A good reason not to believe in God

[Edwardo Piet]

In what sense is God "outside" of time?

[Captain Scarlet]

Equally Scarlet, you cannot say my point is illogical until you understand it. And as we're talking about something in the public domain: Christianity, you have every possibility to go check the facts for yourself.

I'm not asserting a different thing at all. That's my point. Milk is to liquid is as God is to man. We're talking differing descriptors. God isn't only physical and Jesus only God like. Jesus is dead and Jesus is alive. Jesus the man died, and Jesus who is God is alive forever.

God's nature and man's nature are like the milk and liquid. Milk can be all milk and all liquid at the same time.

Well try to explain it Frods! I can call something illogical if it clearly is whatever domain it is in. Thus far you've explained Jesus is a dead, alive [person][being] entity, also he is a mortal, immortal [person][being] entity. Which I am sure you will agree is NOT impressive.

I know what your point is re milk/gods etc. I see no merit in it, and I have posted my objections to it; you have not responded, other than to ask me to check the facts for myself. Which 'facts' are you asking me to look at?

[Edwardo Piet]

Some classifications contradict other classifications. You cannot have 100% mortal and 100% immortal at exactly the same time because there's a contradiction. You can have 100% milk and 100% liquid at exactly the same time because there's not a contradiction. The milk/liquid analogy is a poor analogy.

[fr0d0]

So your points here Scarlet and Dv are that the Physical and Metaphysical occupy the same physical space? That is a positive claim against accepted wisdom, and as such attracts the burden of proof upon yourselves to support it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm explaining that being "before" or "after" time is still talking time because the terms "before" and "after" are temporal terms.

I'm explaining that a glass of milk being both 100% liquid and 100% milk is a poor analogy when compared to God being 100% mortal and 100% immortal, because mortal and immortal are contradictory and liquid and milk are not.

I'm inquiring if atemporality can even be conceptualized at all, since nothing can exist before or after time, I am inquiring in what sense atemporality is "outside" of time.

I have not made an unsupported positive claim I have merely explained logical contradictions and criticized absences of clarity.

[Anomalocaris]

So your points here Scarlet and Dv are that the Physical and Metaphysical occupy the same physical space? That is a positive claim against accepted wisdom, and as such attracts the burden of proof upon yourselves to support it.

That what he is against is both accepted, and of any sort of wisdom, seems to be a positive claim being made by you. Please place upon yourself the same burden.

[fr0d0]

All of those questions have been addressed Evie, and you are indeed making a positive claim against the accepted wisdom. You need to substantiate your claim or your argument fails.

Atemoporality is simply "not constrained by time". What is so hard to comprehend about that?

Please explain yourself Chuck. I am following the accepted definitions of physical and metaphysical. Scarlet and Evie are trying to suggest these are incorrect, and need to provide reasoning to support their premise.

Evie introduced the concept of before and after time (apart from the original conversation which was clearly about within time and before and after a fixed perspective) which he's knocked down a few times with no one else in the conversation.

Evie wishes to suggest that physical and metaphysical (mortality and immortality) are existent within the same realm. He has yet to provide any reasoning for this assertion. He merely asserts "it's contradictory". We can only guess at his arguments.

[Captain Scarlet]

So your points here Scarlet and Dv are that the Physical and Metaphysical occupy the same physical space? That is a positive claim against accepted wisdom, and as such attracts the burden of proof upon yourselves to support it.

It gets worse. I am not the one making the claim that Jesus was 100% man and 100% a god. This cannot exist in the same person at the same time. Logical deduction demonstrates this and you are avoiding answering it. What do you mean when you say the 'metaphysical' how do you know it exists, how do you know it doesn't occupy the same physical space? You are the one introducing these concepts, kindly explain them instead of trying to switch the burden of proof.

Even in biblical accounts the risen Jesus (and I assume at this point it was the 100% god/metaphysical/supernatural Jesus) appeared to his followers in the material/physical/natural world.

[fr0d0]

I've explained it to you a couple of times already now Scarlet. Unless you can stump up some reasoning to support your assertion that the metaphysical and physical exist together in one or other realm then we have nothing to go on. Your assertion is counter established logic on the subject. I am not the one introducing anything new here.

Please go look up metaphysical in a dictionary if you don't understand what it means. Here ya go: http://tinyurl.com/ou53pd

If this reality was produced by God, which is the Christian position, then he was the source of everything temporal. Everything including us is 'of God'. God is not apart from this reality, he is active in it. He is atemporal, acting upon the temporal.

You guys are trying to pull the "prove something non physical to be physical" argument. The weakest argument against Christianity I think. I'm sorry I'm not up for a discussion about such absurdities.

[Edwardo Piet]

All of those questions have been addressed Evie,

Where?

and you are indeed making a positive claim against the accepted wisdom.

What claim?

Atemoporality is simply "not constrained by time". What is so hard to comprehend about that?

In what sense does time constrain anything? Anything before or after time is still temporal. What does it mean for something to not be "constrained" by time?

Evie wishes to suggest that physical and metaphysical (mortality and immortality) are existent within the same realm.

No, I never said any such thing. I said that they are contradictory - something can't be 100% immortal and 100% mortal at exactly the same time. So to use the fact that a glass of milk can be 100% full of milk and 100% full of liquid as an analogy is a false analogy because "milk" and "liquid" are not contradictory and "mortal" and "immortal" are.

He has yet to provide any reasoning for this assertion.

I never made any such claim. I never stated that mortality and immortality were existent in the same realm. What I did do - and have done again now hoping you don't miss the point this time - was point out that the terms "mortality" and "immortality" are contradictory.

He merely asserts "it's contradictory".

It's contradictory because something can't be 100% something and 100% not that very something at exactly the same time. For example, a glass can't be 100% full and 100% not full - or in other words, empty - at exactly the same time. And since immortal means "not mortal", something can't be 100% mortal and 100% immortal at exactly the same time therefore - and this is not the case with "milk" and "liquid". I shouldn't need to point out that the terms mortal and immortal are contradictory...