God is timeless

[Fidel_Castronaut]

there's a difference between accepting God exists and presupposing God exists. the OP presupposes God exists and asks how he can exist timelessly. I came here to answer that question which means no, I will not fall for your red herrings and divert the subject.

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).

I reject the notion that there is an inherent 'meaning' to a conversation that bases it's central thesis on the presumption that a being such as whatever a god is exists.

As do, I suspect, the majority of people on here.

---

As ever, Ben provides an answer that is more eloquent.

I think this is actually a very valid question that Christians seldom address adequately. I think, however, it is most accurately addressed by Dr WLC in these vids.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3N_RAvksP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbirUdSnZLU

---

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. That's what gets up the nose of most atheist rationalists, that you have to start by assuming something for which there is absolutely no credible evidence & which often sits in direct conflict with that which we can demonstrate, factually, to be true.

Further, those who are familiar with WLC know him to be disingenuous to the point of deliberate falsehood; demonstrated by his many willfully ignorant/deliberately misinformed statements in debates with atheists, his constant preference for wordplay over substance, his continued over-complication of subjects to inveigle & obfuscate the flaws in his arguments, his regular straw-manning of positions to which he's opposed, quotes like "It's no longer enough to teach our children Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics". On a number of occasions, WLC has publically stated that personal faith and adherence to the christian world-view are more important to him than the truth.

Based on that evidence, I, for one, will attach no importance to what he says. Moreover, I would expect that anyone who's even vaguely interested in the truth, should question, deeply, any position he holds.