A timeless being cannot create

[vulcanlogician]

In my experience, fornication is always worth a shot.

[WinterHold]

I will elaborate, in the OP you said:


But there is evidence that the past,present and future are actually existing at the same time, but your primitive mind as a human can only see the illusion of the three states being separate entities.

In other words; there might even be other states of time that we can't even see or even imagine in other dimensions.

My belief is that God exists in another higher dimension. So he is not limited to our basic 3 states of time. That's the rephrasing of my post.

Okay, so are you suggesting everything would be co-eternal with God? Because otherwise I don't know how this changes things. I'm aware of eternalism, which seems to be what you're positing here, but other dimensions of time seems pretty different from "timeless".

From the perspective of God, it is eternalism. but from our perspective, it is presentism.

[BryanS]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

Yeah, but the property of time in our universe appears to originate with the big bang. One view of Physicists is that the big bang event was the very beginning of real time, and speaking of time "before" that is meaningless. This was Stephen Hawking's view of time. Your time criticism sounds reminiscent of the theists' criticism of the big bang, but they just give god the property of being "outside time" because, well, they can define their god any way that suits them.


see Hawking's lecture on this topic here for further reading
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[edit to add link]

[WinterHold]

A god who exists in some other dimension sounds alot like a god that doesn’t exist in this dimension.

In programming languages, there is something called "local variable" and "global variable".
The global has access to the local; but the local doesn't have access to the global -unless the global variable passes the local variable some data-.

God's dimension is global, ours is local. His messengers carry the data he want to pass to us.

[mcc1789]

Okay, so are you suggesting everything would be co-eternal with God? Because otherwise I don't know how this changes things. I'm aware of eternalism, which seems to be what you're positing here, but other dimensions of time seems pretty different from "timeless".

From the perspective of God, it is eternalism. but from our perspective, it is presentism.

Well, here I'll stick with God's perspective as that's the relevant one.

[BryanS]

A god who exists in some other dimension sounds alot like a god that doesn’t exist in this dimension.

In programming languages, there is something called "local variable" and "global variable".
The global has access to the local; but the local doesn't have access to the global -unless the global variable passes the local variable some data-.

God's dimension is global, ours is local. His messengers carry the data he want to pass to us.

And which dimension, precisely, is god's dimension?

[The Grand Nudger]

A god who exists in some other dimension sounds alot like a god that doesn’t exist in this dimension.

In programming languages, there is something called "local variable" and "global variable".
The global has access to the local; but the local doesn't have access to the global -unless the global variable passes the local variable some data-.

God's dimension is global, ours is local. His messengers carry the data he want to pass to us.

Then god is in our dimension as eell. Recall you only sought to remove god so that it could escape time, like a teen late for work.

I don’t find these waffling arguments from convenience compelling any more than you do.

I already knew that you didn’t believe that god wasn’t in our dimension, and so did you when you brought it up. We -just- had this same conversation about s different subject in another thread,............

---

That out of the way, your argument refers to the semantics programmers use to describe segregated operations that are carried out with a shared architecture. Your computer doesn’t have multiple “dimensions” in it, lol.

Code monkeys trying to use computer jargon tires the shit out of me. I can build you one from first principles, and nothing about them supports your loopy god ideas.

[Belacqua]

I respect that! I have a lot to learn, also, and I find that attacks seldom help.

This forum is pretty much only for insults these days, or fellowship among people who already agree. 

I'm told that the web site 

https://discourse.biologos.org/c/open-forum

has more conversations, and it claims, anyway, to stay on topic. Also there are more Christians posting there, so if you want the views of church-goers, instead of wannabe scholars like me, that would be more useful. I haven't signed up there, so I can't really vouch for it, though. 

Good luck to you!

Me too, and no they usually don't.

Well, insults are rife on the Internet, but it is Atheist Forums after all.

I'll check that out, thanks.

I remembered another site that might be useful, if you're feeling ambitious. 

http://classicaltheismforum.com

This is for people who know what they're talking about. They won't put up with any nonsense at the Ken Ham/Christopher Hitchens level.

[Deesse23]

A very serious summary of the very serious answer to that very serious question, is that the faithful contend that everything has to stick to the rules, except their god.

I am always puzzled, as to why people seem to accept that their (favourite) idea of a supreme being or creator of everything ...

can smell without a nose
can exist outside of time
can interact with physical reality without being part of it
can think without having a brain
can see without eyes
etc..

and then are wondering why others (like) me are more than just sceptical about this conga line of problems.

---

A god who exists in some other dimension sounds alot like a god that doesn’t exist in this dimension.

In programming languages, there is something called "local variable" and "global variable".
The global has access to the local; but the local doesn't have access to the global -unless the global variable passes the local variable some data-.

God's dimension is global, ours is local. His messengers carry the data he want to pass to us.

...and you know this how?...i mean other than by just making it up.

[Mister Agenda]

And which dimension, precisely, is god's dimension?

And where did that dimension come from? If it came from God, where was 'he' when he created that dimension?