Recent content by Tetsugaku

Okay, so you believe in causation from outside of time into it, without the cause having to precede its effect. I don't.

You said the one comes before the other. Okay. What is the difference?

You can't have an act of creating time preceding that which it creates though. So you're back to square one, needing to explain how you can have causation without the cause preceding its effect. As you've just agreed with me on all points, I'm left with no example of causation where the cause...

The gunfire precedes anything it causes. The runners can't be caused to start running until after the gun has fired and the sound has had time to reach the ears of the runners. If you want to define the race time as beginning simultaneously with the gun firing then that is fine, but it won't be...

My point doesn't even concern God. It's about the contradiction involved in saying two timelines are unrelated while also saying they are related by having one occur before the other. What kind of sequence? Temporal sequence (before and after) would be time.

It directly addresses that. I'm saying you have related them by placing them in relations of 'before' and 'after'. What do you mean by eternal? Infinite time, or no time at all? Thoughts clearly occur in temporal sequence just like anything else.

Sure, but we've been discussing whether or not causes must precede their effects in time, with you saying God (the cause) causes time (the effect) without preceding it. Your analogy instead gives a case where the cause (gun firer) does precede the effect (the race) in time. So what part of this...

Sorry, that's still contradictory. If one bit of time occurs before another bit of time, then that makes both part of the same timeline. You cannot say they are unrelated while also relating them by the terms 'before' and 'after'. Sure, thoughts occur within time. If there can be some kind of...

Torin's post answers exactly what you asked, which was a question about what atheists think. It was not a question about what we could or could not do in the face of God's judgement. Atheists are far less entitled than you are, as you complain about the answers we give while refusing to provide...

A gun firer is temporally related to what comes after. He is not outside of time altogether, and is merely in more time that precedes race time. That is different from what you say about God, who you say is entirely outside of time. You don't believe in God causing time from outside of time? I...

You didn't answer the question. Remember: "...in order to actually have genuinely interesting discussion.... questions must be answered." Do you think you are entitled to answers from those whose questions you ignore?

How so? How are you defining a time-frame? The gun firer isn't outside of time, and is temporally related to everything that comes after. Okay, so you believe in causation from outside of time into it, without the cause having to precede its effect. I don't.

Yes it is. Yes it is. That's not what you asked. No more than you. I think everyone is entitled to fair and reasonable treatment, whether that be by a God or anyone else. As I suspected, this whole thread is just a ruse to preach some more and find an excuse for calling atheists entitled.

If you die and are faced with Allah or Vishnu about to punish you eternally for sincerely believing in the wrong God, do you think that would be a fair and just consequence, or would you feel entitled to more reasonable treatment?

A question that has now been answered. My answer would be exactly the same as Torin's. And yet that is how your question is phrased. It asks us what we think now of what might happen in the future. Sounds very much like you're not really trying to learn about what we think, but are rather...