Search results

The thing is that if someone asks you a "yes/no" question and you try to explain to them why the premise of the question is illogical, by giving an expansive answer, and all they take from that is to re-ask the same question and insist you answer it, well then what point is there in giving the...

If you want to be precise about it, I haven't gotten to the point of claiming that god doesn't exist because I still don't have a definition of god to consider for possible existence that I can make any sense of. Square circle, does that exist? The question is malformed, because "square circle"...

What we're saying is god doesn't add anything useful. And since I've stated that the definition of god (immaterial for one) doesn't make any more sense to me than a square circle, I don't feel the burden to take it any further than that. Says who? Why couldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Yeah, allegedly. Occam's razor for one. Adding god solves nothing, it deepens the problem. See god is by definition impossible to understand, so if my goal is understanding why on earth would I want such a thing? And secondly, the descriptions of the universe, however counterintuitive...

Again, you can't use the word "started", it's time dependent :D Of course I am, I'm having problems with a lot of things. Like an infinite universe, like time having a beginning, like matter being located in a singularity. But how are any of these problems resolved by inventing something...

Causality without time is a self contradiction, so that is easy to dismiss. As for the second, your conclusion is essentially incorrect: "everything came out of nothing". You are using a verb "came", which implies something happened over time. Which it could not have, for lack of time. :)...

This can only be trolling.

Do you know how lighting a match works? The tip of the match is phosphorus, which ignites under small amounts of friction. Friction is the application of force over time. So yes, you need time to create friction, to trigger combustion, which lights the match.

Define "action/activity" without the use of time.

Deists believe in a god that created the universe and then did nothing. Theists believe in a personal god. Since you are lending credence to the first, you should probably talk about deism not theism.

The only way to hope to make any sense of the universe is to treat it like a special case. The universe is not "like everything else", it is precisely: everything. You cannot first state that "the universe defines time" and then say "what time was it before the universe". The same goes for...

In that case you should probably call those with a "rational" entitlement to god as deists. Instead of saying "theists are not wrong" or something like that.

:lol:

What I was arguing in the other thread was that applying causality to the beginning of the universe is invalid. In other words, it's not god that is acausal and created the universe. It's the universe that is acausal. Why? Because there is no possible cause for it. See, causality only makes...