Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would have answered differently. God is the creator of time not subject to it.

 The big bang is the creator of time, not subject to it.

You may have answered differently, but not in a way that would matter or revise you co-afflicteds misapprehensions.

Nah...it is just one of those paradoxes of theism than isn't worth debating, i.e. is a Creator god in any way dependant on His creation? What is a lover without his beloved?

[Angrboda]

 The big bang is the creator of time, not subject to it.

You may have answered differently, but not in a way that would matter or revise you co-afflicteds misapprehensions.

Nah...it is just one of those paradoxes of theism than isn't worth debating, i.e. is a Creator god in any way dependant on His creation? What is a lover without his beloved?

In other words, it's prima facie incoherent. And that's how it stays unless you go with the copout that "It's a mystery." Yeah. Tell me again about how Christianity restores intelligibility to the universe.

[Jehanne]

Nah...it is just one of those paradoxes of theism than isn't worth debating, i.e. is a Creator god in any way dependant on His creation? What is a lover without his beloved?

In other words, it's prima facie incoherent. And that's how it stays unless you go with the copout that "It's a mystery." Yeah. Tell me again about how Christianity restores intelligibility to the universe.

Jesus of Nazareth was a nut, whom the literate Romans crucified without so much as a historical footnote, and the hundreds of thousands of individuals who could have mentioned his existence didn't, because, he was not worth mentioning -- they all knew a religious loon when they saw one.

Instead, it was due to the influence of a bunch of illiterate, lowerclass peasants, all of whom believed in a flat Earth, and one apocalyptic literate psychotic individual, Paul, who sowed the foundations of what would later become a world religion.

But, yet, here we are discussing it!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nah...it is just one of those paradoxes of theism than isn't worth debating, i.e. is a Creator god in any way dependant on His creation? What is a lover without his beloved?

In other words, it's prima facie incoherent.  And that's how it stays unless you go with the copout that "It's a mystery."  Yeah.  Tell me again about how Christianity restores intelligibility to the universe.

My point was that such paradoxes are not worth debating because there are prior assumptions. K is making a theological case based on a certain interpretation of time. Change that and the theology changes. It seems that many "answers" are really just stories that fit predetermined understanding about how the word works. Like the question ealier about "When did God create time?" Paradoxes IMHO generally mean you're asking the wrong question. The paradox arises because the presumed relationiship between Creator and creation is that of a Hegelian dialectic that is more semantic in nature than causal.

[Jehanne]

In other words, it's prima facie incoherent.  And that's how it stays unless you go with the copout that "It's a mystery."  Yeah.  Tell me again about how Christianity restores intelligibility to the universe.

My point was that such paradoxes are not worth debating because there are prior assumptions. K is making a theological case based on a certain interpretation of time. Change that and the theology changes. It seems that many "answers" are really just stories that fit predetermined understanding about how the word works. Like the question ealier about "When did God create time?" Paradoxes IMHO generally mean you're asking the wrong question. The paradox arises because the presumed relationiship between Creator and creation is that of a Hegelian dialectic that is more semantic in nature than causal.

Singularities (regions of infinite density) do not exist in Nature; they are absurdities, which are indicative of the fact that a physical theory has been pushed beyond its limits.

Your reasoning begins not with a question, but with an answer, and you simply work your way back to justify that which you already concluded is true. It's fides quaerens intellectum; it's pointless to even discuss things with you; you're committed to never changing your mind.

By the way, most professional philosophers are atheistic:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

[The Grand Nudger]

So are most christians. Zing.

[Jehanne]

So are most christians.  Zing.

I would agree; most Christians live their lives as if there were no God.  Sunday worship has become just another form of social entertainment, like Bingo.

[The Grand Nudger]

What sunday worship? That's fallen off a cliff too. Paradoxically, it appears that the effect of a secularizing milieu on a superstitious religion may be to destroy the religion while leaving the superstition relatively intact.

That's why our nuts compulsively and pointlessly argue for the existence of a fairy - rather than the truth of their religious proclamations.

[Jehanne]

For many, religion is comfort and consolation; for the ignorant and lazy, it's simplified explanation; for still others, it's an aphrodisiac.

[Simon Moon]

In other words, it's prima facie incoherent.  And that's how it stays unless you go with the copout that "It's a mystery."  Yeah.  Tell me again about how Christianity restores intelligibility to the universe.

My point was that such paradoxes are not worth debating because there are prior assumptions. K is making a theological case based on a certain interpretation of time. Change that and the theology changes. It seems that many "answers" are really just stories that fit predetermined understanding about how the word works. Like the question ealier about "When did God create time?" Paradoxes IMHO generally mean you're asking the wrong question. The paradox arises because the presumed relationiship between Creator and creation is that of a Hegelian dialectic that is more semantic in nature than causal.

You can claim there is a paradox, which gets you out of admitting the incoherence of your position.

Since existence is necessarily spatial and temporal (how can something exist with no time or space?), then you have to drastically redefine the term 'existence', in order to claim your god existed outside of space or time, and/or created space and time.

Either that, or there had to be some sort of space and time equivalent, a meta-space/time, in which god existed within, from which he created our universe (and space and time). But that begs the question; if god existed in this meta-space/time, where did that meta-space/time come from?

But please start with explaining how something can exist, sans space and time?