God is timeless

[LastPoet]

that is why he says he doesn't have the power to destroy it. there are a couple possibilities of how God created space-time(...)

Everything is possible, in the realm of fantasy...

[Rational AKD]

I 100% agree with you. So long as whatever a god is remains entirely in the realm of 'possibilities'. But you missed the point of my analogy. But that's ok.

Now you can obfuscate your response however way you want and claim that the thread (and your response) has nothing to do with evidence, but the fact remains is that you believe (I presume) that a god of some sort (again, whatever that is) exists and does 'things' the world/reality we inhabit. Right?

The assertion in the OP is "God is Timeless". What's the presumption there? That [a] god exists, naturally. So, to play the game, we have to start from that assumption and go from there.

My analogy was to say there's no more reason to accept that presumption either scientifically or philosophically than, say, whether a chair cares about seeing our arses every day when we sit down on it.

The fact that people not only talk about god on a philosophical plane, but a further, a scientific plane, and further interweave the two. means that this conversation isn't and never has been purely about "possibilities" and the implications of those "possibilities". It's started from a statement of scientific and objective fact, and built presuppositions on that.

That is why we dismiss it, and we ask why we should care about it.

Can you give us a reason?

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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

One thing is for sure. None of this external to space time advanced theoretical physics stuff is mentioned in the bible.

Meaning this is all strictly contextual to our time and, even more specifically, the believers of this time. It's all made up based on the current advancements of physics and science per se. Moreover, it's a god of the gaps argument at it's very heart, IMHO.

[Rational AKD]

Everything is possible, in the realm of fantasy...

except you know, a square circle... or a married bachelor. wait... that means not everything correct?

[LastPoet]

I created space-time, disprove that, you idiot!

[Angrboda]

Rational AKD: If you're going to berate Last Poet for the fact that you can't present a more succinct and compelling case, you need to keep pushing so your head is all the way up your ass. This half measure ain't doing anyone any favors.

[Ben Davis]

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.

[pocaracas]

Oh I did grasp it, alright...
But I still say that makes no sense.
If you have the power to create a space-time enclosure and the power to annihilate it, the time in that enclosure becomes non-existent.
So temporal causality of a timeline that does not exist makes no sense.

It's like... your god creates two Universes, each with their own space-time. There is no way to claim that one event in Universe1 happens before or after any other event in Universe2. They are not correlated. Their times are different.

that is why he says he doesn't have the power to destroy it.

If we're making up a mega being, might as well be one that can do anything it wants, at least in what concerns creating and destroying stuff...

there are a couple possibilities of how God created space-time (if subscribing to B theory of time). one is the static theory that he created it as a block that is static to him but dynamic to us. with this theory, he would not be constrained by the block.

The properties of the god-universe interaction after the universe is made does not explain "how" it got made. Beware of language pitfalls when discussing these things...
I mean, the very expression "god created" suggests it was done in the past... but that event should take place, out of our universe's space-time domain...

but what he later explores is the possibility that he created the universe and time while simultaneously becoming dynamic in time itself. if he created time and became a part of it, then he could not become timeless again. this is what he's speaking of.

Again,

[Rational AKD]

I created space-time, disprove that, you idiot!

if only you could respond without creating a straw man of my position. maybe i'm asking too much from you. perhaps we can start with maybe you should read what I post. can you handle that?

[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.