Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[Rhizomorph13]

You still haven't refuted my vacuum cleaner so that MUST be the answer because... more dimensions!

[Edwardo Piet]

Silly theists are silly.

[theologian]

You still haven't refuted my vacuum cleaner so that MUST be the answer because... more dimensions!

It's easy to refute your vacuum cleaner. Argument for God's Existence which are sound starts from the things we can sense with our five senses. Your vacuum cleaner argument didn't start with things we can sense. But, only the arguments which starts from things which can be sensed are the sound arguments to prove the existence of something by its effects. Therefore, your vacuum cleaner argument - if it is an argument at all - is not a sound argument unlike the argument for God's existence. Thus, your vacuum cleaner has been refuted.

About what, I've heard your argument, I gave you my comments...you want to talk about something else.

I think what I have talked about your comment is related with it, isn't it?

[Soldat Du Christ]

The fact that naturalism cannot justify itself, demands its existence. When all other possabilities have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer.

When the science isn't fully in, just go with the most extravagant metaphysical concept you can come up with and ignore its patent flaws! Got it.

The just give us enough time argument? All time has done is eliminated the plausability of natural explanations.

[The Grand Nudger]

About what, I've heard your argument, I gave you my comments...you want to talk about something else.

I think what I have talked about your comment is related with it, isn't it?

If you think that, I can hardly imagine there would be a way for me to explain to you that it wasn't, on any level, at any point, even remotely. You and I either speak entirely different languages, live on entirely different planets...or both.

[theologian]

I think what I have talked about your comment is related with it, isn't it?

If you think that, I can hardly imagine there would be a way for me to explain to you that it wasn't, on any level, at any point, even remotely. You and I either speak entirely different languages, live on entirely different planets...or both.

I faced your last topic-related comment. And then you accuse me of talking about different things when I had faced your last topic-related comment. Care to show it? For, just because we accuse someone of something, it doesn't follow that it is really the case right, and that is call special pleading, right?

[GrandizerII]

If God is Pure Act of Being then it would seem, by your claim that God creates in time, that He is only sometimes Pure Act, but that his Being and his Act are separable from each other -- which is a contradiction of the notion that by necessity God is Pure Actuality, and that his Actuality is Being, i.e. Pure Act of Being.

 

I didn't claim here that God creates in time, did I? Time is created, for it is the rate of change, and change exist in creation only. So, if God created, then He created not in time, but to be precise, creates time.

I'd like to dwell on this bit here, if you don't mind.

How did God create time outside of time? Shouldn't time always be a correlate of any act, including the act of creation?

The only thing that makes sense is that time has always been, whether physical or metaphysical or whatever you want to call it. You can never make sense by saying that an entity can timelessly create. It's just absurd.

[theologian]

 

I didn't claim here that God creates in time, did I? Time is created, for it is the rate of change, and change exist in creation only. So, if God created, then He created not in time, but to be precise, creates time.

I'd like to dwell on this bit here, if you don't mind.

How did God create time outside of time? Shouldn't time always be a correlate of any act, including the act of creation?

The only thing that makes sense is that time has always been, whether physical or metaphysical or whatever you want to call it. You can never make sense by saying that an entity can timelessly create. It's just absurd.

I think it is not absurd. For, it is just seemingly absurd to us, for we haven't experienced eternity, which is the state outside of time, of change, succession of moments. However, there will be absurdity if we will relate time with God, Whom is beyond time and space, as He is Being Himself. An analogy which is far from being specific can be used: An author who plans to write a story exist in his mind all the successive events in the story. If we are in the story, then the time runs in a regular manner. But in the mind of the author, it can be all at once. If that is possible with man, the more it is possible with God.

[GrandizerII]

I'd like to dwell on this bit here, if you don't mind.

How did God create time outside of time? Shouldn't time always be a correlate of any act, including the act of creation?

The only thing that makes sense is that time has always been, whether physical or metaphysical or whatever you want to call it. You can never make sense by saying that an entity can timelessly create. It's just absurd.

I think it is not absurd. For, it is just seemingly absurd to us, for we haven't experienced eternity, which is the state outside of time, of change, succession of moments. However, there will be absurdity if we will relate time with God, Whom is beyond time and space, as He is Being Himself. An analogy which is far from being specific can be used: An author who plans to write a story exist in his mind all the successive events in the story. If we are in the story, then the time runs in a regular manner. But in the mind of the author, it can be all at once. If that is possible with man, the more it is possible with God.

It's logically absurd. The only way you can get out of this is by saying God defies logic anyway. But then that would mean God could also create a square-triangle and also create an object he is unable to lift or destroy or other such absurd things.

The analogy doesn't address how time came to be because for the author to write the story (or even plan to write it) in the first place, time must have already occurred. And this is because, once again, time is automatically a correlate of act, whether it's divine or not.

[theologian]

I think it is not absurd. For, it is just seemingly absurd to us, for we haven't experienced eternity, which is the state outside of time, of change, succession of moments. However, there will be absurdity if we will relate time with God, Whom is beyond time and space, as He is Being Himself. An analogy which is far from being specific can be used: An author who plans to write a story exist in his mind all the successive events in the story. If we are in the story, then the time runs in a regular manner. But in the mind of the author, it can be all at once. If that is possible with man, the more it is possible with God.

It's logically absurd. The only way you can get out of this is by saying God defies logic anyway. But then that would mean God could also create a square-triangle and also create an object he is unable to lift or destroy or other such absurd things.

The analogy doesn't address how time came to be because for the author to write the story (or even plan to write it) in the first place, time must have already occurred. And this is because, once again, time is automatically a correlate of act, whether it's divine or not.

God doesn't defy logic, for the basis of logic is reality, and God is Being Himself.

We may not know how He created, but we are sure that God is always in present, for time will limit God and in Him there must be no limitation.

I think the key here is to know that time doesn't exist apart from changeable substance. But, God is already perfect and unable to undergo change. Therefore, in God, there's no time.