God

[SirNitram]

None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist? Does that not penetrate your skull? If he wants to do more than spam, he must present evidence in his favor, not whine that no one else can disprove his theory.

He never claimed that there was a God, all he said was that there is no paradox in the claim that God exists outside of the observable universe. You're the one being a fucktard here. You're just sitting here trying to bash theism. You haven't even attacked what he's actually said. You've attacked him, claiming he's a theist, when he's stated numerous times that he isn't. You're the one being stupid here.

I see we have another gold-star winner here. Alright, why, kiddo, should we toss out all accumulated logical principles for this bullshit he's spewing?

I don't claim there's a God either. There's no hidden motive for me. You just seem to be saying what's popular to say here, which is to state that if there's no evidence for something, it's stupid to believe it exists. This is true. If you claim I can't fit this into my skull, then you're just going on as an ignorant fucktard so you can feel special. I also understood his argument that claiming the existance is outside of space and time isn't a paradox. It still isn't logical, but it isn't self-contradictory, either. Get this shit right, you fucking moron.

It is decidedly self-contradictory to claim it and then insist on logical discussion. Which he did.

Grow up. Bashing a lying asshole who shows he has no interaction with logic is not 'bashing theism'. Nothing I've said is for 'being popular'.

[Rye]

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist?

Uh, what? What logic rule was this? Internally contradictory propositions are unacceptable or "nonexistent" in logic. Or do you think that square circles can't be proven to not exist?

[SirNitram]

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist?

Uh, what? What logic rule was this? Internally contradictory propositions are unacceptable or "nonexistent" in logic. Or do you think that square circles can't be proven to not exist?

I'm not dealing specifically with internal inconsistancies, however. I will agree that in the case of things which defeat their own existance, we can do this.

[wolveraptor]

Hell, we disproved the logical possibility of all-powerful...ness in this very thread.

God cannot exist in any defineable form outside the universe. If He/She/It does, it is beyond the powers of human description, because He/She/It is not affected by space-time, which is a constant for all our descriptions and definitions.

[Zero]

Sir Nitram, I never once said you should throw out any logical principles at all. All I said was that you never explained why his statements were wrong, as his statements were reguarding the validity of a paradox in the claim that God exists outside of time and space. Your statements have all been reguarding the existance of God, and haven't seemed to go anywhere.

I suggest that you should grow up a bit. Most of what you've said hasn't even pertained to his argument, so there really can't be much motivation besides bashing theist. You're a moron.

[Surlethe]

Sir Nitram, I never once said you should throw out any logical principles at all. All I said was that you never explained why his statements were wrong, as his statements were reguarding the validity of a paradox in the claim that God exists outside of time and space. Your statements have all been reguarding the existance of God, and haven't seemed to go anywhere.

Wait a second...he was arguing about God existing outside of time and space, and SirNitram has been countering with arguments about the existance of such a God? Wow, that seems pretty off-topic to me.

He never claimed that there was a God, all he said was that there is no paradox in the claim that God exists outside of the observable universe.

Okay. Let's simplify this. Assertion: "God exists outside of space and time." Now, "Nothing can exist outside of space and time" is a true statement, because space and time, by definition, incorporate everything. So, let's check the assertion against the facts. Hmm: a contradiction!

I also understood his argument that claiming the existance is outside of space and time isn't a paradox. It still isn't logical, but it isn't self-contradictory, either.

If something isn't logical, it most certainly is self-contradictory. Do you even understand what logic is?

Obviously someone wasn't paying attention when I got my ass handed to me a couple of threads ago on this very topic.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Sir Nitram, I never once said you should throw out any logical principles at all. All I said was that you never explained why his statements were wrong, as his statements were reguarding the validity of a paradox in the claim that God exists outside of time and space. Your statements have all been reguarding the existance of God, and haven't seemed to go anywhere.

I suggest that you should grow up a bit. Most of what you've said hasn't even pertained to his argument, so there really can't be much motivation besides bashing theist. You're a moron.

That would be because there are only so many ways you can respond to the laughable notion that something exists outside the universe when not only can we not observe anything outside the universe but we can also observe that everything that takes place in the universe is the result of in-universe forces.. Logically, this precludes the existence of any agent outside the universe that can act on the universe's contents.

So to claim that there exists a god "outside" the universe directly contradicts observational evidence and simple logic, since for a being that exists outside spacetime, the concept of time would be entirely meaningless, precluding it from acting at all. Thus, logically, the existence of a god outside of the universe is the same as a god that doesn't exist. So if one tries to claim that a god can exist by existing outside of the universe, it becomes a contradiction in terms. Get the picture?

[arigo]

It's funny how things repeat themselves as new people come in and don't bother to read what's been said.

[Surlethe]

It's funny how things repeat themselves as new people come in and don't bother to read what's been said.

It's even funnier to read bullshitters troll over and over again repeating the same arguments when those arguments have been refuted time and time again. I suggest you go here and read the exchange between myself and several others. While the discussion was about omnipotence, we touched on this subject, so you might find it instructional, horsewanker.

[arigo]

It's even funnier to read bullshitters troll over and over again repeating the same arguments when those arguments have been refuted time and time again. I suggest you go here and read the exchange between myself and several others. While the discussion was about omnipotence, we touched on this subject, so you might find it instructional, horsewanker.

Actually, that has been discussed here if you bothered to read. Very creative, but it's all sophistry. Causality is not outside of space time, but you're dealing with a supernatural-being here. You have no way of determining how a god might be able to experience our time, or how that interaction may or may not effect the universe. You're imposing laws on an object that does not follow our laws by definition. It's just plain stupid. It's definitely a copout by theists to put god in such a situation, but there is no way to logically deduce that a god does not exist. You can anti-theist wank all you want, just don't call it logic.

[Surlethe]

It's even funnier to read bullshitters troll over and over again repeating the same arguments when those arguments have been refuted time and time again. I suggest you go here and read the exchange between myself and several others. While the discussion was about omnipotence, we touched on this subject, so you might find it instructional, horsewanker.

Actually, that has been discussed here if you bothered to read.

No fucking shit, sherlock. I put it up so you could read it and see that everything you're saying has already been answered before.

Very creative, but it's all sophistry. Causality is not outside of space time, but you're dealing with a supernatural-being here. You have no way of determining how a god might be able to experience our time, or how that interaction may or may not effect the universe. You're imposing laws on an object that does not follow our laws by definition. It's just plain stupid. It's definitely a copout by theists to put god in such a situation, but there is no way to logically deduce that a god does not exist. You can anti-theist wank all you want, just don't call it logic.

Yadda yadda yadda "God is supernatural so he must be superlogical" yadda yadda yadda

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Actually, that has been discussed here if you bothered to read. Very creative, but it's all sophistry. Causality is not outside of space time, but you're dealing with a supernatural-being here. You have no way of determining how a god might be able to experience our time, or how that interaction may or may not effect the universe. You're imposing laws on an object that does not follow our laws by definition. It's just plain stupid. It's definitely a copout by theists to put god in such a situation, but there is no way to logically deduce that a god does not exist. You can anti-theist wank all you want, just don't call it logic.

Right. Stick the "supernatural" label on it, and you have "OMG INSTANT WINNAR!!!!11" In order for an agent to interact meaningfully with the universe, it has to obey, at the very least, a subset of the universe's laws. And if it obeys enough of our laws to interact with the universe, then we can measure and observe its interactions. If these interactions occur in such a way that it is apparent that the source originates from outside the universe, then we can posit that there is an extra-universal agent at work.

However, if we don't observe such interactions, then, by parsimony, we should conclude that there is no supernatural god, rather than concluding that there is a supernatural god who just happens to exist outside the universe, not obey our laws unless it suits him . . . in which case he only manifests himself as phenomena that could just as easily be explained by mundane in-universe forces. This is because the first theory requires fewer logical leaps than the second theory.

[arigo]

Right. Stick the "supernatural" label on it, and you have "OMG INSTANT WINNAR!!!!11" In order for an agent to interact meaningfully with the universe, it has to obey, at the very least, a subset of the universe's laws. And if it obeys enough of our laws to interact with the universe, then we can measure and observe its interactions. If these interactions occur in such a way that it is apparent that the source originates from outside the universe, then we can posit that there is an extra-universal agent at work.

However, if we don't observe such interactions, then, by parsimony, we should conclude that there is no supernatural god, rather than concluding that there is a supernatural god who just happens to exist outside the universe, not obey our laws unless it suits him . . . in which case he only manifests himself as phenomena that could just as easily be explained by mundane in-universe forces. This is because the first theory requires fewer logical leaps than the second theory.

That would only infer which is more likely. It does not show us which is false. This very thought process is actually the reason I switched from being theist to agnostic/leaning towards atheist. It also requires a leap of assumptions to say we aren't mislabeling current interactions. Thankyou for actually making an argument instead of throwing out insults.

[DPDarkPrimus]

It also requires a leap of assumptions to say we aren't mislabeling current interactions.

HAH!

You're one to talk about assumptions.

[Zero]

Has anyone actually taken a look to see that arigo never even really claimed the existance of God? You people jump on the easiest opportunity to bash theism that you can... it's fucking stupid. If he had made the claim that God existed outside of the universe, then I could understand all the shit that's been said, but this isn't what he said.

Surlethe, you've actually given the reason that Arigo's earlier statement was wrong. It wasn't that damned hard, you just had to actually read what the fuck was said. About fucking time...

[Ghost Rider]

Has anyone actually taken a look to see that arigo never even really claimed the existance of God? You people jump on the easiest opportunity to bash theism that you can... it's fucking stupid. If he had made the claim that God existed outside of the universe, then I could understand all the shit that's been said, but this isn't what he said.

Surlethe, you've actually given the reason that Arigo's earlier statement was wrong. It wasn't that damned hard, you just had to actually read what the fuck was said. About fucking time...

Following the popular big bang theory, our universe came into existence from a singularity that does not adhere to our current understanding of the rules of physics. Essentially, the most popular scientific explanation to the creation of the universe requires the existence of something outside natural law; or at least our current understanding at this point. If something did not exist outside that singularity then we are left to speculate on what triggered the expansion, and why it existed in the first place. A god is supernatural by default and has no reason to follow natural law. Certainly you believe in the Big Bang? Yet here you are thinking the fact that a god is defined as “not part of space and time” proves anything when the most popular scientific explanation suffers the same fault. First cause is illogical anyway you look at it. You don't have to jump in a fish bowl to feed your fish food. It seems everyone here is trying to bind physical limitations on a god, which by definition would not be limited to any rules, to prove such a being does not exist - It's just a retarded thing to do.

So dumbass...by his analogy what was he trying to do?

Oh that's right. G-O-D shouldn't be bound by what?

Space Time.

So want to insert foot into mouth, fucktard?

[spikenigma]

ok, things I've got from this

* we can't disprove the existance of a God like being
* we can't disprove the existance of things (i.e. "God") simply because they are outside of spacetime ads spacetime is all we can experience

isn't everyone essentially arguing the same thing?

you can't disprove things existing outside of spacetime because we all exist and are limited to the rules of spacetime - thus we cannot see out of the box of spacetime if you will. As such the argument "if God is outside of spacetime he cannot exist" is false given 4 dimensions the asserter is limited to.

[Ghost Rider]

ok, things I've got from this

* we can't disprove the existance of a God like being
* we can't disprove the existance of things (i.e. "God") simply because they are outside of spacetime ads spacetime is all we can experience

isn't everyone essentially arguing the same thing?

you can't disprove things existing outside of spacetime because we all exist and are limited to the rules of spacetime - thus we cannot see out of the box of spacetime if you will. As such the argument "if God is outside of spacetime he cannot exist" is false given 4 dimensions the asserter is limited to.

So, we can all go "The CAt GOD Rulz youz all!!!"

And because I claim he is out of space time, None can say otherwise...except

If God exists out of time space.....how does violate and meedle with time/space since that would be a violation of causailty?

Oh wait, he can't

[wolveraptor]

So essentially, we have a God that doesn't move within space, doesn't move within time, and doesn't interact with the universe. How is this different from him/her/it not existing?

[SirNitram]

Has anyone actually taken a look to see that arigo never even really claimed the existance of God? You people jump on the easiest opportunity to bash theism that you can... it's fucking stupid. If he had made the claim that God existed outside of the universe, then I could understand all the shit that's been said, but this isn't what he said.

Surlethe, you've actually given the reason that Arigo's earlier statement was wrong. It wasn't that damned hard, you just had to actually read what the fuck was said. About fucking time...

I'm sorry, Zero. Perhaps you're just not fucking reading. To even argue that we should consider a God or anything without proof requires us to break Parsimony. Do you know what it is, yet? At all? The whole point is that we don't bother inventing extraneous terms. It's illogical.

The whole thing is basically this Arigo kid playing 'Let's yank around to unfalsifiable theories!' which were thrown out, hrm, a few thousand years back?

But of course, we will continue to get stupid bullshit...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The whole thing is basically this Arigo kid playing 'Let's yank around to unfalsifiable theories!' which were thrown out, hrm, a few thousand years back?

But of course, we will continue to get stupid bullshit...

How about we slap arigo a custom title, say, in the form of an engraved plutonium plaque screwed onto the back of his skull?

[felineki]

So, we can all go "The CAt GOD Rulz youz all!!!"

He sure does. Bow before the great Nekogami, lest he tear you to shreds with his almighty claws and use you to line his divine catbox.

[Zero]

Sir Nitram, you're the one that's not been reading. I know that considering the existance of a god breaks parsimony, as there's no evidence that there are any such gods, but the thing that started all of this wasn't an argument from him that god exists, or even that you should consider it. Parsimony doesn't really apply here, and you're still a jackass.

Ghost Rider, it makes sense to say that you can't place physical limitations on that that we have no knowledge of the existance of. By his analogy, he was trying to say that claiming there was a paradox was stupid, because it requires that we place physical limitations on god. Since we don't even have any knowledge of the existance of such a being, such limitations can be based on nothing at all. So explain to me, why am I the fucktard?

[SirNitram]

Sir Nitram, you're the one that's not been reading. I know that considering the existance of a god breaks parsimony, as there's no evidence that there are any such gods, but the thing that started all of this wasn't an argument from him that god exists, or even that you should consider it. Parsimony doesn't really apply here, and you're still a jackass.

Ugh. What a fucking retard you're turning out to be. You're now declaring that logical principles don't apply.. Why? Do you have a real reason? No, you don't: The existance of a God doesn't 'break' Parsimony, if such a God really exists. Because there'd be evidence. You're just throwing a fit because you think it makes you look good.

Logic still applies. Especially to someone who shrieked to apply logic.

But you will again recite this litany against logical argument.

[wolveraptor]

Pause

What the fuck are you guys arguing about? The existance of God, the possibility of Him/Her/It outside the universe, or whether the italicized is impossible?