Dr.Carter wrote:
Nothing wrong with that. As much as I love D&D, sometimes I feel like the forum focuses entirely too much on the first "D", and not enough on the second, if you catch my drift.
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
How is that contradictory?
You don't see how that phrase is contradictory?
To be existing in a constant state, would time not need to be present? It is a kind of paradoxical statement, and contradicts itself when adhering to scientific law.God is timeless and exists constantly. He has no beginning, nor an end, nor a present. He is everywhere and anywhere possible.
But, after further analysis i realise what the phrase is suggesting.
He has no beginning, has no present, and has never ended, which could imply either; 1. he doesn't "exist" and never has "existed" (adhering to scientific/logical definition)
or
2. he "exists" in a dimension in that time/duration is somewhat non-existant, OR is at a different state which allows multiple times to occur at one time. (Sorry if that makes no sense)
Option 2 supports him being "Timeless" and existing above time itself, and having no beginning, present or end also imposes that he exists beyond our understanding of time.
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
Why does omnipresence require an origin?
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
You invariably run into origin issues when discussing the universe, whether you have a God associated with the universe or not.
Are you suggesting omnipresence doesn't require an origin, yet you invariably run into origin issues when discussing god's creation?
Omnipresence implies a presence of a being itself, so where did this being (in this case god) come from? I believe in order for omnipresence (or God) to be existant, an origin of sorts must of occured.
Low raise, to the height that of God to men.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]