I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

First of all, God as a hypothesis is implicitly the question of a nontemporal ontological entity. So it is not "dodging the question" to say that God is atemporal; it is directly addressing the question and the hypothesis,

And my point is that it's completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument being that whether he's nontemporal or not, he still requires an explanation. Stating him to be 'nontemporal' doesn't mean you can duck the issue. He is still just as complex and requires just as much of an explanation, you can call him what you like. But whether he arises from chance alone or whether he's outside time...he is sitll just as improbable as that happening. Saying he is outside of time does nothing untill you actually provide evidence.

whereas you are the one actually dodging the question and addressing a Straw Man.

What strawman? I've already said repeatedly that whether he's nontemporal or not is irrelevant to my argument. He still needs evidence.

And I will repeat, though it is a wholely different matter, that I've first of all evidenced, and then thoroughly explained my claim of God as actus purus, and what I am doing by discussing it now is exactly further explaining it, anyway.

So you've apparently already given evidence and then this is further explaining it? Well I don't know what you think evidence is! Lol.

You need to indicate that God somehow exists...what you're doing is talking about him being nontemporal and saying that he's simple and necessary, and as you did with the TAG, how atheism=self-contradictory, blah, blah, blah - and none of this actually addresses the issue, none of this is actually evidence for God. Got any or not?

But to say "if God was temporal" is like saying "if a triangle was a rectangle". It's a contradiction in terms and is meaningless. You cannot change Gods ontology into a temporal ontology and pretend that you are actually analysing Gods ontology; you are not analysing Gods ontology, but the ontology of a temporal being. This is the Straw Man fallacy.

This is all irrelevant to my argument. He still requires an explanation and still requires evidence...you've just playing with words - give me some evidence instead perhaps?

It's not a Strawman because I'm not saying he's temporal I'm saying that whether he is or not is irrelevant to the fact he requires evidence.

We are not defining him out of explanation. I've been eager to explain what I mean by God. And if God requires the same amount of explanation, it does not follow that he requires the same kind of explanation, because if you apply a standard of explanation (temporal) which is mutually exclusive with the object of explanation (nontemporal), you are not analysing the actual object,

No because you have to give evidence that nontemporal makes any difference to the matter as well as giving evidence for God then. Saying his nontemporal does not make a difference untill you've explained that as well. Otherwise you might as well call him "cabbage" and claim that that somehow makes him more reasonable. You need evidence this notion of nontemporal making him any more probable, and then you need to evidence God.

This is a Straw Man fallacy.

Once again, what stawman? It's irrelevant to my argument untill you provide evidence. It's not a strawman if there's no reason to believe that the man is any different because you haven't evidenced him!

EvD