I don't really deal with heretical interpretations. They choice themselves who to listen to. They had Gods commandment and graces, but they rejected all of it, by separating themselves from God, and instead inviting the temptation and advice of the Evil One.

The orthodox view is that they chose themselves to separate themselves from God, by the act of disobedience and the favouring of the Devil over God, of personal pride, and rejection of his grace and subsequently rejection of his forgiveness.

None of that is "innocent". And it is not only about Adam and Eve, but all of humanity, again and again, this repeats. So not only does humanity suffer from humanity as a whole's separation from God, humans keep voluntarily separating themselves from God. It's free will.

Therefore our relationship to God has, in a communal sense, been screwed. Therefore it has become an individual matter.

(August 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm)chatpilot Wrote: We are being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve and because of this from the moment we are born we bear the burden of sin.

We are being punished by humanity, not by God. It is humanity which has chosen evil, and rejected God.

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: (either in a temporal or supra-temporal sense). IT alsoi has an end even if that end is in temporal (or supra-temporal) motion (extending).

Now you are simply continuing with the same nonsense.

No, I'm not ... it's your metaphysics that is nonsense!

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: None of this is part of the orthodox Christian definition of creation. Creation does not entail temporality.

You think I give a shit?

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You are welcome to entertain your own definitions if you want to. But I'm not going to waste my time discussing them, because they have nothing to do with what I believe.

So you're a chicken ... cluck, cluck, cluck!

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You have NOT offered a single validatable piece of evidence for your god or any other. Created means it started, simple as that ...

Started? It certainly does not.

Yes it does ... if something is created it means it has to have been started.

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Created means anything which is not God and therefore contingent upon God

But god cannot have created the multiverse because, by definition,. The multiverse pre-existed everything including your stupid god!

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: It does not mean anything which is "started".

Yes it does ... see above.

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: if it started it has a beginning, a point which can be identified that the creation event occurred.

No. That is temporal creation, which is a much narrower term.

No it's not, it's a term that can be applied in an abstract sense and I have made it clear I am referring to a supra-temporal concept.

(August 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No it's not ... it is relevant because the multiverse, having always existed, directly opposes your claim to the ever-exiting god.

How does it "oppose" my claim of an "ever-existing" God, which is not even my claim?

If you claim your god created the universe/multiverse then you MUST be claiming it "pre-existed" it ... it is implicit in your argument. Also, if you god didn't always exist, then what created it? That's an argument that is valid even with out the if ... who or what created your god?

Kyu

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You think I give a shit?

I don't care if you do. As I've said, you can entertain the views you want to.

Thank you, thank you oh great and wise one!

And BTW, you DO care ... if you didn't you wouldn't bother arguing ... you are being disingenuous!

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: [quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='24716' dateline='1249419223']Yes it does ... if something is created it means it has to have been started.

You are repeating this without substantiating it. The substantiation is nowhere to be found in my view and definition of what "creation" even means. And creation, in my definition, does not entail temporality. I'm not going to continue this discussion if all you have is repetitions of the same unsubstantiated nonsense building on heresies which I don't subscribe to.

My argument is based on logic and reason but if I am (and I don't accept that as so) then it is no more than you are doing ... you too are claiming things without substantiation.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If you claim your god created the universe/multiverse then you MUST be claiming it "pre-existed" it

No, I don't, because "pre-existed" is another temporal denotation which implies temporal existence, and God is wholly transcendent to temporality.

Yes you do, implicitly. And I repeat that I am talking supra temporality not universal temporality.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Again, you screwed up.

No, yet again you are being disingenuous to constantly ignore the fact that I am referring to whatever passes for "time" in the multiverse.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Also, if you god didn't always exist, then what created it?

My God did always exist; but that is not my central claim. Because the universe also always existed, in the sense of embodying the total extense of temporal reality. So what separates God and the universe is not whether they have existed always and for the totality of temporal reality. If that was my claim, then there would be no difference from God and the universe.

In which case my claim that the multiverse ahs always existed has EQUAL (arguably more since it is a seriously entertained scientific hypothesis) merit. If the multiverse is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be then your god is a part of it and cannot be its creator.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: What separates them is that the universe is temporal, and God is not.

And that is just fairytale wishful thinking for which you have provided no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) validatable evidence.

Kyu

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You think I give a shit?

I don't care if you do. As I've said, you can entertain the views you want to.

Thank you, thank you oh great and wise one!

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: [quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='24716' dateline='1249419223']Yes it does ... if something is created it means it has to have been started.

You are repeating this without substantiating it. The substantiation is nowhere to be found in my view and definition of what "creation" even means. And creation, in my definition, does not entail temporality. I'm not going to continue this discussion if all you have is repetitions of the same unsubstantiated nonsense building on heresies which I don't subscribe to.

My argument is based on logic and reason but if I am (and I don't accept that as so) then it is no more than you are doing ... you too are claiming things without substantiation.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If you claim your god created the universe/multiverse then you MUST be claiming it "pre-existed" it

No, I don't, because "pre-existed" is another temporal denotation which implies temporal existence, and God is wholly transcendent to temporality.

Yes you do, implicitly. And I repeat that I am talking supra temporality not universal temporality.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Again, you screwed up.

No, you are being disingenuous to constantly ignore the fact that I am referring to whatever passes for "time" in the multiverse.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Also, if you god didn't always exist, then what created it?

My God did always exist; but that is not my central claim. Because the universe also always existed, in the sense of embodying the total extense of temporal reality. So what separates God and the universe is not whether they have existed always and for the totality of temporal reality. If that was my claim, then there would be no difference from God and the universe.

In which case my claim that the multiverse ahs always existed has EQUAL (arguably more since it is a seriously entertained scientific hypothesis) merit. If the multiverse is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be then your god is a part of it and cannot be its creator.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: What separates them is that the universe is temporal, and God is not.

And that is just fairytale wishful thinking for which you have provided no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) validatable evidence.

Kyu

(August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: In which case my claim that the multiverse ahs always existed has EQUAL (arguably more since it is a seriously entertained scientific hypothesis) merit. If the multiverse is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be then your god is a part of it and cannot be its creator.

It's equal to my claim that the universe has always existed. But I've already dealt with the claim of a multiverse and it's relevance to this discussion. Specifically the twofold options for claiming such a thing to exist.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And that is just fairytale wishful thinking for which you have provided no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) validatable evidence.

I have provided evidence for it, but that is in fact irrelevant to a discussion about an already-existing hypothesis about God. You have been discussing "my God" for the last several pages, and now you demand evidence and terminate teh discussion just as soon as I show you that my conception of God is logically coherent.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: In which case my claim that the multiverse ahs always existed has EQUAL (arguably more since it is a seriously entertained scientific hypothesis) merit. If the multiverse is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be then your god is a part of it and cannot be its creator.

It's equal to my claim that the universe has always existed. But I've already dealt with the claim of a multiverse and it's relevance to this discussion. Specifically the twofold options for claiming such a thing to exist.

No, it completely supercedes any universal claim ... you HAVE NOT dealt with it at all, you have simply attempted to dismiss it.

(August 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And that is just fairytale wishful thinking for which you have provided no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) validatable evidence.

I have provided evidence for it, but that is in fact irrelevant to a discussion about an already-existing hypothesis about God. You have been discussing "my God" for the last several pages, and now you demand evidence and terminate teh discussion just as soon as I show you that my conception of God is logically coherent.

No, YOU HAVE NOT!!!!! Frankly ANY validatable evidence for the existence of your invisible bogeyman in the sky would be nice.

Kyu

(August 4, 2009 at 5:49 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: ... you HAVE NOT ....

(...)

No, YOU HAVE NOT!!!!!

"have not!"
"yes I have"
"have not!"
"yes I have"
"have not!

You can forget about this kind of kindergarten discussion.

(August 4, 2009 at 8:38 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You can forget about this kind of kindergarten discussion.

Chicken! Cluck, cluck, cluck!

Kyu