Ryanfire

In reply to the earlier posts (page 1):

Faith is not equal to truth. Faith has no logical merit. Faith is something we use as humans to tide us over when we can't prove something is true or false.

How can religious people pray for us non-religious people. Who gives you, the religious people, the right to judge anybody? When you're "praying" for us, you're insinuating that you are better than us. Why? Because we don't believe in what you believe?

That is dishearting. Why does this person deserve more than the next guy? God does nothing. You developed the skills and talent necessary to get the job done. Then throw in chance and probability. Take hockey for example.. If a player has great skill, chances are he will score more goals compared to another with less skill. God doesn't grab the puck and put it in the net to make all the players on the ice learn something about themselves, or to teach them a lesson, or help them win in the scheme of life.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>

Tercel

It is our experience that causes chronologically proceed their effects, and we recognise cause-effect by observing the effect happening chronologically after the cause.

However this tells us nothing about the underlying principles. It says nothing about whether cause-effect is dependant upon time to occur, or whether the occurance of cause-effect systems causes time etc.
For myself, I believe cause-effect to be the most primative system, and that time is a complex entity designed to provide a "measure" of the cause-effect stream. But don't ask me to prove that one!
But from my point of view the hypotheses "the universe created God" and "God created the universe" are completely different, regardless of the existence of "time" or lack of it.

But as I said, I don't want to build any more assumptions than absolutely necessary into a definition, so my only requirement is that God be causally responsible for the universe's existence.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

tergiversant

Honestly, I do not see how this is possible, since time cannot exist aside from the universe itself. Nothing can be "casually" responsible for anything outside of the context of space and time, and thus the universe must exist uncaused.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

tergiversant

Sounds to me like all of these terms are defined in reference to our own personal conscious experience within space and time.

Are we talking about temporal causation here, or merely states of affairs in the present? If the latter, without reference to prior temporal events, what has to be the case for a pool ball to sit on my pillow?

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant:

If being "within space and time" means nothing more than being capable of causal relations with other things then I see no reason to deny that God is in space and time. It seems to me that you want to think of space and time in such general terms that necessarily anything that exists will have spatial and temporal relations to something. I don't see that this is a problem for theism.

What's the difference between "not being located anywhere" and "not existing"? I suspect you'll say nothing. If that is true then of course the theist will say that God is located in time and space as that would simply mean he exists.

Further, to say that God is a personal being is to say that he is a person. He has awareness and he acts intentionally. This means that persons must at least have some sort of qualitative states (the "what it is like" to be conscious) and states that are directed at other states of affairs. Of course, God would be capable of far more such states than we are. It is part of western theistic tradition that we are "made in God's image". Supposedly, this means being a person.

Tercel

Those look to me to be some big unprovable and unevidenced assumptions...
Why must causation be limited to the context of space and time?

Philosoft

Hmm. Are causation and time seperable? It's one thing to say they're independent but does it even make sense to say that an event can cause another event without being prior to it? Maybe you can give an example of non-temporal causation without simply assuming such a thing is possible.

unworthyone

Coherent???

hmmmm

God is perfectly God.

Just like I am perfectly me.

St. Robert

This is an awesome challenge for the theist.

God is the only being, who doesn't have to search for his own origin, purpose and destiny. God is also the only being that constantly and endlessly relies solely on himself for life.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Philosoft

These are just things God isn't or doesn't do. What we're looking for is a description that allows us to have a concept, an image if you will, in our heads of the thing that is alleged to be God.