A good reason not to believe in God

[Captain Scarlet]

it would be quite nice to hear how this atemporal frozen god can act.

Frozen?? The way I understand it it's the other way around. We're frozen in time/ 'constrained', whilst an atemporal entity isn't bound by time. The atemporal entity is free to act in time and out of time, it is not constrained. Atemporal and temporal are not mutually exclusive. Only temporality is limited.

Then you need to put up a case for this rather than assert it. We no nothing of atemporal existence, and if you are proposing that a god could exist in this manner then what is your reasoning? I would assert the contrary that an atemporal Entity (whatever that is becuase it cannot be conceived of), would exist in the absence of time, not somehow above and beyond time; thus be frozen, and I would probably be right, based on all we know about the universe.

[theVOID]

Absolutely Scarlet, it's an unbeatable argument from best explanation, anyone who would posit the existence of atemporal being must do so knowing that they are entirely unjustified in such an assumption.

[reverendjeremiah]

Absolutely Scarlet, it's an unbeatable argument from best explanation, anyone who would posit the existence of atemporal being must do so knowing that they are entirely unjustified in such an assumption.

But dont let that stop Frodo. This discussion has gone 6 pages deep of nothing but "god is both timed and timeless", "no he's not", "yes he is", "prove it", "god is both timed and timeless", "no he's not", "yes he is", "prove it", "god is both timed and timeless", "no he's not", "yes he is", "prove it"...etc..etc..ad infinitum.

Frodo..if you have proof of this, then why are you in an atheist forum posting it? There are hundreds of millions of people out there that would award you a medal of honor for finally coming up with scientific proof that a god exists. Please, by all means, take your hypothesis to them and we will see how well your temporal/atemporal argument turns out in the world wide gauntlet of the scientific community.

If you succedde, I get to say "Hey, I knew that guy. I used to argue with him on the atheist forums that his time argument was so much baloney. Guess I was wrong."

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, but it's all the one Jesus.

You said that Jesus the mortal man is not the same as Jesus the immortal God.

[reverendjeremiah]

Yes, but it's all the one Jesus.

You said that Jesus the mortal man is not the same as Jesus the immortal God.

Perhaps Superman is 100% Superman and 100% Clark Kent.

[Edwardo Piet]

False analogy.

He can't be 100% superman and 100% not superman at the same time.

And it needs to be remembered that "Immortal" means "not mortal". Jesus can't - and nothing can - be 100% mortal and 100% not mortal at the same time.

[reverendjeremiah]

False analogy.

He can't be 100% superman and 100% not superman at the same time.

And it needs to be remembered that "Immortal" means "not mortal". Jesus can't - and nothing can - be 100% mortal and 100% not mortal at the same time.

I tend to agree, but we are talking about a FICTIONAL entity arent we? So logic doesnt really count when it comes to fictional characters such as Superman and Jesus does it? So I can see where someone can be immortal, not mortal, and half mortal all at the same time in fiction. But as far as real life goes, then that is pretty much it for the debate. You cant be mortal and immortal at the same time. How can you be able to succumb to old age and be immune to aging at the same time? You can in fiction, or in the imagination.. but not in reality. I agree, it makes for good fiction , but it makes for CRAPPY logic and reality to suggest two mutually exclusive opposites can exist in the same space at the same time.

[Edwardo Piet]

I tend to agree, but we are talking about a FICTIONAL entity arent we? So logic doesnt really count when it comes to fictional characters such as Superman and Jesus does it?

Of course it does because logic can be used in hypothetical scenarios.

[theVOID]

Forget proofing it or showing evidence, at the very least he could present an epistemology that he believes is 1) Logically consistent AND 2) Permits belief in a deity as justified.

Once he lays out an epistemology we could easily see if it is in fact logically consistent and immune from refutation by parallel, and then see if it does in fact permit belief in a deity.

So fr0d0, it's on you - You think your belief is justified, present your theory of justification...

[Edwardo Piet]

*gets excited awaiting response*

*tries not to get hopes up*

*hopes go down*

*tries not to expect disappointment*