Christian in need of help (feeling uneasy about God quote)!!

[LastPoet]

The word :INFINATE is a good clue.

Sure - it's a good clue, that you're a semi-illiterate moron. Thanks for your input.

Damnit, I was going to rep ya, but then I already did.

[Drich]

To "create" describes an object's beginning. Which is confined by time. Meaning the word create always and can only describe an object within the encapsulation of time. God simply existed before time. Before there were any celestial events to mark the passage of time. It is only with in the confines of time does the demand of a creator exist..

So where did God come from? IDK where did the super dense basketball of pre-big bang come from? Again before either event time there need not be a creation nor creator, as the beginning of time would make the first of anything.

---

The word :INFINATE is a good clue.

---

what does being outside of time mean to you? being retarded?

Imagine a dvd representing the whole of time. now imagine on that dvd you know it's contents like any favorite movie. now take the dvd outside the player and place it on the table. You are now outside the "time line" of the dvd. did you suddenly become retarded (anymore than normal I mean?) What I am asking now just because you do not live at any central point on that dvd does it mean you know any less or more of the history on that dvd?

Now to answer a couple others with the same analogy imagine on the same dvd everything had a creation or birthing point of some kind. Now if you created the DVD would your creation then also be required to be on that DVD? No As you and your origins are pre time. As I said the DVD contains all of time and if you have it then you are outside of that time line, that dimension.

I get what you're saying, and I've mentioned that idea elsewhere here - but apart from the fact that there is zero evidence for this complicated construction, you are only moving the problem by positing a new timeline for God in which He moves. This then raises the same question about the creation of God in that timeline rather than ours.

This aspect of Time is a concept sport. Not a science, it is a somewhat loosely define concept that we use to measure a span or age before known/recorded time. When speaking of a concept of philosophy or better yet defining an aspect or quality of this age one does not need "scientific proof.' just a solid understanding of the philosophy of time.

To demand proof of existence before time or even before recorded time not possible.

All I am saying here in order for an infinite God to work all one need understand is God is supposed to be the author of time, not a product of it. Which simply means, before time there was only God.

---

Or a 14.2 billion old universe.. or a 20.1 or a 5.5 or a 3.8 or a 10.45 One of these days your all might 'science" will give you a absolute true number, (Or have you forgotten how many times your number has changed in the last 20 years???) but I doubt it will be before God tells it to a scientist bold enough to ask.

It's 13.8. The value has changed bc. the error bars have shrunk. You know, that thing completely unknown to religious thinking with which scientists tell you their own level of certainty?

The values changed because they were wrong before... As they will change again because they are wrong now as well.. You just haven't been told to think that way yet.

The point being your 'answers' are only absolute till someone smarter simply says so and points to his new theory and it all starts again. All I am pointing out is the sand beneath your feet is as shifting as the sand beneath ours.

---

lol, the self-correcting process of science is exactly why it is not only more trustworthy, but crowding religious creation stories right off the table.

Takes an idiot like Drich to double down on fantasy and take a swipe at science ... typing on a computer ... online ...

The only useful purpose I've found for Drich is practicing insults, but it's not fun with him. He's so dense they go right over his head.

I love it when the Rosie O'donalds of the world pipe up and compare the science that makes a computer work as being the same fringe science that few this far out beyond the big bang in the scientific realm will ever agree on as being the same 'science..'

It just goes to show that one does not need to know anything about industrial sciences and untested scientific postulations to be 'atheist.'.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh yay, more bald claims bereft of any support, brought to you by Drich -- Where The Stupidity Is Industrial-Strength!™

[dyresand]

I have been seeing too many atheists memes these later months. I wonder about myself now, and I wonder about my goals.

I saw another meme some days ago about God that I am having problems thinking about.


Statement: "Everything has a creator, and God has no creator".

I always think the above as correct.

The meme continues: "Since God has no creator, God is not a thing to be created, or no thing to be created, i.e. nothing; God is nothing".

Am I a true Christian for having problems with the above? Help!

You answered it yourself

[SteveII]

I have been seeing too many atheists memes these later months. I wonder about myself now, and I wonder about my goals.

I saw another meme some days ago about God that I am having problems thinking about.


Statement: "Everything has a creator, and God has no creator".

I always think the above as correct.

The meme continues: "Since God has no creator, God is not a thing to be created, or no thing to be created, i.e. nothing; God is nothing".

Am I a true Christian for having problems with the above? Help!

The statement is contradictory and cannot be correct. God belongs to the set/class of "everything".

A correct version: "Everything that begins to exists has an explanation for its existence". 

God didn't begin to exist because if he did, then he wouldn't be God--whatever created him would be. At some point you have to have a necessary being (in the sense of couldn't be otherwise).

[Foxaèr]

God didn't begin to exist because if he did, then he wouldn't be God.

Gods can be spawned from other gods.

[SteveII]

God didn't begin to exist because if he did, then he wouldn't be God.

Gods can be spawned from other gods.

Don't edit my sentences.

[Foxaèr]

Don't edit my sentences

---

.

---

An entire nonsensical spiel is not relevant for response; therefore, I merely quote that to which I prefer to respond.

Get over it.

[RoadRunner79]

I have been seeing too many atheists memes these later months. I wonder about myself now, and I wonder about my goals.

I saw another meme some days ago about God that I am having problems thinking about.


Statement: "Everything has a creator, and God has no creator".

I always think the above as correct.

The meme continues: "Since God has no creator, God is not a thing to be created, or no thing to be created, i.e. nothing; God is nothing".

Am I a true Christian for having problems with the above? Help!

I wouldn't worry about it too much, there is a lot of bad thinking in there.

First:  I would ask the question "why?" to the assumption that "everything has a creator".  It seems that this is a common distortion/misunderstanding from the Kalaam argument that "everything that begins to exist, must have a cause" (principle of causality). The only support I am aware of for everything has a creator (or cause), is because our experience is all of contingent things; but, I believe that is only a corroborating evidence, not something which can stand on it's own.

Second: It is not accurately representing the Christian view of God.

Third: In the last part of the meme does not follow; from it's premise to it's conclusion.  To examine it, you can follow the reasoning or formula with different variables.  A car is not a thing to fly from the Americas to Europe.  A car is not a thing to fly or no thing to fly, ie nothing;  a car is nothing!  It seems obvious that stripping the first correct statement down in this way, is bad logic

[Alex K]

I get what you're saying, and I've mentioned that idea elsewhere here - but apart from the fact that there is zero evidence for this complicated construction, you are only moving the problem by positing a new timeline for God in which He moves. This then raises the same question about the creation of God in that timeline rather than ours.

This aspect of Time is a concept sport. Not a science, it is a somewhat loosely define concept that we use to measure a span or age before known/recorded time. When speaking of a concept of philosophy or better yet defining an aspect or quality of this age one does not need "scientific proof.' just a solid understanding of the philosophy of time.

To demand proof of existence before time or even before recorded time not possible.

All I am saying here in order for an infinite God to work all one need understand is God is supposed to be the author of time, not a product of it. Which simply means, before time there was only God.

---

It's 13.8. The value has changed bc. the error bars have shrunk. You know, that thing completely unknown to religious thinking with which scientists tell you their own level of certainty?

The values changed because they were wrong before... As they will change again because they are wrong now as well.. You just haven't been told to think that way yet.

The point being your 'answers' are only absolute till someone smarter simply says so and points to his new theory and it all starts again. All I am pointing out is the sand beneath your feet is as shifting as the sand beneath ours.

Man are you making a fool of yourself with your display of ignorance about how any of this works.