(November 4, 2013 at 5:10 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: do you honestly think you can come here and say "God is impossible" and expect me to prove God exists or it's impossible? I don't think so. you made the claim it's impossible for God to think and cause the universe without time, it is you who has to show that's correct. burden of proof is a 2 way street, you can't claim God is impossible and expect that claim not to be challenged.

Nice try. First of all, I never said God is impossible. In fact, I even gave an example in which I thought you might make a reasonable case for God's existence. I said your definition of God can't logically be true, because it violates the meaning of the words "think" and "create."

I know about thinking, because I can experience it: ideas fade in and out, mostly not of my own volition. I'm a witness to a dynamic virtual space where those ideas play off each other. Now, you say God is timeless. That means he does not have ideas fading in and out. He does not have a dynamic virtual space where his ideas play off each other, because change means time. He therefore does not think. But, you claim, God's thinking is very different than our thinking. No, it's not. It can't be. Because if it doesn't involve a flow of changing ideas (change requiring time, remember), it's not properly called thinking. It's something else.

Now, if you want to argue that God is, by definition, the embodiment of all necessary facts, then we can talk about that.

(November 4, 2013 at 7:48 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Nice try. First of all, I never said God is impossible. In fact, I even gave an example in which I thought you might make a reasonable case for God's existence. I said your definition of God can't logically be true, because it violates the meaning of the words "think" and "create."

when I said God, I didn't mean just any God but the specific one being discussed which would exist timelessly. your challenges are specifically what I was addressing in regards to that and your challenges imply God (the one being discussed) is logically impossible.

Quote:I know about thinking, because I can experience it: ideas fade in and out, mostly not of my own volition. I'm a witness to a dynamic virtual space where those ideas play off each other. Now, you say God is timeless. That means he does not have ideas fading in and out. He does not have a dynamic virtual space where his ideas play off each other, because change means time. He therefore does not think. But, you claim, God's thinking is very different than our thinking. No, it's not. It can't be. Because if it doesn't involve a flow of changing ideas (change requiring time, remember), it's not properly called thinking. It's something else.

that is merely your personal experience of how thinking works, not the actual definition. according to Merriam-Webster, we have three definitions.

Merriam-Webster Wrote:1. to believe that something is true, that a particular situation exists, that something will happen, etc.
2. to have an opinion about someone or something
3. to form or have (a particular thought) in your mind

out of these, number 3 is most applicable. the basic requirements for God to think is to have thoughts in his mind which doesn't entail the changing of said thoughts. the only aspects of thought God cannot possess are the concepts of pondering, contemplating, or remembering. God cannot possess these because he has all knowledge and to do any of these would require new unknown information.

Quote:Now, if you want to argue that God is, by definition, the embodiment of all necessary facts, then we can talk about that.

you should have known from the start God is particularly defined by all monotheistic religions as an omniscient being so don't try and act like it's anything new. the terms I would more accurately use to describe him, however, would be an un-embodied mind that possesses knowledge of all truths among other attributes.

and BTW, you've also skipped over the explanation of how a timeless God can create. just letting you know.

(November 5, 2013 at 3:29 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

Quote:I know about thinking, because I can experience it: ideas fade in and out, mostly not of my own volition. I'm a witness to a dynamic virtual space where those ideas play off each other. Now, you say God is timeless. That means he does not have ideas fading in and out. He does not have a dynamic virtual space where his ideas play off each other, because change means time. He therefore does not think. But, you claim, God's thinking is very different than our thinking. No, it's not. It can't be. Because if it doesn't involve a flow of changing ideas (change requiring time, remember), it's not properly called thinking. It's something else.

that is merely your personal experience of how thinking works, not the actual definition. according to Merriam-Webster, we have three definitions.

Merriam-Webster Wrote:1. to believe that something is true, that a particular situation exists, that something will happen, etc.
2. to have an opinion about someone or something
3. to form or have (a particular thought) in your mind

out of these, number 3 is most applicable. the basic requirements for God to think is to have thoughts in his mind which doesn't entail the changing of said thoughts. the only aspects of thought God cannot possess are the concepts of pondering, contemplating, or remembering. God cannot possess these because he has all knowledge and to do any of these would require new unknown information.

These are not variants of the idea of what it means to think. They are variants in the different concepts the word may represent.

If I say, "I think that boy's name is John," I'm not really formulating ideas about his name. I'm just stating an idea I hold about the person as the name pops into my mind.

If you are arguing that God is basically a name for platonic ideals, then you can use that definition. If you are arguing for a Judeo-Christian God who interacts with people in any way, you cannot.

(November 4, 2013 at 5:10 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(November 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Chas Wrote: I quoted you making a claim. Do you not know what a claim means?

so you're going to challenge me on whether bennyboy said that? please, there are some things that you can evidently see that are true.

No, no, and no.

You made the following claim: "unlike with us, his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient."

Provide evidence.

Religious people do not understand, that they are making the claim. When making a claim for the existence and presents of a super being, you have to provide hard factual evidence of existence. We do not care about how you feel about the super being. We want real hardcore pornographic evidence of such existence. Why do I have to disprove something that has not been proven. The mythical books are not evidence.

I feel this! I claim I can move objects with my thoughts. I wrote it down in a green book, so it must be true! Now you must disprove this!

(November 5, 2013 at 7:57 am)Dragonetti Wrote: Religious people do not understand, that they are making the claim. When making a claim for the existence and presents of a super being, you have to provide hard factual evidence of existence. We do not care about how you feel about the super being. We want real hardcore pornographic evidence of such existence. Why do I have to disprove something that has not been proven. The mythical books are not evidence.
l this! I claim I can move objects with my thoughts. I wrote it down in a green book, so it must be true! Now you must disprove this!

When religious people will stop pretending to be the intermediaries between God and the masses and will instead start doing the hard work of extracting the knowledge from within then they will know a bit better how the system works.
You as well will know a bit more about God when you will stop pretending that God can be perceived in a physical-mental way or hardcore pornographic evidence how you say.
You carry the dogma (false truth) that if God can not be perceived in this way then there is no God.
Everything in this physical world is subject to the law of cause and effect so you think that this apply also to someone that is not subject to this law.
How silly can you be!!!
Cause and effect mean no progress can be achieved as the negative will prevent the positive from prevail.
Spirituality on the contrary does not have any negative factor so is not subject to the law of cause and effect and therefore is above the physical evidence.

(November 5, 2013 at 9:32 am)enrico Wrote:

---

(November 5, 2013 at 7:57 am)Dragonetti Wrote: Religious people do not understand, that they are making the claim. When making a claim for the existence and presents of a super being, you have to provide hard factual evidence of existence. We do not care about how you feel about the super being. We want real hardcore pornographic evidence of such existence. Why do I have to disprove something that has not been proven. The mythical books are not evidence.
l this! I claim I can move objects with my thoughts. I wrote it down in a green book, so it must be true! Now you must disprove this!

When religious people will stop pretending to be the intermediaries between God and the masses and will instead start doing the hard work of extracting the knowledge from within then they will know a bit better how the system works.
You as well will know a bit more about God when you will stop pretending that God can be perceived in a physical-mental way or hardcore pornographic evidence how you say.
You carry the dogma (false truth) that if God can not be perceived in this way then there is no God.
Everything in this physical world is subject to the law of cause and effect so you think that this apply also to someone that is not subject to this law.
How silly can you be!!!
Cause and effect mean no progress can be achieved as the negative will prevent the positive from prevail.
Spirituality on the contrary does not have any negative factor so is not subject to the law of cause and effect and therefore is above the physical evidence.

---

WTF did I just read? Spirituality does have an effect in society. I have witness plenty of people pray, strapping bombs, get high, and blow themselves up. They usually try to take out innocent people.

Sorry, but I do not use prayer and spirituality to get high. My brain does not dumb a crap load of Dopamine from reading fairy tails.

(November 5, 2013 at 4:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: These are not variants of the idea of what it means to think. They are variants in the different concepts the word may represent.

If I say, "I think that boy's name is John," I'm not really formulating ideas about his name. I'm just stating an idea I hold about the person as the name pops into my mind.

If you are arguing that God is basically a name for platonic ideals, then you can use that definition. If you are arguing for a Judeo-Christian God who interacts with people in any way, you cannot.

you only show one use of the word think. there are others that don't imply ignorance. for example:
anticipate- to have as an expectation: we think we won't have any trouble.
reason- to exercise judgment, conception, or inference.
to have a view or opinion- God thinks of himself as supreme over all things.
approve- to view with satisfaction: God doesn't think highly of your actions.
all these are uses of the word think, as a verb BTW.

(November 5, 2013 at 6:28 am)Chas Wrote: No, no, and no.

You made the following claim: "unlike with us, his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient."

Provide evidence.

I was attributing certain properties that would debunk his claim to impossibility. he said it is impossible for a timeless God to think, and I showed certain properties he can possess to show he's wrong. when someone makes a claim "God can't do this..." I need only make a claim showing "God can do this" which in turn can only be refuted by showing that's impossible.

A moot point when you can't prove said god in the first place.

(November 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 4:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: These are not variants of the idea of what it means to think. They are variants in the different concepts the word may represent.

If I say, "I think that boy's name is John," I'm not really formulating ideas about his name. I'm just stating an idea I hold about the person as the name pops into my mind.

If you are arguing that God is basically a name for platonic ideals, then you can use that definition. If you are arguing for a Judeo-Christian God who interacts with people in any way, you cannot.

you only show one use of the word think. there are others that don't imply ignorance. for example:
anticipate- to have as an expectation: we think we won't have any trouble.
reason- to exercise judgment, conception, or inference.
to have a view or opinion- God thinks of himself as supreme over all things.
approve- to view with satisfaction: God doesn't think highly of your actions.
all these are uses of the word think, as a verb BTW.

You are trying to say there can be thought outside of time. Therefore, you have to be talking about a definition which includes no processing or change of state. A timeless entity can't "anticipate," because prediction requires the possibility of a change of state. An all-knowing entity can't "reason," because reasoning means figuring out what you don't already know. An all-powerful entity can't "approve" and "disapprove" because those are different states, and time is required in order to have different states.

So let's stop playing this etymological goose-chase. YOU claim God is real, and can think. In what sense would you say a being outside time can think? Choose whatever definition you want of God, or of time, or of thinking, or of creating, and I'll respond to that-- because the Dictionary/Thesaurus game is losing its sparkle.