All YECs are Dead

[Surlethe]

Referring to my comment as sophistry is truly ironic, kiddo. It's about as far from the original meaning as is physically possible, but you're clearly too dumb to get that. So you just claim I'm making a fallacious argument.. Alright, fucktard. Time for the flaming you deserve, interspiced with why you're full of it.

Hmm. Let's see: Sophistry is "reasoinning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious." If I can back up my claim your bullshit is fallacious, that makes it sophistry.

God acts fucktard. If you are speaking of the biblical God, he performs actions, as anyone can see in the first few pages from Genesis. For this to happen, he requires time to pass. Indeed, he requires days to pass. Strike one.

Shift your damned reference frame. For someone inside time, what looks like time passing between actions describes two "simultaneous" (I put the word in quotes because it implies time before and after, when there is no such thing) points of contact between God and the world.

Your 'God IS' bullshit. First off, that's pulled from your ass. Made up to cover for the fact you wouldn't know what is involved in being outside of space and time means. Strictly speaking, anything not in fourspace is better defined as 'IS NOT' as it possesses no quantifiable qualities. How can I be sure? All methods for quantification rely on something's existance in time and space, it's weight, volume, length, age..

No shit, asshole. The entire point of believing in God is that God is unquantifiable, and thus impossible to disprove.

It is not fallacious to declare God requires time, because we know nothing can be or happen without time. I challenge you to back up your claim it's a fallacy. Go on. Show your stuff, little child.

Fucking strawman. I declared it was fallacious to assign actions to God because actions require time, not that it was fallacious to state God required time. GOD DOES NOT ACT, horsefucker. Not from his perspective. From God's perspective, all of his contacts with reality are simultaneous.

[Hawkwings]

well, if it happened at this very moment, most of the forces in the middle east are US military and "Security Contractors". I'd imagine they could secure a lot of territory before the other nations' transport planes came flying in.

[Zero]

Aint been around for a few days, but I must say that after considering it, aliens may be a more scientifically reasonable explanation for such a strange event, although more likely is some human invention that nobody knew about. The only reason I came to the conclusion I did was because it is more socially acceptable to believe in God then in aliens. I still believe the idea seems more nutty then a concept of God, but scientifically, God is always a bit of an easy out. They used to blame strange things such as lightning on God, when really we just didn't properly understand the physical mechanisms behind it. My bad.

[Penfold]

Hmm. Let's see: Sophistry is "reasoinning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious." If I can back up my claim your bullshit is fallacious, that makes it sophistry.

So what is it called when your "reasoinning" is completely implausible, like yours?

Shift your damned reference frame. For someone inside time, what looks like time passing between actions describes two "simultaneous" (I put the word in quotes because it implies time before and after, when there is no such thing) points of contact between God and the world.

So, instead of existing outside of time, God is time? Please put the goalposts back where you found them.

No shit, asshole. The entire point of believing in God is that God is unquantifiable, and thus impossible to disprove.

Of course, being unquantifiable means that we have to resort to explaining the universe in God-free terms. So far, we've been doing a pretty good job of that. God has been shown to be unnecessary to the function of the universe, and has not been shown to have the ability to act upon it.

He is irrelevant.

Fucking strawman. I declared it was fallacious to assign actions to God because actions require time, not that it was fallacious to state God required time. GOD DOES NOT ACT, horsefucker. Not from his perspective. From God's perspective, all of his contacts with reality are simultaneous.

Again with this?

You are not Bajoran. Cut that shit out.

[Surlethe]

Shift your damned reference frame. For someone inside time, what looks like time passing between actions describes two "simultaneous" (I put the word in quotes because it implies time before and after, when there is no such thing) points of contact between God and the world.

So, instead of existing outside of time, God is time? Please put the goalposts back where you found them.

Read the post, asshat. I never claimed God is time.

No shit, asshole. The entire point of believing in God is that God is unquantifiable, and thus impossible to disprove.

Of course, being unquantifiable means that we have to resort to explaining the universe in God-free terms. So far, we've been doing a pretty good job of that. God has been shown to be unnecessary to the function of the universe, and has not been shown to have the ability to act upon it.

He is irrelevant.

Hmm. Might that be...science? Under the premises of this argument, God exists and the bible is generally true in describing God. Demonstrating that God is irrelevant to describing the universe has been done countless times, is not being contested, and is not relevant to this debate.

Fucking strawman. I declared it was fallacious to assign actions to God because actions require time, not that it was fallacious to state God required time. GOD DOES NOT ACT, horsefucker. Not from his perspective. From God's perspective, all of his contacts with reality are simultaneous.

Again with this?

You are not Bajoran. Cut that shit out.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Morilore]

Surlethe, let me remix my argument a little.

1) God is omnipotent, he possesses all power.*
2) The ability to lift all rocks is a power.
3) The ability to build an unliftable rock is a power.
4) If God can lift all rocks, then no rock that is unliftable can be built.
5) If God can build an unliftable rock, then a rock exists that he cannot lift.
6) Thus, omnipotence is impossible.
7) Therefore, God does not exist.


*Sources:
Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'"
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'"

The above literally took me less than five seconds of Googling. Note that in numbers two and three it is Jesus himself who is saying to the people of the Earth that his Father is omnipotent.

See, it does the same thing.

What the fuck are you talking about?

He is referring to the Bajorans from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, let me remix my argument a little.

<snip>

Thank you. That does it much better than the first one. I concede that God, defined such as omnipotent, cannot exist.

What the fuck are you talking about?

He is referring to the Bajorans from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

I'm fully aware of that. However, being culturally illiterate, I have no idea to which particular aspect of Bajorans he refers.

[Penfold]

Shift your damned reference frame. For someone inside time, what looks like time passing between actions describes two "simultaneous" (I put the word in quotes because it implies time before and after, when there is no such thing) points of contact between God and the world.

Bolding mine.

This looks to me like you're saying that God's interaction with the universe is what binds two moments together. You know, time.

Unless you're saying that it looks like time passes between acts of divine intervention because God is acting upon the two moments simultaneously while ignoring the moments in between. If that's the case, you are the sophist and the asshat.

Let me explain this to you: your out-of-time God is frozen. He cannot percieve anything, He cannot think, He cannot move, and He cannot interface with the universe in any way. All those actions take time to perform, and because your God is outside of time, He is no more capable of performing miracles than a photograph of me is capable of posting to this forum.

Hmm. Might that be...science? Under the premises of this argument, God exists and the bible is generally true in describing God. Demonstrating that God is irrelevant to describing the universe has been done countless times, is not being contested, and is not relevant to this debate.

And you accused me of not reading the post I was responding to? The premise does not require Him to exist, because the premise is that His existance doesn't matter. Furthermore, "disproving" God (which is basically proving a negative) requires 1) proving that the universe works without God, and 2) failure to prove that God interacts with the universe.

Yes, I do realize that the "snapshot God" fits the criteria for a disproven God, but that just backs up what Nitram was saying - anything outside of spacetime might as well not exist.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Reference to the Prophets of Bajor from DS9. It goes with the argument I interpreted as you saying that God is time.

[Surlethe]

<snip>

This looks to me like you're saying that God's interaction with the universe is what binds two moments together. You know, time.

Unless you're saying that it looks like time passes between acts of divine intervention because God is acting upon the two moments simultaneously while ignoring the moments in between. If that's the case, you are the sophist and the asshat.

No, no, no! This is fucking IMPOSSIBLE to explain!
Okay. Imagine you have a 4-dimensional graph: three space dimensions and one time dimension. You are outside of it. At a given moment, you are effectively frozen, but the graph still runs all the way through the graph's time (we're taking a real time interval of zero, because this effectively demonstrates what it's like to be removed from time). Now imagine reaching in at two different points on the graph to affect the graph. Time is frozen, so you don't see, hear, or feel anything. Inside the graph, it looks like you intervene in the graph, then are gone for a while, then intervene again. Outside, it looks like you are intervening simultaneously. Does this analogy make what I'm trying to say any clearer?

Let me explain this to you: your out-of-time God is frozen. He cannot percieve anything, He cannot think, He cannot move, and He cannot interface with the universe in any way. All those actions take time to perform, and because your God is outside of time, He is no more capable of performing miracles than a photograph of me is capable of posting to this forum.

I'm fully aware of this. That is why I mentioned God has no free will earlier: he can't change what he does.

And you accused me of not reading the post I was responding to? The premise does not require Him to exist, because the premise is that His existance doesn't matter. Furthermore, "disproving" God (which is basically proving a negative) requires 1) proving that the universe works without God, and 2) failure to prove that God interacts with the universe.

Yes, I do realize that the "snapshot God" fits the criteria for a disproven God, but that just backs up what Nitram was saying - anything outside of spacetime might as well not exist.

Nitram's and my mini-argument presumed the existence of God, and was about the qualities thereof.

Reference to the Prophets of Bajor from DS9. It goes with the argument I interpreted as you saying that God is time.

OK. Thank you for clarifying. Now all I have to do is watch DS9... .

[Itô Doeblin]

Surlethe, let me remix my argument a little.

1) God is omnipotent, he possesses all power.*
2) The ability to lift all rocks is a power.
3) The ability to build an unliftable rock is a power.
4) If God can lift all rocks, then no rock that is unliftable can be built.
5) If God can build an unliftable rock, then a rock exists that he cannot lift.
6) Thus, omnipotence is impossible.
7) Therefore, God does not exist.

If God is omnipotent, shouldn't part of his power be the ability to give up his omnipotence? Couldn't one argue that when God creates an unliftable rock, he is implicitly giving up his power to lift all rocks? I guess he would still have the power to give himself the ability to lift all rocks, but at the time (assuming God moves through time or at least something equivalent like we do) he would no longer be omnipotent, and therefore not create the contradition in 5).

Or am I missing something?

Have a nice day, Itô

[Morilore]

If God is omnipotent, shouldn't part of his power be the ability to give up his omnipotence? Couldn't one argue that when God creates an unliftable rock, he is implicitly giving up his power to lift all rocks? I guess he would still have the power to give himself the ability to lift all rocks, but at the time (assuming God moves through time or at least something equivalent like we do) he would no longer be omnipotent, and therefore not create the contradition in 5).

Or am I missing something?

Have a nice day, Itô

The word cannot implies "despite all effort."

[Hawkwings]

well, if being able to defy logic is a power...

[SirNitram]

Referring to my comment as sophistry is truly ironic, kiddo. It's about as far from the original meaning as is physically possible, but you're clearly too dumb to get that. So you just claim I'm making a fallacious argument.. Alright, fucktard. Time for the flaming you deserve, interspiced with why you're full of it.

Hmm. Let's see: Sophistry is "reasoinning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious." If I can back up my claim your bullshit is fallacious, that makes it sophistry.

Actually, Sophistry is really the name for the philosophical concept that all viewpoints are equally true. It has merely been eroded.

And if you can show me a fallacy in my arguments, I will be very impressed, child.

God acts fucktard. If you are speaking of the biblical God, he performs actions, as anyone can see in the first few pages from Genesis. For this to happen, he requires time to pass. Indeed, he requires days to pass. Strike one.

Shift your damned reference frame. For someone inside time, what looks like time passing between actions describes two "simultaneous" (I put the word in quotes because it implies time before and after, when there is no such thing) points of contact between God and the world.

Again, the retard doesn't get it. You can't act without time to act in. You can't interact with fourspace when you have no dimensions. Flatland was bad enough, you want to make nonland!

Come on, kid. Don't just restate your damn stupid assumptions yanked from your ass.

Your 'God IS' bullshit. First off, that's pulled from your ass. Made up to cover for the fact you wouldn't know what is involved in being outside of space and time means. Strictly speaking, anything not in fourspace is better defined as 'IS NOT' as it possesses no quantifiable qualities. How can I be sure? All methods for quantification rely on something's existance in time and space, it's weight, volume, length, age..

No shit, asshole. The entire point of believing in God is that God is unquantifiable, and thus impossible to disprove.

Impossible to prove, you shit-for-brains retard. Disproving something is entirely impossible, a logical impossibility. Slink off to your hole and don't come out, you clearly don't know shit.

It is not fallacious to declare God requires time, because we know nothing can be or happen without time. I challenge you to back up your claim it's a fallacy. Go on. Show your stuff, little child.

Fucking strawman. I declared it was fallacious to assign actions to God because actions require time, not that it was fallacious to state God required time. GOD DOES NOT ACT, horsefucker. Not from his perspective. From God's perspective, all of his contacts with reality are simultaneous.

To this I reply: You're a huge lying sack of shit fundie. Just opening to the first page of the Bible shows us God experiencing an entire day. God clearly acts over and over, especially when interacting with Moses.

In short: You are a lying sack of shit troll. You can't prove there's a fallacy here because there is none. You are making things up and not supporting them. Go directly to Hell, get assfucked, die. No one cares, you insipid little sack of shit.

[Morilore]

well, if being able to defy logic is a power...

At which point the debate ends, unless the fundie in question is really, really dumb and doesn't realize that if you invalidate logic, you can't go any further.

[Zero]

Actually, their claims that God is outside of time and space is also a common attempt to say that God defies logic. He can't be quantified, so any claims you make of him as a being outside of the universe can't be proven, or really backed up. Christians like trying to find loopholes. I actually believe that sometime, defying logic will become part of their argument for the existance of God.

[wolveraptor]

I don't like the Rock argument because omnipotent in reference to God does not necessarily mean that he/she/it can defy logic. It depends on your perspective on what a "god" is. Hell, Norse gods weren't even immortal, and could even age, but nobody goes around saying, "Well they ain't not Gods".

[SirNitram]

I don't like the Rock argument because omnipotent in reference to God does not necessarily mean that he/she/it can defy logic. It depends on your perspective on what a "god" is. Hell, Norse gods weren't even immortal, and could even age, but nobody goes around saying, "Well they ain't not Gods".

The rock thing is not there to show 'GOD CAN DEFY LOGIC WOOHOO WANK WANK WANK WANK'. It's there to show omnipotence is a logical impossibility and therefore can't exist.

[Itô Doeblin]

If God is omnipotent, shouldn't part of his power be the ability to give up his omnipotence? Couldn't one argue that when God creates an unliftable rock, he is implicitly giving up his power to lift all rocks? I guess he would still have the power to give himself the ability to lift all rocks, but at the time (assuming God moves through time or at least something equivalent like we do) he would no longer be omnipotent, and therefore not create the contradition in 5).

Or am I missing something?

The word cannot implies "despite all effort."

Ok, but as far as I can see that merely complicates the method God must use:

(1) God gives up all powers save the one to create really big rocks.
(2) God creates really big rock.
(3) Obviously, God cannot lift rock, despite all effort. All he can do is create another really big rock.

The problem I see is that your argument seems to require that after creating an unliftable rock, God must still be omnipotent. I don't see why that should be necessary (and it would go against the whole "God is omnipotent" assumption). Or are you arguing that for God there cannot be an "before event X" and "after event X"?

Have a nice day, Itô

[Zero]

You COULD try to say that since God knows everything, he has no free will, and since he has no free will, he could never run into the whole thing of wanting to create a rock so large he can't lift it, but then you're still placing limitations on the diety. It's all wacky...

[Morilore]

Ok, but as far as I can see that merely complicates the method God must use:

(1) God gives up all powers save the one to create really big rocks.

It is impossible for an omnipotent being to "give up" a power without ceasing to be omnipotent.

(2) God creates really big rock.
(3) Obviously, God cannot lift rock, despite all effort. All he can do is create another really big rock.

If he's omnipotent, he can give himself back any power he gives up. Mind the difference between "will not" and "cannot."

The problem I see is that your argument seems to require that after creating an unliftable rock, God must still be omnipotent. I don't see why that should be necessary (and it would go against the whole "God is omnipotent" assumption). Or are you arguing that for God there cannot be an "before event X" and "after event X"?

Have a nice day, Itô

I don't follow.

[Itô Doeblin]

(1) God gives up all powers save the one to create really big rocks.

It is impossible for an omnipotent being to "give up" a power without ceasing to be omnipotent.

Exactly. So, after giving up nearly all of his powers, God is no longer omnipotent. Thus "God creates an unliftable rock" does not create a contradiction to "God is omnipotent", because in that scenario after creating the unliftable rock God is simply no longer omnipotent.

Do you see my problem now?

Have a nice day, Itô

[Darth Wong]

(1) God gives up all powers save the one to create really big rocks.

It is impossible for an omnipotent being to "give up" a power without ceasing to be omnipotent.

Exactly. So, after giving up nearly all of his powers, God is no longer omnipotent. Thus "God creates an unliftable rock" does not create a contradiction to "God is omnipotent", because in that scenario after creating the unliftable rock God is simply no longer omnipotent.

Do you see my problem now?

Have a nice day, Itô

That argument only works if the loss of powers is permanent. If he can take his powers back at will, then he is still omnipotent.

[Itô Doeblin]

(1) God gives up all powers save the one to create really big rocks.

That argument only works if the loss of powers is permanent. If he can take his powers back at will, then he is still omnipotent.

Well, if his only remaining power is the ability to create really big rocks, he doesn't have the ability to take his former powers back at will; that's how I meant it. In my scenario, God permanently gives up pretty much all of his powers (of course, he'd have to be pretty stupid to do that, but we are talking about an omnipotent God, not a smart one).

Sorry for not making that clearer.

Have a nice day, Itô

[Surlethe]

<snip flames of pure logic>

I concede all points. An omnipotent God is impossible.

PS- SirNitram, please check your PMs

[Darth Wong]

Well, if his only remaining power is the ability to create really big rocks, he doesn't have the ability to take his former powers back at will; that's how I meant it. In my scenario, God permanently gives up pretty much all of his powers (of course, he'd have to be pretty stupid to do that, but we are talking about an omnipotent God, not a smart one).

Sorry for not making that clearer.

Have a nice day, Itô

So what we have then is a guy who doesn't really have godlike powers, but we should take his word for it that he once did. A really long time ago. Honest.