You don't see how that phrase is contradictory?

God is timeless and exists constantly. He has no beginning, nor an end, nor a present. He is everywhere and anywhere possible.

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.

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.





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.

CaptainAwesome wrote:

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.

You're applying our universal laws to an omnipotent being. If God created the universe, he is not bound by the physical laws that exist within it. The author of a creation is not hampered by his creation.

I personally see omnipresence as a derivative of omnipotence, in that if an omnipotent being wanted to be in all places at once, he is capable of doing such.

CaptainAwesome wrote:

Are you suggesting omnipresence doesn't require an origin, yet you invariably run into origin issues when discussing god's creation?

No, what I mean is, whether you're talking about Gods origin or the universe's origin, you run into the same problem.

CaptainAwesome wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that omnipresence and eternal existence are mutually exclusive? Omnipresence has nothing to do with origin. If God is eternal, his omnipresence would merely mean that he is capable of being present in an infinite number of states.

Okay, i understand what you are suggesting now, and it makes sense. My argument was based around the application of universal laws to God. But without our laws, it is theoretically possible that God can exist without an origin.

JCpatriots wrote:

Umm, it was directed at the OP. I didn't care to read all the typical religious debate bullshit that always comes with these threads, because they appear every single week. But the whole "big bang theory making no logical sense" part had me perplexed as to how the insinuation that a big invisible man (how that is a "kindergarden" interpretation of God is beyond me, because that's what God is, correct? No one has ever seen God, right? He's invisible. People look up into the sky and pray to him. He must be pretty big, right?

You can look to pretty much any direction when you pray, actually most people look down. God is characterized as being "up" but most people would tell you he's more "with them." or pretty much anywhere, no specific direction.

He has a penis, right? He's a man.

xD!! I'm not sure about that. I've always seen it as things on our body are only here to we can do certain things. We only have penises and vaginae to reproduce, so I don't really think he'd have one :rofl:.

Big invisible man, and he's in the sky. I can't say I've ever heard any kindergardeners debating about God before.) making everything suddenly come to life makes any more logical sense than scientific explanations for how the universe was created.

Logic only applies to worldly things I think. Science is right, like it was said before it can make proof of anything in this universe, but logic can't comprehend things like what could've exactly caused the big bang (If i'm correct and God did this in an alternate timeless universe). I'm going to try to avoid being to biased-Christian here but God can't be understood with logic, I think there's an idea beyond purpose or reason in that alternate existence (I can't say that's the best way to put it, I don't know how to write it out but the idea is kind of clear).

I just kind of took what LuklaAdvocate said and threw it into my Christianizer machine, that's how I like to debate a lot of times instead of showing how people are wrong, I digest everything they say, and then compare it with how I see it when I deep think on it.

Christianity shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously by those who aren't already Christian if they can't admit their whole belief system is based on faith.

You know, no one ever addresses my points that the Big Bang and god have nothing to do with each other and you can have the Big Bang and God and can have the Big Bang without God and can even have God without the Big Bang.

DeaExMachina wrote:

You know, no one ever addresses my points that the Big Bang and god have nothing to do with each other and you can have the Big Bang and God and can have the Big Bang without God and can even have God without the Big Bang.

You're correct. God and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive.

The same can be said for everything in the bible...not just genesis.



For those of us that are not particle physicists, the "god particle" or Higgs field is believed to be a sort of anti-matter. Since everything that exists is matter and has mass the theory of anti-matter is more or less a yang to matters yin (in the most simplest terms of course). The idea is that the universe was in a state of symmetry (i.e. matter and anti-matter coexisted side by side) until the big bang disrupted that symmetry (causing matter and anti-matter to be separated) thus not "creating" (as we know the word) the universe but rather reorganizing the universe (or some would say expanding the universe).

You'll never know the answers, face the truth.

I guess that means we shouldn't try?