A good reason not to believe in God

[fr0d0]

An atemporal being exists timelessly, without time action is NOT possible. This is supported by all of reality. You assert diffrently, so provide your evidence, proofs etc.

Again your just asserting that. Please explain why.

My assertion doesn't concern a being solely atemporal, so I cannot answer for such a theory.

Yes it was a strawman, and you have just erected another: I did not say I was interested in physical proofs. But if you have some show some.

Forgive me for trying to pin you down to a meaning. You want physical proofs of the physically unprovable? Are you seriously wanting to own that question?

The facts of this debate is you have made 2 assertions about an acting but atemporal god, and a 100% man and 100% god being. Not backed them up, vaguley waffled about metaphysics and tried to shift the burden of proof. You have had numerous chances to defend your assertions and failed to do so. If this is the truth why is it so hard for you to explain it? As for atheists delibereately not understanding the points you are making, please take it as read that I REALLY DO NOT understand your proofs/explanations AT ALL.

I've tried to explain to you both what I am not saying, which is, as works with the analogy well enough, that these are two aspects of this subject. You are trying to narrow this down to something it isn't, which makes it impossible and irrelevant for me to answer.

I've asked you if you're talking about this entity existing atemporally and temporally in the same realm, and you deny that this is your point. So what is your point?

---

So your way of escaping the contradiction of Him being both mortal and immortal is to say that there are two of Him? There are two Jesuses? He's in the plural? First I heard of it (well, read of it).

So there are two glasses - one full of milk and another full of liquid?

---

I recall that Hercules also came into this world via virgin birth. Is he a God? If not, why not?

Go look up Hercules and God and see if you can work it out for yourself. Then come back and I'll see if I can't get you a badge k

[Edwardo Piet]

So there are two glasses - one full of milk and another full of liquid?

No, you implied there were two Jesuses. You said that the mortal Jesus was not the same as the immortal Jesus. Implying that there are two different Jesues, one mortal, one immortal.

So your milk analogy is now false for two reasons. One: It's not contradictory, unlike mortality and immortality. Two: There is only one glass in your milk analogy, and yet you imply that there are two Jesuses.

[theVOID]

What definition do you prefer?

One that accords with the attributes of God (such as omnipresence)—but only if you want the argument to have any bearing on this omniscient God. (For example, see God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl Henry, and especially Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time by Paul Helm.)

So you're not going to give me the definition and instead make me run after it? Typical.

First, I am saying that God exists in all states of affairs eternally; that is, there is never a state of affairs that escapes God's existence. He describes himself as "the alpha and omega" (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet), such that God is before everything else and he is after everything else (from which all things exist and for which all things exists). In fact, his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience; thus by separating them one risks constructing a weak straw man.

I never argued against that....

According to your argument it is crucially important, such that you posit an omniscient deity with complete knowledge about all things from t0. Your argument works for a temporally bounded omniscient deity, but that leaves the God of Christianity out of the analysis.

Fine, let's rephrase it.

Take the state of affairs that was the first instance of the universe, call this sU, the state of affairs that caused the universe is sC, the two competing sC's can be described by a certain amount of information.

Unless you deny that God caused the universe sC is completely applicable.

Of course he does. That is what omniscient means. Read what I said again and notice what my objection is predicated on. "God exists in all states of affairs eternally ... his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience." In other words, God knows in sum the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence at tn (which obviously includes the initial t0).

And he had this knowledge at sC?

Where did I attempt a material justification of the immaterial?

You're trying to solve the problem of pre existence - a material consideration, are you not? In your thinking, are you allowing for a non material answer?

Just WOW... Of course i'm allowing for it, I specifically compared a material answer with an immaterial one.

I would agree that B contains irrelevant information. Thus the two scenarios are unequal, not simple and complex.

No, the scenarios are equal in that they both offer explanations of the same event, they are both possible explanations, the explanation with the least amount of information is the most simple explanation and is the explanation we should prefer.

B doesn't contain irrelevant information because it COULD be the case that it is true, it's simply a case of it being the hypothesis that requires the most information to describe and is thus the more complex hypothesis.

You said "That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one". I respond: then an argument from simplicity is irrelevant.

Again... WOW... This isn't an argument that is trying to necessitate a position so that contention is completely irrelevant, this is an argument that Naturalism is, in terms of the amount of information required to describe that state of affairs, the most simple explanation. Like I showed with my above example, the explanation that requires the LEAST amount of information is the one we should prefer.

You're arguing without looking into the subject. Go find out what Divine Simplicity entails first before dismissing it.

That is not at all true, I've heard the thinking on Divine simplicity and I'm saying that Information theory discredits it, no matter what way you go about it more knowledge = more information = more complexity. To say that a book of everything isn't complex is a farce, the same happens when you talk about a being who knows everything.

[BlackUnicorn]

So there are two glasses - one full of milk and another full of liquid?

No, you implied there were two Jesuses. You said that the mortal Jesus was not the same as the immortal Jesus. Implying that there are two different Jesues, one mortal, one immortal.

So your milk analogy is now false for two reasons. One: It's not contradictory, unlike mortality and immortality. Two: There is only one glass in your milk analogy, and yet you imply that there are two Jesuses.

Why is it that all this analogy reminds me of is two guys up me?

One that wants to be like me, and f**** with my life, another that is a jumped up dictator that creates all my problems and then decides to create bits of paper to convert followers and f**** with my life further.

How about a different analogy?

I spill out the contents out of the glass, and wash it clean, along with the notion of a psychotic dictator watching me, creating me for his perverse desires and terrorizing every moment of my life.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why is it that all this analogy reminds me of is two guys up me?

Eh?

[BlackUnicorn]

Why is it that all this analogy reminds me of is two guys up me?

Eh?

Sorry couldn't help myself there.

[Edwardo Piet]

You might get on along with Sae quite well. You're strange. That isn't an insult.

[BlackUnicorn]

You might get on along with Sae quite well. You're strange. That isn't an insult.

I am used to having people run away from me. More due to the fact I doodle around Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism and straight Anarchy. I am skeptical and looking for the dark side of everything, so once and a while I can't help mocking/laughing at authority or breaking the social boundaries.

More often than not I find the divide between left and right amusing, as there are religious nut cases on both sides arguing for their 'better' versions of god (the Republican vs Democrat god) when in reality they are arguing about a guy who in the various versions of the bible is guilty of genocide, mass murder and war crimes even before you go through the rest of it. I am just going by the text* which spells out god is a sadist that would do every dirty thing he wants.

*Like King James and the Unicorns

[Edwardo Piet]

I am skeptical and looking for the dark side of everything

Morbidly skeptical?

I myself am indeed morbidly skeptical and also macabrely cynical. It's fún to be this way.

[BlackUnicorn]

I am skeptical and looking for the dark side of everything

Morbidly skeptical?

I myself am indeed morbidly skeptical and also macabrely cynical. It's fún to be this way.

To an extent, at times I look at incredibly happy people with disgust, and expect everyone given the chance or the right amount of money would betray me, and send me off to some secret prison somewhere. But not to worry, I am part of an expanding minority....people who are sick of everything.