(December 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: if only you could respond without creating a straw man of my position. maybe i'm asking too much from you. perhaps we can start with maybe you should read what I post. can you handle that?

I can read what you post. Just not seriously.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If we're making up a mega being, might as well be one that can do anything it wants, at least in what concerns creating and destroying stuff...

as Dr. Craig puts it, it's no more of a constraint or a limitation than to say he can't create a square circle or a married bachelor. it is evidence God can't do the logically impossible.

Quote:The properties of the god-universe interaction after the universe is made does not explain "how" it got made. Beware of language pitfalls when discussing these things...
I mean, the very expression "god created" suggests it was done in the past... but that event should take place, out of our universe's space-time domain...

why? why is it ridiculous to say "God created time"? because this suggests a time that he did so? sure, the beginning of time time was created. what is ridiculous about that? if you're saying this suggests a prior cause that created time, I would have to disagree. there can exist simultaneous causations in time, such as the relationship of the chandelier in relation to the ceiling. the ceiling causes the chandelier to be hung, but there was no point in time before the chandelier was hung that the ceiling supported the chandelier. thus we have an example of a simultaneous causation, which proves the cause does not need to happen before the effect. so the act of God creating time does not entail him creating time before time.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: It's not a red herring to ask for evidence of something that is presumed to exist in an assertion (which is what the OP, I believe, was alluding to).

it's a red herring to try and divert from a topic inquiring how God can exist timelessly to the topic inquiring for evidence of his existence. and no, it's not what the OP was alluding to, he was asking for understanding not evidence.

---

(December 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I can read what you post. Just not seriously.

well then I will take your posts as comic relief rather than substantive contribution. all you can seem to do when the topic is over your head.

Well AKD, you do claim to know alot about that god you created.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Hi Rational,

The problem is that the question, as valid as you consider it in theological terms, is predicated on the assumption of god's existence.

the OP presupposed God's existence in his question, I have no need to prove his existence to answer his question. if I ask "what color is big foot?" do you seriously think i'm looking for evidence of his existence?

(December 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: well then I will take your posts as comic relief rather than substantive contribution. all you can seem to do when the topic is over your head.

I have a real problem analising fantasy, and it is way over my head. I prefer to stick to reality.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Well AKD, you do claim to know alot about that god you created.

that would be funny if it weren't sad for the fact that it's probably your best serious argument as well as a snappy comeback.

---

(December 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I have a real problem analising fantasy, and it is way over my head. I prefer to stick to reality.

well then I guess you're not one to create hypothesizes. too bad, that would be a useful quality.

Oh, I create shit every morning, I have regular bowel movements.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:38 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Oh, I create shit every morning, I have regular bowel movements.

if that's what you think about creating hypothesizes, I guess you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If we're making up a mega being, might as well be one that can do anything it wants, at least in what concerns creating and destroying stuff...

as Dr. Craig puts it, it's no more of a constraint or a limitation than to say he can't create a square circle or a married bachelor. it is evidence God can't do the logically impossible.

I can't fathom why it is logically impossible to destroy a space-time container and not expect time (the one on that container) to go on flowing...

ouch... too many double and triple-negatives in there... let me try to rephrase that...

Why should we expect to observe the flow of time once the space-time container is destroyed? Why is it logical that time goes on flowing once it is destroyed?

(December 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

Quote:The properties of the god-universe interaction after the universe is made does not explain "how" it got made. Beware of language pitfalls when discussing these things...
I mean, the very expression "god created" suggests it was done in the past... but that event should take place, out of our universe's space-time domain...

why? why is it ridiculous to say "God created time"? because this suggests a time that he did so? sure, the beginning of time time was created. what is ridiculous about that? if you're saying this suggests a prior cause that created time, I would have to disagree.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous... It just doesn't make sense.
The act of creation would have to be done in the absence of space and time. So the creation cannot be before anything else... nor after... these qualities don't make sense.

(December 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: there can exist simultaneous causations in time, such as the relationship of the chandelier in relation to the ceiling. the ceiling causes the chandelier to be hung, but there was no point in time before the chandelier was hung that the ceiling supported the chandelier. thus we have an example of a simultaneous causation, which proves the cause does not need to happen before the effect.

WUT?!

(December 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: so the act of God creating time does not entail him creating time before time.

You're careless in your language and it shows... "creating time before time"... what does that 'before' mean?!

(December 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: if that's what you think about creating hypothesizes, I guess you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.

The scientific method creates an hypothesis based on the evidence for the subject at hand. You have presented nothing.