Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Pompous, Rimstalker,

Non sequiter. We are not talking about 'evidence of a transcendantal God' (in fact the atheistic claim is that there is no evidence for any god whatsoever...transcendant or otherwise). This is not the issue.

The situation above looks like this:
Party A-I want to show that there is no reason to think that the concept of FOO exists outside our time.
Party B-Strange. An elemental concept of FOO is that FOO exists outside our time.
Party C-This is special pleading.
Party B-Uh, no. This is an elemental...
Party D-We have no evidence for FOO therefore it is special pleading.
Party B- <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />


This issue is this: Given the concept of God, what is the nature of his being? Part of the concept of God is that he is in no way constrained by our dimensionality. He created, is distinct from and transcendental of our time-space.

Theologically, we DO have evidence that this is the case.

Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."


As such saying 'God is outside time is just something xians made up and is only special pleading' is downright false.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft

If this is true, if you actually are able to hold this concept in your head, you should be able to tell me how I can have this concept as well. Simply asserting that there is a concept that is fundamentally inconceivable by you or by me is a contradiction. Now it is up to you to show that this contradiction has a resolution.

<strong> Actually what we have is a bunch of words that, when assembled and interpreted, are fundamentally incoherent.

<strong> It's also meaningless until such time as you can show that it is possible to have a mental image of something that is 'extra-dimensional' or whatever.

Olorin

So? This describes a being that is not necessarily eternal. It is even possible that this description does not show an everlasting being: who is shows that the being exists presently, who was shows that the being existed at some time in the past, and who is to come shows that the being will exist in the future. It could, in other words, describe a being that is only a few years in age.

WJ

Omega in physics and math means the unknowable. Similarly, the uncomputable. And also, an analogous timeless Being or creator, such as God, existing ex nihilo.

That's how the 'leap' is made, by inferrence...

..just a thought.

Walrus

Clutch

WJ It's a pretty tortured interpretation of, say, an omega-series to say it means "unknowable series". And the actual uses of the term in physics, math and computation are conventional and (need I really point this out?) very recent. I sort of figgered the biblical verse would have been meaningful in 1100 AD, too. So it must be more like a metaphor for "beginning and end", like the letters in the Greek alphabet. Neither of which, pace SOMMS' claim, has any obvious relation to timelessness; the quoted verse seems to describe god in a clearly tensed fashion.

And, uh, I guess I don't see the leap to existence ex nihilo.

Olorin

I have posted my arguments, which I do not doubt you have all seen in some shape or form, in the Paradox Game thread.

WJ

Clutch,

With regard to logical inference, it will always be [in the case of God] that you say potato, and I say potauto. What kind of evidence are you expecting?

Walrus

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

GunnerJ

Just like soy sauce is terriaki without the wine, SOMMS' dialouge is like mine without the reasoning!

Actually, the biggest difference is that while my dialouge is based on real events, i.e., actual debates with theists, SOMMS pulled most of his straight out of his ass... or, if we're more charitable, he formed it out of his lack of creativity, his blinding desire for one-ups-man-ship, and his depressing inability to understand that actual arguments atheists make here.

From which premises do PB's posts not follow? You do know what a non sequitir fallacy is, right? Hey, at least I can see where I'm wrong...

Strong words from someone who seems to have a very hard time following the actual "issues" os this thread.

Say, before you hurt your head to badly (not that there's much to damage...), you did notice that I recinded my statement that it was special pleading, right? And you do know what ad hoc and unfalsifiable explanations are, right? Or would noticing such things just make it harder for you to construct your little straw man?

Rather than just claim that the "situation" is anything like that imaginary conversation (based, once again, on your inability to come up with original ideas, your desire to get one over on us, and your failure to understand what is actually going on), perhaps you should try looking at the actual arguments made on this thread which demonstrate that the whole "God is outside time" speil is ad hoc handwaving that could prove just about anything, but which you unreasonably restrict to your own god (i.e., special pleading, as PB demonstrated... whoops, there's another important tidbit you "missed"), in spite of its logical inconsistancy and its contradiction of your own Scripture? Or, if that's too hard on you, you could continue making those hilarious little straw men to beat down.

Yes, things would be so much easier for you if you could just snap your fingers and change the actual subject of discussion to suit your whims. But unfortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with determining the "nature" of a "concept" of "God's" "being."

Stepping out of SOMMS' own personal Disneyuniverse and looking at the first post of this thread, we see that Olorin was looking for opinions on what the flaws in the "God is outside time" argument are.

"Theological evidence?" This should be good...

What? Pithy, nonsensical extracts from the religious propaganda of a first century apocalypse cult comparing the Caananite sky god Ya to letters in the Greek alphabet is "evidence" that "God" is "in no way constrained by our dimensionality... He created, is distinct from and transcendental of our time-space" ?

My Athe, you have been spending too much time in Disneyuniverse!

Ohhhh... wait.... now we're talking about whether the "God is outside time" "argument" is a bona-fide part of Xian dogma. Gotcha. Say, didn't you just say that the issue is "Given the concept of God, what is the nature of his being? Part of the concept of God is that he is in no way constrained by our dimensionality. He created, is distinct from and transcendental of our time-space" ?

Nah, you wouldn't move the goalposts so blatantly... or would you?

In any case, it seems we now have a real example of a non sequitir fallacy. It in no way follows that the statement "God is outside time is just something xians made up and is only special pleading" is false because some imprisoned death cult member wrote that the Caananite sky god Ya and his son/self are like Greek letters.

In addition, the statement "God is outside time is just something xians made up and is only special pleading" is demonstratebly true. Xians did make it up, unless, of course, the writer of Revelations wasn't an Xian, and it is special pleading, as PB has demonstrated, and these facts are in no way falsified by the ramblings of a member of an ancient offshoot cult from the Jewish religion.

Thought and comments welcome, SOMMS, but none of the second until you do a little of the first!

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Rimstalker,
It is?

How is 'God is outside time' a 'contradiction of Scripture'?


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Pomp

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas,

I see your point. Given that "transcending time" is an essential property of your god, then using this property to resolve the apparent logical contradictions in your conception of God does not constitute special pleading. As you are free to define your god-concept any way you wish, I withdraw my objection.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>