God

[felineki]

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?

Whether the italicized is impossible, as far as I can make out. Since the universe encompasses everything (space, time, etc.), and everything that acts upon the universe originates from within it, it's impossible to say that God could exist "outside" the universe and still interact with it somehow. That's what I've been able to glean from this mess, at any rate.

[wolveraptor]

I think I already mentioned that the universe must be a closed system, or entropy would be fucked up by outside intereference.

[Zero]

Sir Nitram, if you read what I said, you'd understand why parsimony has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It has everything to do with what you're saying, but stating that god can't exist isn't relevant to the fact that you ignored what was being said, and started spouting bullshit. How does going against you fucktards help me look good at all? Anyone that even hints that an argument against god isn't perfect is bashed by at least 7 people until they shut the fuck up. Here, I'm saying that the stuff you've said is true, but irrelevant to what you're trying to argue against. Saying that belief in god breaks the law of parsimony has nothing to do with a statement that there's no paradox when claiming that god exists outside of the universe. This isn't a claim that god does exist, just a claim that there's no logical paradox in the claim that he's outside of the universe. This is based on quite simple logic. We have no proof/evidence of god, so we can't set physical limitations on such a being. Setting such physical limits actually assumes more then the mere assumption that god exists (which is not a presupposition to this argument). To set physical limitations on god, you must assume his existance, and pull limits for his existance out of your ass. I don't believe in god, and I don't give a fuck about image. The main reason I'm saying this is because I think you're a dumbfuck. Prove me wrong already, and actually adress the fucking argument.

Wolveraptor, the trouble is, sir nitram keeps arguing that there is no god when that isn't the argument that was made earlier, or the argument I'm now apparently supporting. I'm debating whether the italicized is possible. He's debating whether there's a god or not. I agree that there's no reason to believe that such a statement is true, but also understand that there's no reason that it's an impossibility.

[arigo]

Yes, lets mentally masturbate over imposing logical laws on something supernatural. You guys don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Oh, oh, I've got one too. Since god is all powerful then he must be able to limit his powers, but then he won't be all powerful. PARADOX <--- Just so brilliant. Jesus, you can super-impose paradoxes on any such concepts. It proves absolutely nothing, logically.

[arigo]

For all of those that haven't been jackasses towards me, I apologize for post above. It wasn't really meant for you. I'm just sick of this, and feel everything I'm saying is being sideswiped instead of being met face on.

[Nephtys]

The argument is this. If laws don't apply to god and he is beyond space/time, he doesn't exist by the definition of exist. That's pretty much as flat out simple as it gets.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Yes, lets mentally masturbate over imposing logical laws on something supernatural. You guys don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Oh, oh, I've got one too. Since god is all powerful then he must be able to limit his powers, but then he won't be all powerful. PARADOX <--- Just so brilliant. Jesus, you can super-impose paradoxes on any such concepts. It proves absolutely nothing, logically.

Yeah, it's called 'not using his powers to the fullest' just like being able to limit the force one puts on, say, an egg when he picks it up. No paradox.

For all of those that haven't been jackasses towards me, I apologize for post above. It wasn't really meant for you. I'm just sick of this, and feel everything I'm saying is being sideswiped instead of being met face on.

Backpedal faster, Bitchtits.

[Rye]

Oh, oh, I've got one too. Since god is all powerful then he must be able to limit his powers, but then he won't be all powerful. PARADOX <--- Just so brilliant. Jesus, you can super-impose paradoxes on any such concepts. It proves absolutely nothing, logically.

Doesn't it prove that the concept is unsound? You know, like someone just decided to come up with a load of properties that turned out to mutually exclude one another? Saying it's magic doesn't make this problem go away, and most apologists acknowledge this special pleading and define a God that could logically exist.

The argument is this. If laws don't apply to god and he is beyond space/time, he doesn't exist by the definition of exist. That's pretty much as flat out simple as it gets.

I'm not too sure about that. It seems to be artificially limiting the definition of existence beyond "existence exists." A hypothetical example refuting your position would be the excession from the culture novels, or Ace Rimmer from Red Dwarf. These are examples of technologies that can traverse a multiversal plane, between hitherto divided universes.

Ace and the Excession both existed independently of the universe they turned up in, and regardless of whether they ever ended up in their new universes, they would've still existed. Likewise would any number of "beings" that lived in a static state independent of our universe's dimensional setup, though the "plane" of existence would be common to both.

Functionally nonexistent, they would be, though, I guess. I would consider the conclusion of them to be imagined and not real to be a logically justifiable one, even if it was not actually true overall.

This is based on quite simple logic. We have no proof/evidence of god, so we can't set physical limitations on such a being.

No, we don't have a stringent definition of God, that's the problem. The only definition we're really working with is that it's "outside of space and time" which effectively rules out interference within space and time, since you'd have to interact with temporal mechanisms from an atemporal standpoint. Presumably, being atemporal would simply make temporal goings on "invisible" to you, since you have no means of perception.

IIRC William Lane Craig does not argue that an atemporal God interferes, but that God became temporal when he made the universe, or something like that.

I think I already mentioned that the universe must be a closed system, or entropy would be fucked up by outside intereference.

I don't see why this has to be the case, there could be only a micron area of the universe interfered with by intersecting another universe, say. or a pin prick that exchanges only the smallest amount of information.

[The Third Man]

If we allow that "God" is beyond the universe, in such a way that he can't interact with the universe, then couldn't there be any arbitrary number of "Gods" skulking there? I'm wondering if we could perhaps force a paradox by considering the impossibility of enumerating something that has no dimensions.

Somewhat related, Zero132132, I notice in your OP, you ask "is God real" - as opposed to "does God exist" - under these (extra-universal) conditions. I think that can be answered as a "No". Pretty much like mathematics allows for a number that when squared gives a result of -2, but certainly doesn't consider it to be Real.

[Surlethe]

Yes, lets mentally masturbate over imposing logical laws on something supernatural. You guys don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Ladies and gentlemen, the pot calls the kettle black.

Oh, oh, I've got one too. Since god is all powerful then he must be able to limit his powers, but then he won't be all powerful. PARADOX <--- Just so brilliant. Jesus, you can super-impose paradoxes on any such concepts. It proves absolutely nothing, logically.

You are saying paradoxes don't prove anything logically. Do you not realize what a paradox is?

[Zero]

He's saying that paradoxes that are merely plays on semantics aren't really paradoxes, although in the case of an omnipotent god being unable to create a task he cannot do, I don't agree with him. I do agree, however, that we can't place limitations on a being that we have no knowledge of. Considering that we have not even one bit of evidence that such a God exists, it makes no sense to attempt to place physical limitations on it.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Yes, lets mentally masturbate over imposing logical laws on something supernatural.

As opposed to you masturbating furiously in front of your crucifix?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Yes, lets mentally masturbate over imposing logical laws on something supernatural. You guys don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Forgot this one from earlier. This is so obvious I'll let it stand as its own rebuttal and an indictment on the intelligence of its poster.

Arigo, remember to SMILE when you get your CT, Bitch-Tits!

[Surlethe]

He's saying that paradoxes that are merely plays on semantics aren't really paradoxes, although in the case of an omnipotent god being unable to create a task he cannot do, I don't agree with him.

If it looks like a paradox, walks like a paradox, talks like a paradox, then it is most likely a paradox.

I do agree, however, that we can't place limitations on a being that we have no knowledge of. Considering that we have not even one bit of evidence that such a God exists, it makes no sense to attempt to place physical limitations on it.

You're missing the point. The entire argument is about whether or not a God outside of spacetime is a contradiction. How do we determine if a contradiction exists? We apply logic. You can't even ask the damned question if you refuse to apply logic.

[wolveraptor]

This whole debate is ridiculous and pointless. We've all already established that there is no evidence for God. How are you supposed to debate the possible existance of God outside the Universe when we know that a) he can't interact with the Universe without seriously fucking up entropy, b) we haven't even defined what this God figure is and c) we are incapable of defining what "existing" outside the Universe would mean.

This is pure shit throwing. I realize that monkeys are cool, but seriously, try to act a few million years removed from them.

[Zero]

I am applying logic. You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown. Explain to me why this is wrong, and you might just have another point. Everything we know exists within spacetime, but there is no contradiction in the claim that one unknown may exist outside of the known, and in another unknown. It's not at all a logical claim to say that god exists outside of spacetime, as there's no evidence that anything's there at all, but it isn't a contradiction, in and of itself.

[felineki]

It's not at all a logical claim to say that god exists outside of spacetime, as there's no evidence that anything's there at all, but it isn't a contradiction, in and of itself.

It contradicts because, by any practical definition, everything that exists is within the universe. If something is "outside" the universe, then it doesn't exist.

[DPDarkPrimus]

You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown.

Chemists make you their bitch. They have correctly predicted many of the attributes of elements that used to be unknown- and they still do.

[wolveraptor]

I am applying logic. You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown. Explain to me why this is wrong, and you might just have another point. Everything we know exists within spacetime, but there is no contradiction in the claim that one unknown may exist outside of the known, and in another unknown. It's not at all a logical claim to say that god exists outside of spacetime, as there's no evidence that anything's there at all, but it isn't a contradiction, in and of itself.

An object cannot exist without interacting with any point in space-time, not the way we know it.

[wolveraptor]

I am applying logic. You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown. Explain to me why this is wrong, and you might just have another point. Everything we know exists within spacetime, but there is no contradiction in the claim that one unknown may exist outside of the known, and in another unknown. It's not at all a logical claim to say that god exists outside of spacetime, as there's no evidence that anything's there at all, but it isn't a contradiction, in and of itself.

An object cannot exist without interacting with any point in space-time, not the way we know it.

[Surlethe]

I am applying logic.

This has been approached logically. Logically, a God outside of spacetime cannot exist because everything exists within spacetime. However:

I do agree [with Arigo], however, that we can't place limitations on a being that we have no knowledge of. Considering that we have not even one bit of evidence that such a God exists, it makes no sense to attempt to place physical limitations on it.

Physical limitations like existing in reality. Riight. Someone just contradicted himself.

You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown. Explain to me why this is wrong, and you might just have another point.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You explain to me why the unknown doesn't have to be logically consistent with both itself and the known.

Everything we know exists within spacetime, but there is no contradiction in the claim that one unknown may exist outside of the known, and in another unknown.

This does not make sense. You're claiming there's no contradiction in something existing in nonexistence.

It's not at all a logical claim to say that god exists outside of spacetime, as there's no evidence that anything's there at all, but it isn't a contradiction, in and of itself.

That scraping is the sound of goalposts being moved. We weren't talking merely about internal consistency. The statement also has to be free of external contradictions -- i.e., it must not contradict reality -- in order to be free from contradictions.

[Zero]

Surlethe, a good portion of the points you make rely entirely on the belief that we're absolutely certain there's nothing outside of spacetime. While I certainly agree that it is very unlikely that there is anything outside, everything we know is inside. Since this argument is not about whether it's probable that god exists outside of spacetime, this doesn't matter. The argument is about whether it's a possibility. Since everything we know is in spacetime, we can't actually KNOW that there's nothing outside, so my earlier argument that claiming the existance of god outside of spacetime means that he absolutely doesn't exist is wrong. A better argument is my other argument that without time, nothing can be sentient, as sentience is largely the ability to reflect upon your own thought processes. If there is no time, there can be no reflections, and thus, no sentience. If god is outside of the universe, then he's not a conscious entity.

Find an example of goalpost shifting before you tell me what I'm doing.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, a good portion of the points you make rely entirely on the belief that we're absolutely certain there's nothing outside of spacetime. While I certainly agree that it is very unlikely that there is anything outside, everything we know is inside. Since this argument is not about whether it's probable that god exists outside of spacetime, this doesn't matter. The argument is about whether it's a possibility. Since everything we know is in spacetime, we can't actually KNOW that there's nothing outside, so my earlier argument that claiming the existance of god outside of spacetime means that he absolutely doesn't exist is wrong.

Everything you're saying relies on the complete abandonment of parsimony -- not to mention common sense. And you say you're approaching this logically?

If you go to the other thread I linked above, you'll find me making an argument along the same lines, and it getting demolished. I have no desire to regurgitate the rebuttal, so go read it for yourself.

A better argument is my other argument that without time, nothing can be sentient, as sentience is largely the ability to reflect upon your own thought processes. If there is no time, there can be no reflections, and thus, no sentience. If god is outside of the universe, then he's not a conscious entity.

Two points.
1) If God is a sentient being, then he can't be non-sentient, and thus can't exist outside of time.
2) Red Herring: It doesn't matter if God is sentient or non-sentient to determine if it is contradictory to say God can exist outside of time.

Find an example of goalpost shifting before you tell me what I'm doing.

I pointed it out above.

[Civil War Man]

A better argument is my other argument that without time, nothing can be sentient, as sentience is largely the ability to reflect upon your own thought processes. If there is no time, there can be no reflections, and thus, no sentience. If god is outside of the universe, then he's not a conscious entity.

So, under this logic, God is the mental equivalent of a pencil or a stapler. God as an inanimate object is not much more worthy of discussion than God as an invisible, unsubstanial leprechaun.

[Zero]

My argument that god couldn't exist outside of space and time was trying to make the first point you stated. All gods that have been described have been described as being with personalities, thoughts, ideas (unless you want to get into the claim that the universe itself is god), and since no such being can exist outside of time, god can't. I suppose I should have clarified, and said that that was actually my point to begin with. I was saying that the argument I used in the beginning of this thread was worse then the argument that sentience can't exist without time, and therefore god can't exist.

Second, the position I'm supporting requires no abandonment of parsimony, as it isn't being offered as a theory, or a potential reality, or any such thing. I'm just saying that the existance of god outside of space and time isn't a contradiction, as we have no knowledge of what's outside of space and time. I'm not saying it's likely, or any such thing, just that it's possible. Parsimony simply isn't relevant. It would be if I were trying to propose such a statement as a reality, but instead, I'm just trying to explain that it's actually possible that there exist things outside of space and time, and one of these could include god. I'm not trying to say that this is true at all. Just possible. I know that it's just as possible that there are invisible people in the room right now reading this shit I'm writing, and maybe laughing at me for my lack of insight into their existance, so the claim that god exists outside of space and time is still crap. I just also am acknowledging that there's no contradiction in the claim that god is outside of space and time. The only contradictions you've presented are assumptions.