My head is still spinning from your logic in the first paragraph.
This is logically wrong on so many levels.
However, feel free to carry on with your mud pies...
11/19/2007 7:08:17 PM
I don't care for logic because the Universe isn't decided by human logic. Physical proof or GTFO.
11/19/2007 7:10:40 PM
Give it up, bozo. No one believes that you teach logic at the college level.
11/19/2007 7:14:00 PM
He cannot have a beginning, by sheer definition because the term "beginning"
So when he says "I am the beginning and the end", he's just messing with us.
11/19/2007 7:21:58 PM
"Every effect must have a cause and every creation has to have a creator, God is neither an effect, nor a creation, so does not have to have a cause or a creator. That's how it is explained in Logic at least."
That's what's known as a special pleading fallacy, in logic at least. Aside from that, quantum mechanics (in my meager understanding) allows for acausal creation of various particles which shows your fallacy wrong both logically and physically.
"The other reason this is so is that only something that actually has a beginning has to have something "cause" it, or "start" it."
As I said, as far as I understand it, quantum mechanics says otherwise.
"Since God is outside of time, He cannot have a beginning, by sheer definition because the term "beginning" is a slave to time. There is no "before" God, because He exists outside of time."
You fail to realize that being "outside of time" means that no action can take place as there's no time to perform it in. Congratulations, you've just nullified your deity into absolute unimportance.
"Since there is no "before" God, He is self-existent, hence "I AM."
The whole "I AM" bit is moronic to begin with as it doesn't answer anything and, when used as an answer to the question posed, doesn't even make any sense.
11/19/2007 7:27:49 PM
Yes, because we all know that you can easily know everything there is to know about something you can't prove exists.
11/19/2007 7:32:02 PM
Not particularly fundie-- I actually enjoyed thinking about this. I'm an atheist, but it's nice to know they're actually THINKING.
Even if the logic is faulty, it's still interesting.
11/19/2007 7:42:22 PM
The phrase "outside of time" is meaningless.
11/19/2007 7:42:40 PM
Every effect must have a cause and every creation has to have a creator, God is neither an effect, nor a creation, so does not have to have a cause or a creator. That's how it is explained in Logic at least.
you claim to teach logic and yet you have made a error that anyone with even a basic understanding of logic would point out as invalid.
"A implies B" IS NOT THE SAME THING AS "A is equivalent to B"
for those who have not taken logic: If A then B does not allow one to conclude, If not A then not B. As A is not a necessary condition for B (B can still happen regardless of A).
way to lie there!
11/19/2007 7:48:21 PM
So you're saying, God defies logic? Thank you, I've been saying that all along.
11/19/2007 7:52:56 PM
11/19/2007 8:23:39 PM
"Every effect must have a cause," except, of course, for one tiny exception. Way to go, Kliska.
Oh, and the "outside of time" shtick? These are words, but they have no meaning. Whatever it is trying to suggest is not part of human experience and cannot be tested. Say, you don't happen to be a Jesuit, do you?
11/19/2007 8:40:08 PM
Isn't that just basically saying "God is the exception that proves the rule"?
Which is a stupid saying in any case.
11/19/2007 8:44:08 PM
So he's not real? Thanks!
11/19/2007 8:50:41 PM
Snopester in Exile
11/19/2007 9:10:06 PM
Snopester in Exile
11/19/2007 9:10:58 PM
If it isn't an effect then it doesn't exist.
11/19/2007 9:18:50 PM
So... god is neither an effect, nor a creation, nor then by your reasoning can he either be a cause or a creator. So according to your "logic"... god is nothing. Wow. I actually agree with you there.
11/19/2007 9:27:04 PM
Yup, the ever-popular (and it really is one of the most popular ones) Proof of God by Definition of Terms!
11/19/2007 11:07:23 PM
First, because I say so isn't logic.
Second, if he exists outside of space and time, how can he effect...well...anything?
11/19/2007 11:49:30 PM
This makes me feel dizzy.
11/20/2007 1:26:51 AM
the logic here has all the topographical characteristics of a bowl of spaghetti. FSM anyone?
11/20/2007 2:29:33 AM
Well, the writer has some points here: Only creation needs the presence of a creator. And 'beginning' in the traditional sense only works if there's time to - haha - begin with, too.
It's easy to see that occam's razor strikes at its worst. You don't need god to create the universe if you don't need super-god to create god.
Having said all that it's time to state that I indeed believe in god, quite firmly as I might add. I just don't think god works as those dipshits think he works.
11/20/2007 3:10:08 AM
Well, OK. The universe is neither an effect, nor a creation, so does not have to have a cause or a creator. That's how it is explained in Logic at least.
11/20/2007 6:38:07 AM
I say again, I have never understood this "I AM" bit.
11/20/2007 6:39:31 AM