FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Existence of God(s)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2006, 11:47 AM   #91
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Harrisburg, Pa
Posts: 3,251
Default

If one is capable of killing one's grandfather then one has entered a timeline in which one won't be born.
Draygomb is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 09:54 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Home.
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MxM111
That time was not created, but our time could be created. And if that time is part of the god, then it was always there, because god was always there in that time.
What makes you think that there is only God time? There is Unicorn Time, Goblin Time and Court Jester Time etc. Which one created the universe?

Time is a concept that is based on the workings of our universe. What makes you think its applicable outside the universe?
Cosmo is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:05 AM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
What makes you think that there is only God time? There is Unicorn Time, Goblin Time and Court Jester Time etc. Which one created the universe?

Time is a concept that is based on the workings of our universe. What makes you think its applicable outside the universe?
Oh! I am not arguing against that! I am just supplying counter-argument to the Draygomb paradox, thus resolving it. I am not saying that that is the actual way the universe + God is working. My conclusion is that the Draygomb paradox can not be a logical proof that God as TFC can not exist.
MxM111 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:15 AM   #94
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draygomb
If said clock had a printout of times it had passed through one would see the beginning of God's Time on it.
OK, but this still resolve your original paradox. I think that the fact that you can have printout is irrelevant to this discussion.
MxM111 is offline  
Old 05-05-2006, 04:24 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Home.
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MxM111
Oh! I am not arguing against that! I am just supplying counter-argument to the Draygomb paradox, thus resolving it. I am not saying that that is the actual way the universe + God is working. My conclusion is that the Draygomb paradox can not be a logical proof that God as TFC can not exist.
If time belongs soley to the universe, then it is meaningless to talk of time and causality( a time dependent concept) outside of the universe. We have no reason to believe that "a time" exists outside of the universe. So, wouldn't it follow that God cannot be causal of the universe. If so, then God is pretty meaningless for the universe. He is as meaningful as unicorns. And it's not rational to hold onto the idea that unicorns exist.

Where do you draw the line? I think Draygomb has drawn a good boundary with his argument. Beyond time, then forget about it.

Just my two cents.
Cosmo is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 12:54 AM   #96
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://10.0.0.2/
Posts: 6,623
Default

Here's something interesting to add to the mix: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm
Oxymoron is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 01:32 AM   #97
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jersey, U.K.
Posts: 2,864
Default At

"Any Sort of God

I remember a while back, I asked Draygomb if his proof refutes every sort of God "

If we multiply Gods sufficiently (and in the process offend against Occam's Razor), then we can drown atheistic arguments by claiming that not all of these Gods' existences can be disproved, because one cannot completely search every corner of the Universe, or outside of the Universe.
But this is just a game of one-upmanship,-one can always add on another God and then say "ya sucks boo,-now disprove that one! I think there is something wrong with that approach (like Shifting the Burden of Proof).
But more seriously there is an identity problem for God. If every sort of God exists, then in order to be separately identifiable as individual Gods they must have different attributes; but if God is already defined as that which nothing greater can be imagined (according to the Ontological Argument),-then any other individual God cannot also be totally perfect in every way, otherwise he would be the twin of the traditional God,and all the other sorts of Gods would be their identical siblings. So in other words, different sorts of Gods cannot exist, without being demoted to entities like the traditional lesser gods of polytheistic religions, who were generally subservient to the great God,-just as Aphrodite would be subservient to Zeus.
Therefore we are stuck with just the one perfect God and Dragomb need not bother with "any sort of God".
Wads4 is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 01:42 AM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jersey, U.K.
Posts: 2,864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic Theist
Sorry, I didn't know we had a universally acknowledged account of God. Show me the scientific journal article where this is achieved and I'll retract my entire OP(!)
The fact that we don't have a universally acknowledged account of God simply confirms that nothing is known of Him, and that all gods are invented and re-invented in order to escape logical counter-arguments, and that the very concept of God is a metaphysical error, and certainly nothing to do with peer reviews in scientific journals.
Wads4 is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 01:45 AM   #99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jersey, U.K.
Posts: 2,864
Default At

"I am also criticising his view that it disproves all definitions of God that 'matter'."

What is the definition of a God that "matters"? Is it the omnimax God?--then surely that is the one we have been discussing.
Wads4 is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 01:54 AM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jersey, U.K.
Posts: 2,864
Default At

"Hence, either time is substance, and Draygomb is required to meet a burden and revise his definition of time, or time is a relation and Draygomb is required to revise his assertion that God created time (RAA Assumption) purposely and directly."

Surely the validity of the space-time concept is a matter for Physicists to sort out,-and not for Dragomb to have to prove? Whether Time is a relation or a substance still leaves the issue of Space unresolved. God also needs space in which to exist, and if there was no space, how did God himself exist and begin to create space which did not exist before he created it? The Christian response is so obvious: you just have special God-space and special God-Time, outside of the Universe of normal space-time. The only problem is, where is the scientific evidence for this? It is just multiplying entities again, so as to keep ahead of atheist arguments.
Wads4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.