I am only using the word exist because there isn't a word for things that *are*, outside of the universe.

Quote from Fusion

I am only using the word exist because there isn't a word for things that *are*, outside of the universe.

There has to be something for a god to exist in. Are you talking about a second universe, or a dimension, like something similar to time that's not yet known to us?

This video pretty much sums up what I feel about this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHNPF6WvbM&feature=plcp

Quote from Preserve

This video pretty much sums up what I feel about this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHNPF6WvbM&feature=plcp

First of all, all arguments are supposed to prove the point that you're making, thus "win" the argument. Otherwise they're not arguing against anything, and aren't arguments at all.

Secondly, there's already a good answer posted in the comment section.

Quote from AtheistExplains

I disagree.
Theists have been moving the goal posts of their gods further back into the territory of vague abstractness in order to keep hope alive that their god does exist. The latest argument that you address applies to their claim that god is now 'nonmaterial, nonspacial and nontemporal'. In effect, they've just said that god doesn't exist, he doesn't exist anywhere, and he never existed. Taken seriously or not, this claim is never justified or explained, just boldly asserted.

I already talked about how vague and loosely defined the concept of a god is. (thus it is impossible to disprove) Define it better, or it's just absurd and nonsensical bollocks.

Quote from Halseyy

I always liked learning about deism in school. Unmoved mover. Quite profound. And the scientific revolution is probably one of the most interesting time periods to learn about.

(an unmoved mover meaning a god who cannot intervene with the functioning of the natural world)


Ps. Nice Nietzsche quote in your sig leo :)

Deism simply means that the god in question doesn't and hasn't done anything besides creating the universe. The reason whether or not it's because he can't or because he doesn't care is irrelevant.

Ty, btw. lol

Quote from Leokill

First of all, all arguments are supposed to prove the point that you're making, thus "win" the argument. Otherwise they're not arguing against anything, and aren't arguments at all.

I prefer arguments not to be about "fights" to see who can come out on top, but more of considering new ideas and learning from other people

Quote from Preserve

I prefer arguments not to be about "fights" to see who can come out on top, but more of considering new ideas and learning from other people

You're ignoring the point I made, and are now trying to make me look like a villain.

Nice.

To have a debate, we need at least 2 people who have different opinions on the same thing. Now, person Y believes his point of view is the correct one. So does person X. They both must have a reason to believe their position is the correct one, and to debate is to present the reasons why you think you're right in the matter as well as you can. If your reasons are less sufficient, or flat out wrong, then you should accept that and consider the opposition's view point. That doesn't mean you weren't originally trying to win, nor does the fact that you were trying to win make you malicious in any way.

Definition of a debate: To have a debate is to have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

I really shouldn't have to explain something like this.

Quote from Leokill

You're ignoring the point I made,

Yes, if someone is vague in their definitions, then they should explain it better. But if it's simply a limitation of language, as stated in the video, then it doesn't prove anything and not an argument.

and are now trying to make me look like a villain.

Hardly

Quote from Preserve

Yes, if someone is vague in their definitions, then they should explain it better. But if it's simply a limitation of language, as stated in the video, then it doesn't prove anything and not an argument.

It's not simply a "limitation in language". It is illogical to say that something that isn't composed of anything, doesn't exist anywhere and hasn't existed at any point, can somehow affect our natural world.

Quote from Leokill

There has to be something for a god to exist in. Are you talking about a second universe, or a dimension, like something similar to time that's not yet known to us?

Yes.

Quote from Fusion

Yes.

Which one? And why would he be able to affect what goes on in this reality from there?

1. I don't know.

2. Because he's omnipotent.

So he has always existed, and so has that universe/dimension..?

I don't believe that he exists, but I think someone who does believe God exists would say that he has always existed.

Quote from Fusion

I don't believe that he exists, but I think someone who does believe God exists would say that he has always existed.

Then I'd ask them why can't we just skip one step and say that the universe has always existed.

Anyway, that's one more theistic/deistic theory to add on the list. It's not bad, if you can accept there existing universes/dimensions that we don't know of, without evidence.