Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[CJoe]

Well, it's a difficult topic as to whether there are such things as deities and whatnot.
And I often think of the quote "Both of us are aethiests, it's just I believe in one less god than you do" when contemplating the matter. It's crazy to believe in a single god to the exclusion of any others, as if it's possible for one type of deity to exist, than it is more than possible for another to exist as well.
In any case I doubt, if there even are Gods, that they are worth time and devotion, for they wouldn't be much to pray to considering the travesties that have happened for millenia on the Earth. If the 'God' that Christians worship preaches forgiveness, than why hasn't He let us into paradise. We'd be being punished for a fault or crime that happened to two people thousands of years ago, and it was only an apple (really) for goodness sake In any case, I'd have to say I'm a modest disbeliever in the possible existence of the Divine, but I respect and approve of the morals that come with each religion. Humans shouldn't waste time devoting energy and hope in 'gods' when they can look to others, and worship things such as kindness, forgiving etc yadayadayada that's my opinion on the matter

 

[judas69]

here here.

Hear, hear. If you want to sound enlightened, at least get it right.

Anyway, I may not agree with dominick either, but there's no need to come across so cynically.

 

[Nile577]

Ahh, I don't agree.

I disagree with much of what he says but I find Dominick's arguments interesting, challenging and provocative and his presence here, by me, is very welcome. I hope to have time to post a response to his argument against my post at a later point.

 

[Justin S.]

Ahh, I don't agree.

I disagree with much of what he says but I find Dominick's arguments interesting, challenging and provocative and his presence here, by me, is very welcome. I hope to have time to post a response to his argument against my post at a later point.

Dominick has already stated that proving God is a relatively easy matter- The rest of us are at fault, we lack an openness to "the objective Truth" and basic reasoning. His claims are inherently condescending and antagonistic.

His methodology is shoddy, his "logic" is greatly flawed, and he believes that all that is needed is a few syllogisms and the matter will be solved. I don't find this provocative, I find it silly.

You're debating a wall.

 

[Cythraul]

While logically incorrect implies a logical correct, actually crooked (that which is actually not straight) implies an actual straight, if (some or all)existence as you seem to imply is not necessary, then how does an actually non necessary being not (necessarily) imply an actual necessary existence by which to differentiate between the two?

I'm sorry but I don't understand your reasoning here. If I, for instance, talk about something being a non-unicorn, and if it is true of anything that it is a non-unicorn, that does not imply that there are unicorns. Accordingly, if I hold true that all things have their existence contingently, I do not see how that implies that there would have to be something which has its existence necessarily.

If everything actual can only be known with gradtions of probabillity, and nothing actual can be known with actual necessity, unless its necessarily true that probability/probable degrees of knowledge can be known about reality why should we believe anything probable can be known about reality? Unless necessity does apply to reality we can know nothing about relaity. To say that probable known truth applies to reality, it can either apply probably (which has no ground) or applies necessarily. If it only applies probably you get an infinite regress of questionably known/less than necessarily certain "truths" where nothing is clear in itself, and must be made evident by another thing....ie nothing is known in itself...or you must finally arrive at self evident truth that is clear in itself, which needs not be made evident by another thing. If there is nothing self evident about actuality, nothing that is clear in itself, not needing to be made evident by something else, you canot known anything about reality in itself. To say "I know absolutely no thing in itself" implies knowledge of things in themselves to say that. So while one can state they know nothing, hey must imply that they know that. All denials of self evident truth imply the reality of self evident truth concerning reality.

I think you are making some pretty sneaky moves here. I don't see why there has to be some self-evident, indubitable, and incorrigible grounding for our knowledge in order to have any knowledge at all. I simply do not agree that there is or needs to be such a thing. No statement is immune to revision. We hold certain statements true, come what may (as far as we know for now), such statements play a role in more parts along our "web of belief", and we simply wouldn't know what it would be for such statements to be false. Yet I do not see how that would imply that such statements are self-evident, incorrigible, etc. So what if the statement "I know absolutely nothing in itself" were not known clearly in itself? I simply do not pretend that any absolute, self-evident, indubitable knowledge can be had.

 

[Seditious]

if I hold true that all things have their existence contingently, I do not see how that implies that there would have to be something which has its existence necessarily.

well the idea is to break the eternal regress, and say there is a point where something isn't dependent, and naturally rather than the big bang, or other universes, or existence, they say it can only be the supreme agent God which is necessary, which I think is obviously easily refuted by anyone here, and we don't need to bother about eternal regress/contingent arguments and can even take them for sake of argument if not on their merit. (personally I think something was necessary, but that an agent like God would be more likely as the necessary thing than inanimate motion seems doubtful since the latter is less complex. Time was always in motion, and if the natural state of our universe is motion, then if we're to play the cosmological argument game, then to infer from our universe we don't see God as some great creator, we see inanimate motion as that which creates and orders, so the 'god as necessary being' argument is doubly undercut even when you accept its premise).

 

[derek]

Hear, hear. If you want to sound enlightened, at least get it right.

Anyway, I may not agree with dominick either, but there's no need to come across so cynically.

A simple typo, IMAGINE! I've also never desired to sound enlightened. Nonetheless, judge as you will.

:Smug:

 

[judas69]

Derek, my only issue was that you were supporting Justin in his attempt to besmirch Dominick.

A simple typo, IMAGINE!

Correction: Two, simple, consecutive, typos.

 

[Justin S.]

It seems to me that he was voicing support for the feeling of weariness over "proofs" of theistic gods, as if philosophy hasnt been trying to pull this stunt for millennia...

And I have full faith that Derek (a UK citizen) understands "hear hear", so judas, stop being ridiculous.

 

[Nile577]

I apologize if it was confusing to you. If I may ask, why do you think things exist? In other words, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

The 'something/nothing' dualism exists as a disclosure of consciousness. Remove consciousness and both become 'ineffable.'

Are you saying that you believe that all existence is self explaining and necessary, thus doesnt need a causing agent? If all of existence is not self explaining and necesary, thus something that exists needs a cause, how would it not need a causing agent?

This is a false. Existence is a disclosure of consciousness. Remove consciousness and existence is impossible. The paradigm of human thought, language and reason would become 'ineffable.'

if (some or all)existence as you seem to imply is not necessary, then how does an actually non necessary being not (necessarily) imply an actual necessary existence by which to differentiate between the two?

There is no objective external existence. Being is instilled with meaning through onto-Daseinc disclosure.

If everything actual can only be known with gradtions of probabillity, and nothing actual can be known with actual necessity, unless its necessarily true that probability/probable degrees of knowledge can be known about reality why should we believe anything probable can be known about reality?

Outside of the ineffable pantheistic ALL there is no 'objective reality.' Consciousness discloses the ineffability of the ALL into the World (itself a disclosure of consciousness - for man, the prime constituent of his ontology: 'being-in-the-world')

To say "I know absolutely no thing in itself" implies knowledge of things in themselves to say that.

‘Things’ do not exist independently of consciousness. The primal disclosure of consciousness is 'I am not the ALL('universe').' Numerous secondary disclosures highlight specificity within this primal negation. That is - 'I-AM-NOT-the world. I AM NOT-this chair. I AM NOT-this glass. etc. Conscioussness is the seat through which malleable nothingess comes into being. The nature of things is fashioned thus. Our ontology shifts around their subsequent disclosure.

it seems that this argument would not even get off the ground. I think premise 5 can be restated as, "There cannot be anything whose existence is uncaused".

Causality is a disclosure of consciousness. Remove consciousness and causality becomes ineffable and muted. Furthermore, as mention already, remove consciousness and existence is ineffable.

As self existent, self explanatory, how is that different from having necesary existence ie a theistic God?

The theistic God is a disclosure of consciousness. Muting consciousness removes the theistic god from existence. Pantheistic 'existence' is outside the ken of human consciousness other than how we disclose it.

These considerations are terminal to your argument and hence further discussing specifics would be a waste of time. However, I will respond to your reply to my previous post below.

 

[Nile577]

Youre confusing epistemology with ontology. While being preceeds cognition ontologically, being doesnt preceed cognition epistemologically. Thought comes first in regards to the order of knowing, but in regards to the order of being, being obviously comes first. Its facinating to see how men think that if only im allowed to have this one twisted concept, one twisting of the mind, one can deal with all other issues in life. That is futile and meaningless. Besides that your views are self negating.

I am not convinced you employ the term 'ontological' in the same sense that I do. To be clear, I am not referring to the ontological argument: that the theistic God exists because of the concept of him. I am referring to ontological Being as set against ontic being.

You fail to demarcate between Being and being. Rational, scientific and theistic thought has no conception of ontological Being. Indeed, the entire history of western thought overlooks, misunderstands and entirely fails to engage with the question of such Being.

Misappropriating this subtlety results in a lack of philosophical consideration.

As I have mentioned above in my argument, there is no objective 'existence' about which one can have 'knowledge'. Knowledge does not precede Being. That consciousness ontologically discloses 'things' (including itself) is the founding constituent of its 'existence.' Knowledge is not separate from these disclosures. Things are illuminated in their specificity and disclosed through Dasenic ontology. 'Knowledge' (as suggestive of a type disclosure) can modify the disclosure, but only at the height of poetic 'knowledge' is the ineffable infinity of disclosive potentiality hinted at.

I don't quite know what to make of your condescension, so I will move on to the conclusion of your post.

You say we cant account for the root of existence through thought YET use thought in refference to the root of existence in order to say that. If you can make a knowledgable statement about the root of existence, then its possible to know what you mean by "root of existence". If one could know nothing abot it you would not be able to make any sensical knowledgable statement about it directly or indirectly. So youre statement is itself a knowledgable statement through ones thoughts about the root of existence saying one cannot get at the root of existence through thought.

Your previous 'one must exist to deny his existence' Cartesian-esque cogito makes no definition of existence, rather clumsily assuming that it is inherently understood. Understand that the 'ahead-of-itself' falleness of consciousness away from its ontological root is not something about which it (consciousness) merely has 'knowledge.' It fundamentally IS consciousness. Consciouss IS 'Being-towards-fallen-from-root' just as it IS 'Being-towards-death.' The root of existence is disclosed by Dasein as unknowable by the very Being of Dasein. The issue is utterly not a case of 'knowing,' 'logic' 'reason' or 'contradiction.' Indeed, those categories as tools of debate arise from a consciousness which IS fallen into Being.

That consciousness IS fallen into being, and that consciousness flies towards 'the future' as a point at which its self-reflective nature can be combined with its past disclosed ‘facticity’ and thus 'grounded,' ('Nebulous Pleasure horizonward will flee' - Baudelaire) means that positing a theistic 'other' is appealing (whether in affirmation or blasphemy.) The theistic God fixes consciousness in its flight and reveals its ontology. ‘God’ is an attempt by man to disclose his own consciousness as ‘virtuous’, ‘sinful,’ ‘clever', or simply 'there-as-something.' Blasphemy is an attempt by man to objectify God before him as a subject to be controlled. Blasphemy attempts to fix the ontology of God as object - for example a crucifix that one might masturbate over. The Satanist affirms strength (ontological fixity) in objectification (as does the Sadist). The theist affirms ontological fixity in the disclosed presence of a theistic, paternal God.

To restate: consciousness ontologically IS 'fallen-into-being' and discloses itself as such. That is, consciousness IS 'unable-to-reach-its-root-through-cognition' ('I think, therefore I am' makes no definition of the 'am') and IS 'Being-towards-death.' Coupled with consciousness' continuous flight toward the future (itself a disclosure of consciousness) in search of a grounding which can never come, this fundamental nature of Dasein results in the creation of Theism. As stated previously, for me what is important is the ontological impact of theism on Dasein. Or in the vernacular: the state of the believing breast.

Imagine every tenet of your reason, all your language, all of your thought negated. Past, present and future are ineffable. It is impossible to do so: how can one think what cannot be thought?' However, crudely: what would be left would be 'God;' The all. This is not the 'knowledge' of attempted applied reason but the ontological grounding of the IS of reason itself. The nature of the ALL is beyond the tenets of human thought and is truly mystical. One cannot describe it. One cannot comprehend it. It cannot be thought, for it is in the negation of thought. Consciousness shepherds the ALL into existence. When poetic, it does so very beautifully. However, to posit its single disclosure of a theistic God as BEING (crudely put) true, is actually blasphemous to the infinity of potentiality offered by the ineffable All.

(Wow that was some pseudy, probably pretentious stuff. It's quite possible that due to my atrocious communication I may be misunderstood or even not understood at all. I apologise. The medium is a little restrictive and I have not helped things by making assumptions on knowledge of terms that are defined elsewhere on this board.)

 

[Justin S.]

Nile577, your disclaimer is unneeded. Your post is excellent, very communicative, and I detect nothing I would call pretentious. Also, while the terminology is somewhat specific, a brief look over the Dasein thread should be enough for a reader unfamiliar with this sort of ontology to come away with some understanding.

Thank you for taking the time to treat these ideas explicitly. As you know, I have very similar thoughts on the matter, but am overwhelmed by the idea of trying to communicate it holistically as well as concisely- I think you do an admirable job, especially given the constraints.

 

[derek]

It seems to me that he was voicing support for the feeling of weariness over "proofs" of theistic gods, as if philosophy hasnt been trying to pull this stunt for millennia...

And I have full faith that Derek (a UK citizen) understands "hear hear", so judas, stop being ridiculous.

I'm actually an Irish Citizen.

AND, thank you. I think weariness at hearing the same spiel over and over again sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I am not convinced you employ the term 'ontological' in the same sense that I do. To be clear, I am not referring to the ontological argument: that the theistic God exists because of the concept of him. I am referring to ontological Being as set against ontic being.

You fail to demarcate between Being and being. Rational, scientific and theistic thought has no conception of ontological Being. Indeed, the entire history of western thought overlooks, misunderstands and entirely fails to engage with the question of such Being.

Misappropriating this subtlety results in a lack of philosophical consideration.

As I have mentioned above in my argument, there is no objective 'existence' about which one can have 'knowledge'. Knowledge does not precede Being. That consciousness ontologically discloses 'things' (including itself) is the founding constituent of its 'existence.' Knowledge is not separate from these disclosures. Things are illuminated in their specificity and disclosed through Dasenic ontology. 'Knowledge' (as suggestive of a type disclosure) can modify the disclosure, but only at the height of poetic 'knowledge' is the ineffable infinity of disclosive potentiality hinted at.

I don't quite know what to make of your condescension, so I will move on to the conclusion of your post.



Your previous 'one must exist to deny his existence' Cartesian-esque cogito makes no definition of existence, rather clumsily assuming that it is inherently understood. Understand that the 'ahead-of-itself' falleness of consciousness away from its ontological root is not something about which it (consciousness) merely has 'knowledge.' It fundamentally IS consciousness. Consciouss IS 'Being-towards-fallen-from-root' just as it IS 'Being-towards-death.' The root of existence is disclosed by Dasein as unknowable by the very Being of Dasein. The issue is utterly not a case of 'knowing,' 'logic' 'reason' or 'contradiction.' Indeed, those categories as tools of debate arise from a consciousness which IS fallen into Being.

That consciousness IS fallen into being, and that consciousness flies towards 'the future' as a point at which its self-reflective nature can be combined with its past disclosed ‘facticity’ and thus 'grounded,' ('Nebulous Pleasure horizonward will flee' - Baudelaire) means that positing a theistic 'other' is appealing (whether in affirmation or blasphemy.) The theistic God fixes consciousness in its flight and reveals its ontology. ‘God’ is an attempt by man to disclose his own consciousness as ‘virtuous’, ‘sinful,’ ‘clever', or simply 'there-as-something.' Blasphemy is an attempt by man to objectify God before him as a subject to be controlled. Blasphemy attempts to fix the ontology of God as object - for example a crucifix that one might masturbate over. The Satanist affirms strength (ontological fixity) in objectification (as does the Sadist). The theist affirms ontological fixity in the disclosed presence of a theistic, paternal God.

To restate: consciousness ontologically IS 'fallen-into-being' and discloses itself as such. That is, consciousness IS 'unable-to-reach-its-root-through-cognition' ('I think, therefore I am' makes no definition of the 'am') and IS 'Being-towards-death.' Coupled with consciousness' continuous flight toward the future (itself a disclosure of consciousness) in search of a grounding which can never come, this fundamental nature of Dasein results in the creation of Theism. As stated previously, for me what is important is the ontological impact of theism on Dasein. Or in the vernacular: the state of the believing breast.

Imagine every tenet of your reason, all your language, all of your thought negated. Past, present and future are ineffable. It is impossible to do so: how can one think what cannot be thought?' However, crudely: what would be left would be 'God;' The all. This is not the 'knowledge' of attempted applied reason but the ontological grounding of the IS of reason itself. The nature of the ALL is beyond the tenets of human thought and is truly mystical. One cannot describe it. One cannot comprehend it. It cannot be thought, for it is in the negation of thought. Consciousness shepherds the ALL into existence. When poetic, it does so very beautifully. However, to posit its single disclosure of a theistic God as BEING (crudely put) true, is actually blasphemous to the infinity of potentiality offered by the ineffable All.

(Wow that was some pseudy, probably pretentious stuff. It's quite possible that due to my atrocious communication I may be misunderstood or even not understood at all. I apologise. The medium is a little restrictive and I have not helped things by making assumptions on knowledge of terms that are defined elsewhere on this board.)

That was very impressive. But, I'll be honest and say I didn't necessarily understand it all but got the drift of it
I'm really curious to know if you can spontaneously speak like you write in this post or if it is a lot easier to write it?
I had a picture in my head of you being with a girlfriend who didn't particularly understand what you were saying, but was awestruck and really enjoying it. And then she takes you home to meet the parents and says "Mummy, Daddy, just listen to this !" with a great sense of achievement.
Really you deserve a lot of appreciation for such verbal skills. I hope you don't always end up mixing with those who don't value this in your personal life.
I'm not trying to chat Nile up in saying this btw.

Back on topic:
A friend of mine was arguing with someone about God's existence. The believer said that God existed "before time". Is this a crucial concept to those who believe in God?
My friend responded that if time does not exist, motion cannot exist. Sounds like a good argument to refute God's existence, if it is the case that God is supposed to have existed "before time".

 

[Seditious]

GAH, my stupid mouse. I had typed out a damn reply and then I knock it the wrong way, too much feedback to the PC and shit freezes up fuckin forgot halfa what I said.

I'm really curious to know if you can spontaneously speak like you write in this post or if it is a lot easier to write it?

The greatest value of written language is that it facilitates saying what most of us cannot say in spoken word. I dunno how long someone has to write a certain way to begin speaking in the same lecturing manner, but fuck I envy them (people who speak in a professorial tone, articulate and concise.)

A friend of mine was arguing with someone about God's existence. The believer said that God existed "before time". Is this a crucial concept to those who believe in God?.

it's apparently one of their more profound ideas (a being which isn't temporally dependent), but really it seems to be just another hiding place.

if there was no time then there was no temporal motion in which for God to act. For something to be brought into existence is for it to not exist in time and then exist in a later time. Things can't occur, but the whole agency they call God can? If some perfect being can exist by those conditions then surely things akin to it without agency or life also can, and are likely to be the cause of that agency if it even exists, or more likely just the cause of our dimentions and whatnot without some perfect middleman.

Still, though absurd, we could say 'fine, imagine no time exists...' but consciousness without time is nothing. Our consciousness flows through time, thus we're more likely to see absolutely inanimate matter causing time to exist than a graceful agent thinking about inventing something, then bringing it about, because such a being contradicts the grounds in which it is supposed to exist. Things can't exist on their own, things can't move on their own, but an entirely complex living thinking compassionate creature can? lol.

Or, they can take the last cop out, when they try to say 'ok ok, we're talking bullshit, actually God existed in time, but before this universe was set in time.' And to that we go old school.... 'and God's creator is who?' and point out that such an argument achieves nothing at all for them, it merely posits extradimentional scientists with a mega particle accelerator.

 

[Norsemaiden]

GAH, my stupid mouse. I had typed out a damn reply and then I knock it the wrong way, too much feedback to the PC and shit freezes up fuckin forgot halfa what I said.


The greatest value of written language is that it facilitates saying what most of us cannot say in spoken word. I dunno how long someone has to write a certain way to begin speaking in the same lecturing manner, but fuck I envy them (people who speak in a professorial tone, articulate and concise.)




it's apparently one of their more profound ideas (a being which isn't temporally dependent), but really it seems to be just another hiding place.

if there was no time then there was no temporal motion in which for God to act. For something to be brought into existence is for it to not exist in time and then exist in a later time. Things can't occur, but the whole agency they call God can? If some perfect being can exist by those conditions then surely things akin to it without agency or life also can, and are likely to be the cause of that agency if it even exists, or more likely just the cause of our dimentions and whatnot without some perfect middleman.

Still, though absurd, we could say 'fine, imagine no time exists...' but consciousness without time is nothing. Our consciousness flows through time, thus we're more likely to see absolutely inanimate matter causing time to exist than a graceful agent thinking about inventing something, then bringing it about, because such a being contradicts the grounds in which it is supposed to exist. Things can't exist on their own, things can't move on their own, but an entirely complex living thinking compassionate creature can? lol.

Or, they can take the last cop out, when they try to say 'ok ok, we're talking bullshit, actually God existed in time, but before this universe was set in time.' And to that we go old school.... 'and God's creator is who?' and point out that such an argument achieves nothing at all for them, it merely posits extradimentional scientists with a mega particle accelerator.

So that's that then! Atheists win the argument!

 

[Lucifer's mistress]

Religions are for people who need something to trust in, because they don't trust in themselves or they lost trust in people....

if you're religious that isn't the fact that you believe in any of religions. You can believe in yoursef, in nature in anything you want to believe.
I don't need god to help me, but maybe someone does.

I was raise as a Christian, but I'm not, cos I don't like this shit. God can exist only in our mind if we want to believe in. I don't like when ppl are saying like, God works in mysterious way. WTF?!

 

[Έρεβος]

GAH, my stupid mouse. I had typed out a damn reply and then I knock it the wrong way, too much feedback to the PC and shit freezes up fuckin forgot halfa what I said.


The greatest value of written language is that it facilitates saying what most of us cannot say in spoken word. I dunno how long someone has to write a certain way to begin speaking in the same lecturing manner, but fuck I envy them (people who speak in a professorial tone, articulate and concise.)




it's apparently one of their more profound ideas (a being which isn't temporally dependent), but really it seems to be just another hiding place.
if there was no time then there was no temporal motion in which for God to act. For something to be brought into existence is for it to not exist in time and then exist in a later time. Things can't occur, but the whole agency they call God can? If some perfect being can exist by those conditions then surely things akin to it without agency or life also can, and are likely to be the cause of that agency if it even exists, or more likely just the cause of our dimentions and whatnot without some perfect middleman.

Still, though absurd, we could say 'fine, imagine no time exists...' but consciousness without time is nothing. Our consciousness flows through time, thus we're more likely to see absolutely inanimate matter causing time to exist than a graceful agent thinking about inventing something, then bringing it about, because such a being contradicts the grounds in which it is supposed to exist. Things can't exist on their own, things can't move on their own, but an entirely complex living thinking compassionate creature can? lol.

Or, they can take the last cop out, when they try to say 'ok ok, we're talking bullshit, actually God existed in time, but before this universe was set in time.' And to that we go old school.... 'and God's creator is who?' and point out that such an argument achieves nothing at all for them, it merely posits extradimentional scientists with a mega particle accelerator.

On top of that, they say God "is love", and exhibits all these other human qualities. Temporal qualities. Makes so much sense.

 

[judas69]

GAH, my stupid mouse. I had typed out a damn reply and then I knock it the wrong way, too much feedback to the PC and shit freezes up fuckin forgot halfa what I said.

Logitech mouse?

If there was no time then there was no temporal motion in which for God to act. For something to be brought into existence is for it to not exist in time and then exist in a later time. Things can't occur, but the whole agency they call God can? If some perfect being can exist by those conditions then surely things akin to it without agency or life also can, and are likely to be the cause of that agency if it even exists, or more likely just the cause of our dimentions and whatnot without some perfect middleman.

When considering a being who created all, using time and space against him is somewhat problematic as it would seem to go without saying that He, an infinite creator, would not be at the mercy of own his creation in anyway. That said, everything you're stating here boils down to the limits of your own understanding, and at some point you have to accept it is wrong to put your own limited understanding over that of an all-knowledgable being. In othewords, it's difficult to speak without exception, especially when you consider topics such as time and space, which sure extend far beyond our clear limitations. Infinity, for example, is something humans cannot grasp, and yet remains a concept supported in higher math textbooks, as much as religious doctrine.

Still, though absurd, we could say 'fine, imagine no time exists...' but consciousness without time is nothing. Our consciousness flows through time, thus we're more likely to see absolutely inanimate matter causing time to exist than a graceful agent thinking about inventing something, then bringing it about, because such a being contradicts the grounds in which it is supposed to exist. Things can't exist on their own, things can't move on their own, but an entirely complex living thinking compassionate creature can? lol.

Actually, in labelling something as "inanimate" you are necessarily restricting it's creating ability so, a "graceful thinking agent" would seem much more likely to me. Eitherway, you're putting yourself into a box here whereby if what you said were 100% true, our own existence couldn't be possible.

Or, they can take the last cop out, when they try to say 'ok ok, we're talking bullshit, actually God existed in time, but before this universe was set in time.' And to that we go old school.... 'and God's creator is who?' and point out that such an argument achieves nothing at all for them, it merely posits extradimentional scientists with a mega particle accelerator.

Well, as the believer accepts, God is omni-present. He is everywhere, his being is never stationary or locatable, as one beyond space and time. Thus, you cannot deny the possibiliy that Gods actions take place only within the limits of time and space, outside of which nothing needs to change. In otherwords, it's conceivable to imagine an infinite God ("infinite", again being a word we cannot grasp) who needs not create any creation because to have to stop and create, is to impose the limition of creation in the first place, and thus reduce an infinite being to some finite event.

This sort of logic is valid, as for example there is no logical problem of going into the future and taking an invention you had made there back to the present, which prevents you from making that invention because there is now no need to recreate those steps after you've already made the thing when in reality, you attaining it in this way, really prevented it's own creation. This is the sort of "magic" that can take place in a timeless, infinite existence and something we cannot immediately discredit because we are finite.

 

[Seditious]

Logitech mouse?.

naw, Genius netscroll *Shrug* I've just dropped it one too many times over the years and now it has feedback issues.

That said, everything you're stating here boils down to the limits of your own understanding, and at some point you have to accept it is wrong to put your own limited understanding over that of an all-knowledgable being.

yea, I'm well aware of my limits, but I consider the law of non-contradiction fundamental, and thus it's impossible to talk of things reliant on time before time unless you have a new foundational concept of existence where that works. it isn't fit just to say 'well it doesn't make sense to you' as if time-bound behavior without time should ever be expected to exist anywhere, supreme supersaiyanfusian level 12 or not.

He, an infinite creator, would not be at the mercy of own his creation in anyway..

how did he create himself? did he intend to? if he didn't create himself then he is at the mercy of things more fundamental than himself even if he is supreme over all things which followed.

Actually, in labelling something as "inanimate" you are necessarily restricting it's creating ability so,

creative ability? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a binary star, it takes 2 stars and a handful of universal laws. Motion and cause/effect are 'creative' enough for scientists to account for whole galaxies.