Ryan Mullins, Timelessness and God: Pt. 3

[Lon]

Your 'argument' was that God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it (which neither of us know for a fact whether He can or can't.

Its an illogical question. Some questions contradict themselves, thus are not real questions, but a stated confusion on the part of the one asking. I haven't read a lot on this, but have not found to date, anybody that tackles the poor concept of the question. A good many webpages are dedicated to trying to answer the question, but it isn't a logical, answerable question. It contradicts itself and that is the actual answer.

The question is wrong. If someone doesn't notice or analyze what is being asked, the one answering will have difficulty, but the problem is not in anybody's answer, but the question itself. Think of it this way: Can God make something that isn't made? Answer: Unintelligible question. It contradicts itself for an answer. The answer to the rock that cannot be lifted is exactly the same answer: It contradicts itself and has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do, but what a mind is incapable of asking cogently. It isn't cogent or logical to ask if God can do something "He cannot do." God cannot lie. It is no mark on omnipotence. The lie isn't a reality, but false, fake, non-truth, non-entity.

For me, the best tack is always to deconstruct the question for the one questioning and help him/her improve their analytical skills. A skeptic generally repeats this question, it is rarely owned by another asking the question, just passed along without critically thinking about the problem and lack of logic in the question. If worth two cents -Lon

 

[Aimiel]

So, you're saying that you don't know, either. :thumb:

 

[Aimiel]

Beside the fact that God didn't state the date of creation in the first line of The Holy Scriptures but rather said, "In the beginning..." which (to me) means that there was no creation (including inherent time) before He began it; there's also the fact that God, Himself, sits upon the 'circle of the earth.'

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

To me: this is saying that time is a closed circle, which had a beginning and will have an end. God is above that circle. Had He meant the planet, He would have said: "Sphere," and not, "Circle."

One day He shall roll up the heavens as if they were a scroll:

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Then, in the end: time is ended.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Sorry, there's just too much in Scripture to ignore the references to time and space coming to an end to cause me to believe otherwise, regardless of how God speaks down to men to make them understand.

 

[Clete]

Its an illogical question. Some questions contradict themselves, thus are not real questions, but a stated confusion on the part of the one asking. I haven't read a lot on this, but have not found to date, anybody that tackles the poor concept of the question. A good many webpages are dedicated to trying to answer the question, but it isn't a logical, answerable question. It contradicts itself and that is the actual answer.

The question is wrong. If someone doesn't notice or analyze what is being asked, the one answering will have difficulty, but the problem is not in anybody's answer, but the question itself. Think of it this way: Can God make something that isn't made? Answer: Unintelligible question. It contradicts itself for an answer. The answer to the rock that cannot be lifted is exactly the same answer: It contradicts itself and has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do, but what a mind is incapable of asking cogently. It isn't cogent or logical to ask if God can do something "He cannot do." God cannot lie. It is no mark on omnipotence. The lie isn't a reality, but false, fake, non-truth, non-entity.

For me, the best tack is always to deconstruct the question for the one questioning and help him/her improve their analytical skills. A skeptic generally repeats this question, it is rarely owned by another asking the question, just passed along without critically thinking about the problem and lack of logic in the question. If worth two cents -Lon

The question is intentionally and specifically asking whether God can do the self-contradictory! That's what the question is asking without using the words "self" and "contradictory". You have to have a brain in your head to understand that though. :doh::duh:

Amiel is worse! Unlike you, he totally understands the point of the question and can't bring himself to accept that God can't both do AND not do something. Thus, for him, it isn't a matter of raw stupidity. Indeed, if it were he'd have an excuse! But no, it's that he has consciously decided to turn off his capacity to think, to evade reality and thus accept any lunatic notion that he takes a fancy too on "faith". It makes no difference if the bible contradicts him because any such passage can be taken as a figure of speech that means the opposite of what it states so that we poor humans can understand it (however that's supposed to work). And, it makes no difference if anything else contradicts him either because God's ways are higher than ours and thus any "apparent contradiction" is just a figment of our lowly human frailty. He's got every base covered. He is free to believe anything at all and nothing can touch any of it. If he decided to believe that God was a One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater, there's not a word anyone could say to convince him otherwise.

 

[Clete]

Beside the fact that God didn't state the date of creation in the first line of The Holy Scriptures but rather said, "In the beginning..." which (to me) means that there was no creation (including inherent time) before He began it; there's also the fact that God, Himself, sits upon the 'circle of the earth.'

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

To me: this is saying that time is a closed circle, which had a beginning and will have an end. God is above that circle. Had He meant the planet, He would have said: "Sphere," and not, "Circle."

One day He shall roll up the heavens as if they were a scroll:

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Then, in the end: time is ended.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Sorry, there's just too much in Scripture to ignore the references to time and space coming to an end to cause me to believe otherwise, regardless of how God speaks down to men to make them understand.

There isn't one single syllable in the bible about time coming to an end.

On the contrary!

Here's just one passage that you didn't even know existed...

Revelation 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations

That's a scene that takes place in New Jerusalem on the New Earh after all the judgements are over and nothing and nobody is left but God and the righteous who love Him.

 

[Aimiel]

There isn't one single syllable in the bible about time coming to an end.

​

Okay. You can think that, if you want.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:​

On the contrary!

Here's just one passage that you didn't even know existed...

Revelation 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations

That's a scene that takes place in New Jerusalem on the New Earh after all the judgements are over and nothing and nobody is left but God and the righteous who love Him.

How that makes, "Time no longer," disappear from your Bible I'll never know.

 

[Clete]

Still leaving out the line breaks in your posts, I see. Thanks!

Okay. You can think that, if you want.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

That is not in the bible your moronic dolt!

That's from a piece of chamber music call "Quatuor pour la fin du temps" or in English "Quartet for the End of Time" by a French composer named Olivier Messiaen who wrote it while a prisoner of Germany in World War II.

The bible does not have one single solitary syllable about time ending - NOT ONE SINGLE SYLLABLE.

How that makes, "Time no longer," disappear from your Bible I'll never know.

That's because your a lunatic who refuses to use the mind God gave him.

How is the Tree of Life going to produce one of twelve fruits each month if there is no time? A month is a span of time, Amiel. If it's November (or whatever the 11th month of the year will be called then - perhaps they'll be named according to that month's fruit) and you want a fresh picked fruit that is produced by the Tree of Life in July then you'll have to wait the span of eight months to get it.

What is that if not time?

Wait, wait! Let me guess!

Its a figure of speech! It's a rather wordy figure of speech that could mean anything at all other than what it seems to say.

 

[Aimiel]

That is not in the bible your moronic dolt!

It is in the King James and if you tear that line out, I guess you edit your Bible as you please. I'll stick with what's written, thanks.​

How is the Tree of Life going to produce one of twelve fruits each month if there is no time? A month is a span of time, Amiel. If it's November (or whatever the 11th month of the year will be called then - perhaps they'll be named according to that month's fruit) and you want a fresh picked fruit that is produced by the Tree of Life in July then you'll have to wait the span of eight months to get it.

What is that if not time?

Wait, wait! Let me guess!

Its a figure of speech! It's a rather wordy figure of speech that could mean anything at all other than what it seems to say.

At the time described: time will not yet have expired. Your guesses are what's in error, not The Holy Scripture which I quoted. You can ignore what I've quoted from the Bible, that's up to you.

 

[Clete]

Just what is it that you find so difficult to get right about posting on this website? It isn't rocket science! :dunce:

It is in the King James and if you tear that line out, I guess you edit your Bible as you please. I'll stick with what's written, thanks./QUOTE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

It would have been helpful had you simply cited the passage's location and which version of the bible you were using.

At the time described: time will not yet have expired.

So, you believe the New Heaven and New Earth to be transitory? Chapter and verse please. (It doesn't exist.)

Also, your own argument based on this ripped out of context and mistranslated bible verse contradicts this stupidity!

Your guesses are what's in error, not The Holy Scripture which I quoted. You can ignore what I've quoted from the Bible, that's up to you.

I didn't ignore it. I looked it up and discovered the words you quoted were from a piece of music written in the 1930s.

I use a bible that uses modern English so that such confusion isn't caused by the reading of a 400 year old version of the English language which no one speaks.

The New King James, which is translated from the same source material, renders Revelation 10:5 - 6 as follows...

Revelation 10:5 The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven 6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,

Not only is that much easier to read, it happens to be a MUCH more accurate translation and would have been even 400 years ago. The idea being that time was up and judgment was now here.
Or is it your contention that time is going to end before the Tribulation?
Do you believe that time will end before the New Heavens and New Earth are made or didn't you just posit that time will not yet have ended when everyone in the New Jerusalem is allow to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal (Gen. 3:22)?


As I said, the bible does not say one single syllable about the end of time - period. If it did, it would falsify the entire Judeo-Christian religion.

 

[Aimiel]

I'll stick with the King James version, since every other translation I've ever looked at I find way too many problems with. You can use whatever version you like, but don't expect that you'll ever be perfect in your doctrine, since there's no one (on earth) who has such.

 

[Lon]

So, you're saying that you don't know, either. :thumb:

I yet say the onus needs to be upon the logical ability of the one asking. :think: For me, 'question doesn't work, isn't really a question,' is the answer.

"I don't know" would allow the one asking to think they asked something intelligent and that "I" was the one deficient with an answer. :nono:

-Lon :cheers:

 

[Clete]

I'll stick with the King James version, since every other translation I've ever looked at I find way too many problems with.

How do you do that without reason?

You don't do that without reason!

What sort of problems can you cite that have any bearing on your out of context proof text? - NONE! You won't even attempt it.

Why do you never respond to actual arguments against what you believe?

I'll ask again, is it your intention to suggest that time will end in Revelation chapter 10 before, the tribulation even starts and, if so, how would that comport with the previous claim that time would still have not ended when everyone is given the right to eat from the Tree of Life in New Jerusalem in Revelation 22?

Answer the question, Amiel! Or are you as big a coward as you are a lunatic?

You can use whatever version you like, but don't expect that you'll ever be perfect in your doctrine, since there's no one (on earth) who has such.

I've never claimed to be perfect in any respect, including my doctrine. You claim to have stood in the presence of God Himself and base your doctrine on that experience. How could you then not believe that your doctrine is perfect?

Further, I should not expect perfection by what standard? Yours? How would you know whether my doctrine was perfect or not? Perfect compared to what? Reality? Which reality? This reality or some other "spiritual reality" where reason doesn't work? If the later, how do you know my doctrine isn't perfect? By what means did you evaluate my doctrine and determine that is imperfect and to what degree?

Is there any end to your mindless contradictions?

Perhaps I'm the only one you've come across that is able to keep track of the various lies you've told and who wasn't afraid to call them lies and to show how you've told so many lies that you can't keep track of when you're contradicting what you said the day before last.

 

[Clete]

I yet say the onus needs to be upon the logical ability of the one asking. :think: For me, 'question doesn't work, isn't really a question,' is the answer.

No, Lon!

The phrase "to me" is just a way of saying that you aren't talking about objective truths but spouting your worthless personal opinion. No one cares about your personal opinions concerning things having to do with rational thought and epistemology and the nature of reality. No one who has a brain in his head, anyway.

"I don't know" would allow the one asking to think they asked something intelligent and that "I" was the one deficient with an answer. :nono:

-Lon :cheers:

The question isn't invalid because you happen to show up to say so. As I said before the question is entirely valid precisely for the reason that you want to flip into a reason to call it invalid.

The question, without using the word picture of lifting heavy rocks is simply this...

Can God contradict Himself? or Can God do contradictory things? or Can God both perform and not perform a particular action?

You could ask the same question by asking something like...

Is it possible that God did not create the universe that He created?

That, according to you, is a fallacious question but you're wrong. In fact, you don't actually believe that it is a fallacious question. If you did, you'd make the argument and show how it is fallacious or at least attempt it. Instead, you simply make the claim and think that because you use the phrase "to me" that no opposition to your claim is valid as though your personal opinion seals it as God's own truth.

The real truth is that you're evading the question. You're afraid to answer it because you know that an affirmative answer is irrational stupidity and a negative answer undermines your doctrine that requires the revocation of rational thought to remain intact.

I just love it when childishly simple questions send pompous, ivory towered, Calvinistic, know-it-alls into intellectual convulsions that twist them all into goofy knots like this! :chuckle:

 

[Aimiel]

How do you do that without reason?

You've misconstrued an earlier argument of mine. I was saying (about reason) that you cannot create doctrine or understand God's Ways or Thoughts by taking what He has said, out-of-context; just like you did with my 'reason' argument, here.

​

I've never claimed to be perfect in any respect, including my doctrine. You claim to have stood in the presence of God Himself and base your doctrine on that experience. How could you then not believe that your doctrine is perfect?

​

Because, as I said: I didn't bring 1/10th of one percent of what I saw or stood in back into this corruptible (temporal) body. It wouldn't fit.

​

Further, I should not expect perfection by what standard? Yours? How would you know whether my doctrine was perfect or not?

​

Simple: you're not in a glorified body. You're on earth, in a fallen body, redeemed, no doubt, but imperfect, nonetheless. We'll come to a point where we are unified in doctrine, purpose and do great exploits; Jesus even said that we'd do greater miracles than He did. We'll bring the spirit of Death to his knees before we jump off this planet, but today isn't that day. We will, one day, walk in the Truths that Jesus spoke over us and when we do: the Body of Christ will be a great and terrible thing to behold.

​

Perhaps I'm the only one you've come across that is able to keep track of the various lies you've told and who wasn't afraid to call them lies and to show how you've told so many lies that you can't keep track of when you're contradicting what you said the day before last.

Liar.

 

[Clete]

You've misconstrued an earlier argument of mine. I was saying (about reason) that you cannot create doctrine or understand God's Ways or Thoughts by taking what He has said, out-of-context; just like you did with my 'reason' argument, here.​

You mean the way you take Revelation 10:5-6 out of context and think that it means time is going to end when it clearly isn't saying that, even in your own precious King James version?

Because, as I said: I didn't bring 1/10th of one percent of what I saw or stood in back into this corruptible (temporal) body. It wouldn't fit.

:rotfl:You're such a lying hypocritical lunatic! :rotfl:

How can anyone be so stupid that they cannot see the self-contradictory nature of this IDIOTIC LUNACY!!!

If this stupidity were true, Amiel, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IT?

You couldn't!

Simple: you're not in a glorified body. You're on earth, in a fallen body, redeemed, no doubt, but imperfect, nonetheless. We'll come to a point where we are unified in doctrine, purpose and do great exploits; Jesus even said that we'd do greater miracles than He did. We'll bring the spirit of Death to his knees before we jump off this planet, but today isn't that day. We will, one day, walk in the Truths that Jesus spoke over us and when we do: the Body of Christ will be a great and terrible thing to behold.

You missed the entire point of the question you slobber mouthed, moaning moron.

Liar.

It was no lie. The entire thread is all still here for everyone to read, Amiel. Every crack pot, unsupported claim you've made, every denial that logic works followed by every stupid "argument" you've attempted to formulate using the very logic you had just undermined and every sound argument that you've intentionally ignored is all still here for the entire world to read.

Besides! You'd better be careful with the insults! Lon might decide he doesn't like you anymore!

Clete​

 

[Aimiel]

Your obvious lack of content causes me to realize that you must believe what I've said is true, but yet you rail against it with nothing but insults. You can ignore Truth, that's on you. I'll stick with the revelations I have. You stick with ignorance: it seems to work for you.

 

[Clete]

Your obvious lack of content causes me to realize that you must believe what I've said is true, but yet you rail against it with nothing but insults. You can ignore Truth, that's on you. I'll stick with the revelations I have. You stick with ignorance: it seems to work for you.

:rotfl:

 

[Aimiel]

You can come to know The Living God, instead of relying on what little sense you've been able to make of His Word without Him; but it would take seeking and searching for Him with all of your heart. That's harder than most are willing to commit to.

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

He promised. He doesn't lie. All it takes is spelled out, clearly. Trust me: if you do, you won't be sorry.

 

[Clete]

You can come to know The Living God, instead of relying on what little sense you've been able to make of His Word without Him; but it would take seeking and searching for Him with all of your heart. That's harder than most are willing to commit to.

Without reason anyone can believe anything they want, Amiel. That's just the entire point.

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

He promised. He doesn't lie. All it takes is spelled out, clearly. Trust me: if you do, you won't be sorry.

How could anyone know whether God had lied or not without the use of reason. The word truth has no meaning outside of sound reason. Truth and reason are very nearly synonyms!

To be true means simply to be consistent. If you're in construction and you lay tile floors for a living then you know that you want your tiles to laid both straight and true. If your tiles are true it just means that they are laid consistently with something else, usually a wall or chalk line. If you are reproducing something, your reproduction is said to be true if it is consistent with the original. Any claim that someone makes, whether religious in nature or otherwise, whether spiritual in nature or otherwise, it is true to the extent that the claim is consistent with itself and with the rest of reality.

There cannot be a contradictory truth, by definition. Therefore, your doctrine is false. I don't care who told it to you. If you claim you got your idiotically contradictory doctrine from God then you're the one making God out to be a liar, not me.
`

John 1:1 In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​