God's existence cannot be proven logically!

quote:

---

An omnipotent god could exist in time without being subservient to it.

---

How is anyone subservient to time?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Because they can't stop traveling through it, they can only go in one direction, and they can't change the pace. Maybe subservient isn't the best word to use, but that's what I understood it to mean.

So getting away from poetics, all it means is that we don't have control over the passage of time.Is there any evidence that God has control over the passage of time? Not speculation that if God is omnipotent or the highest power etc., but actual clues either from the Bible or elsewhere.Did he ever make it go slower or faster? Did he stop the passage of time from moving forward or did he cause it to go backward?I don't recall any passage that cover those issues.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Yup, at least that's what I thought. Didn't he make time stop in the Old Testament somewhere? Made the sun stop dead in its tracks, or something? I think there is even a thread on it here. Or maybe it was makeing the sky go dark for some time or somethin like that, I can't recall right now. Isn't that enough though? If we're assuming god is omnipotent then we can't say that he is unable to do something, by definition.

That last sentence is false. The truth of the premises is not open to interpretation. They must be true in fact in order to ensure that the conclusion is in fact true.Rather, what you described is the common state of affairs, in that several groups and individuals hold as true conclusions that are not true, because their conclusions are based on untrue premises which they believed to be true. Or, to put it more euphemistically, by proceeding from premises whose truth cannot be determined but which they believe to be true, they have reached conclusions whose truth cannot be determined but which they believe have been proven to be true. IOW, just because someone believes something to be true, don't make it so.In practice, most of the God-proofs that I've seen tend towards circular reasoning; ie, the premises assume the truth of religious doctrine which in turn depends on that which is to be proven, namely the existence of God with all the characteristics described within that doctrine. A classic example that I witnessed was while sitting in the base rec center one Sunday morning 30 years ago. Someone turned the TV to a televangelist's sermon. The televanglist offered a proof that their religion is true and superior to all others. Imagine that you are participating in a conference of members of all faiths and you are representing Christianity. Everyone has brought their own sacred writings upon which their religion is based. What would you say to prove that yours is the true faith? By pointing out that your sacred writing, the Bible, is the only one which is the literal Word of God Himself. Etc, etc, etc. I was astounded by the sheer idiocy of such a ridiculous "proof" and was about to burst out loud in laughter when I saw that the airman who had turned to that channel was nodding in full agreement, eating up that cr*p like it was manna from heaven. Seriously, I'm not making any of this up.Chiroptera's response is good and he's much more current with formal logic than I am. Back in my day, we used Venn diagrams to determine the validity of a syllogism. The truth tables to which he refers are constructed thus:
1. Create columns for every input and every output and label them accordingly.
2. In each row write a combination of inputs and then fill what the outputs would be for that particular combination of inputs. Create as many rows as is necessary in order to do this for all possible combinations of inputs.A 19th century British mathematician, George Boole, created a system of symbolic logic upon which an algebra, called Boolean algebra, was devised. It was used in the early 20th century to design relay networks which led to automated telephone switchboards and then to the design of digital computer circuitry. And in just about every datasheet for a middle-scale digital chip is a truth table listing all the outputs for all the possible inputs.

Huh? God is supposed to over Nature, not a part of it. God is supposed to be outside of the natural universe and above it, to have preceded it and to have created it. That means that God is supernatural.It seems to me quite obvious that God would be supernatural. Please explain your reasoning that God must be a natural entity. Those highly specific characteristics are given in religious doctrine and theology. They get very specific in telling us that God did this and God said that and God thinks and feels this and that way. And they will insist that it is the absolute and eternal truth about God.If you have a problem with those highly specific characteristics, then take it up with them. It's their claims, not mine. However, when they create one of their proofs of God's existence, then those highly specific characteristics are part and parcel of that package.Basically, employing "creation science's" "two-model approach", they establish some doubt about a scientific idea, so that proves their idea of God along with their particular theology.Now, here's how I understand the reasoning should go. First, they would need to establish that the supernatural even exists; we have no way of determining that. Then they would need to establish the existence of supernatural beings. Then they would have to establish that some of these supernatural beings could be considered to be gods. Then they would have to establish that at least one of these gods could be considered a "Supreme Being" (though these past three steps could be combined into one, if that is even possible). Having gotten that far, then they would have to prove that this "Supreme Being" is one and the same as YHWH, identified as "God" in their theology. Then they would have to demonstrate that this "Supreme Being" has all the highly specific characteristics that their theology attributes to their idea of "God".I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Didn't he make time stop in the Old Testament somewhere? Made the sun stop dead in its tracks, or something? I think there is even a thread on it here. Or maybe it was makeing the sky go dark for some time or somethin like that, I can't recall right now.

---

Since we know the sun doesn't move, he had to stop the earth. Stopping the earth doesn't stop the passage of time. It may screw with the way we tell time, but not the actual passage of time, right? The people still fought, people still died, the people and living thing on the planet still aged. The passage really just says he gave them enough daylight to get the job done. Extreme daylight saving. I don't see the passage of time as something to step in and out of.

quote:

---

Isn't that enough though? If we're assuming god is omnipotent then we can't say that he is unable to do something, by definition.

---

I guess, if that is all you want to do. But that is a tired old argument and doesn't go anywhere. What's the point in speculating over what we can imagine?Humans perceive God as the most powerful god in the OT and it has evolved to all powerful or unlimited power. But unlimited power over what? Has God actually shown that he has power over the passage of time?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well, if you want to get down to the gnat's ass... If he had stopped the Earth then everything on the planet would have died. Yeah, you're right. The is all I wanted to do. I was just commenting on the logic in the OP, as requested.I think my point still stands that if your talking about an omnipotent god then you can't put constraints on his abilities to form logical conclusions. I guess not. At least not explicitly.

The OT demonstrates that god, in fact, does not have control over time (and therefore must exist within time and be constrained by time.). After the great flood, god tells Noah that he (god) overreacted a tad in destroying 99.9999999% of all life and expresses extreme regret for having done so. I'll let someone else find the actual bible verse. If god had any influence on time, he could merely have backed up 300 days and taken a different tack. Even Superman was able to reverse time (using the simple and completely physical expedient of super-luminary travel) to bring Lois back to life and change history. On the other hand, if god did in fact reverse time to eliminate some segment of history that got him really, really pissed off, how would we know?

Well, you know, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that the Flood ever occurred.Hey, wait a minute....

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

According to the scriptures God exists within the universe. In Psalms it has him in the "heavens." In the NT the Lord's Prayer has it "Our Father who are in Heaven...." In the Revelation chapter 4 and chap 21 his abode is described with existing golden streets, pearly gates, living creatures angels et al.By definition the Universe includes all that exists and that including the Biblical god, Jehovah, Jehovah meaning the one who is/exists.Personally I go with the multitudes of significant fulfilled prophecies verified by history as well as personal remarkable answers to prayer and the witness of his Holy Spirit residing within my body as the NT teaches to verify his existence to my satisfaction. Receiving the Christ (Jesus) is to receive the multipresent spirit of Jesus and God into one's body, mind and soul.God, having eternally existed, has always had a universe around him to exist in so imo, time is eternal. This all is implied in scriptures which give lots of info about the nature and prperties of God, his son and his multipresent spirit, i.e trinity.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Buz if your statement is correct then Genesis 1:1 is false. (God could not create the heaven if it was His residing place.)Is this what you are saying?I do not believe God's existence can be proven logically!I do not believe God's existence can be proven to anyone that has not received Him by faith.I know that God exists because He has proved Himself to me over the last 58 years.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

The OT demonstrates that god, in fact, does not have control over time (and therefore must exist within time and be constrained by time.).

---

I agree that the OT doesn't describe God as being outside of time. Message 1
God can be omnipotent and still be constrained by the passage of time.Almighty and powerful when used in the OT carry the meaning of strength. God is the strongest. One can be strong without being outside of time.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I sincerely apologize for quoting Borat, but "What!?!".Gods, spirits, demons. Those are all so obviously supernatural. How could anyone possibly claim that they are natural physical beings? Because if they are natural, then they must be physical. They must be subject to natural law. And if they are natural, if they are physical, then they possess a physical location and they are detectable.Are you trying to claim that God is a physical being? OK, where is this God person? Everywhere? No, no, no. Not if he's a natural physical being. One of the properties of a natural physical being is a specific location. Com'on, where is he? Got any photos? No fakes, please. Got any physical evidence? Because a natural physical being would leave physical evidence. Where's your physical evidence?Come to think of it, ICANT did claim that God had given him his real estate and vehicular holdings. So God must indeed be a physical entity to have been able to have held the titles of that property and then to have signed them over to ICANT. Now why did ICANT refuse to produce those documents with God's signature. What's God's phone number? Naw, that would be useless. Not only is it unlisted, but he's notorious for not returning calls, worse even than Harold Slusher.And are you trying to claim that Heaven is a physical place? That it has an actual physical location? OK then, where is it? "In the heavens". OK, so where precisely physically is that? Precise coordinates, please. Not in orbit, because our astronauts have not seen it nor has NORAD tracked it. If it's physical, then it must be detectable and, if in orbit, trackable. Where is it? Got photos? No fakes, please.OK, so God and Heaven are to far removed for us to detect (remember, God cannot possibly be omnipresent if he's also physical; you can't have it both ways -- make up your mind). But this "Holy Spirit" of yours. Is it also a physical being? Fine show us photos. Too far removed? No, not in this case. You yourself said that it is "residing within [your] body". OK, where in your body? You have the MRI's, don't you? If it's physical, then it is detectable. If you want to convince the non-believers, then such physical evidence is exactly the thing you want. Where is that physical evidence? Oh, and if it's in your body, then it can't be in anybody else's body. A physical being or object can't be in two places at the same time, right?Are you sure you want to claim that God, Heaven, and the Holy Spirit are natural physical beings? If they were supernatural (which they clearly must be), then they are not bound by physical laws, they are not bound to a specific physical location, they leave no physical evidence, and they are not detectable.They are obviously supernatural and cannot be natural.Edited by dwise1, : Removed extraneous text fragment left from the original composition

LFFDAFN* (laughing for forty days and forty nights)____Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for literary perfection.