You can't make an argument from false inferences! If I2 is an erroneous inference, you ought to revise it, not use it.
The inference is a direct consequence of the definitions.
Causality isn't an objective reality. It doesn't exist the way a comet or a planet does. You don't "need" causality to create something - creating something, even for the first time, only makes it possible to think of it as "causal".
I think you have no idea what causality is, which is funny because it's defined in the proof. It's the law of cause and effect. No event is without cause. If there can be an event without cause, then I would suggest to you that the universe could have come into existence without cause, thus undermining the claim that God created it.
It's even more foolish to presume something exists that is inconsistent.
We shall see with what standard of inconsistency.
Uh, lemme think... logic maybe?
As time does not exist at this said point in eternity, your argument is invalidated.
Hehe, don't jump to conclusions.
God can't need something, especially when it doesn't even exist at the alledged time of His needing it.
So, time doesn't exist when God creates the Universe? That means he existed in a timeless eternal state. Correct? A direct consequence of this claim is that God cannot have created the Universe because he would exist forever in this "timeless" state willing the Universe to exist, but it can never be created because no time passes for him.
As God, by definition, is eternal,
Do not add extraneous attributes to the definition please, as they are all contested. The only uncontested defintion is that which I've given in the proof, which is simply the creator of the Universe. BTW, if God can be eternal, I sumbit that the Universe is eternal, undermining your argument for the existence of God.
He is from one end of eternity to the other.
Eternity has no end by definition.
Therefore He cannot, by logic, need anything.
LOL, non-sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow.
I suggest looking up "omnipotent" in the dictionary.
I am familiar with the term omnipotent. I suggest you read this:
-
Proof omnipotence doesn't exist.
Omnipotence is an paradoxical concept.
Demonstrate how that is entailed in the definition. If God needs nothing by definition, then I'd argue that is further evidence of his nonexistence.
Please show me how, as I am now interested.
You didn't answer my query.
Do you forget that without the very creation you question, by your own demonstrations, the actual demonstrations you are using would not exist?
I disagree, and I believe it can be proven otherwise.
Therefore a logical fallacy arises.
You're misusing the term logical fallacy. You are pointing to an inconsistency, not a logical fallacy. The inconsistency does not prove your case though, it only shows that we disagree.
You cannot use something to disprove something it proves.
That presumes that it is proven. You
can use it to disprove it if it merely attempts to prove it by showing that it's inconsistent.
Saying casuality is part of the universe, first of all is a very ignorant thing.
Causality is part of the Universe as defined in the proof since the Universe is defined as all existence.
Causality is the human mode of perception.
LOL, try understanding what you're talking about before making such claims.
To apply a finite mode of perception to the infinite is actually quite daft,
It's quite daft to think that infinity exists in reality. Infinity is a human concept that is both inconsistent with many uses of it, and not without limit as many (mainly religious people) imply. Any numerically limitless process is still limited by time.
Since when was time supposed to be a result of God having "caused" it to exist?
Since it was claimed God exists "outside" time, and created it, and since time exists and the Universe was defined to be all of existence. Actually, I should clarify that. All of existence aside from God himself. Unless he created himself... LOL.
There would be no time without the celestial bodies, any astronomer can tell you that so what argument do you have?
No sane astronomer would tell you that so where does your "argument" come from? Perhaps you are not making the distinction between time and the measurement thereof?
Time is a mode/standpoint of perception of Past, present, future.
Time is change(s) of state. The perception of it is irrelevant to it's definition.
Are you offended by my examination of your points?
Why would I be? Because you called me daft? Nah. A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended. No offence.
"According to Hawking, the universe did not begin "in" time, rather time itself came into being with the universe.
...
Russell points out that Hawking’s idea is very similar to the idea proposed over 1500 years ago by the great early Christian theologian, Saint Augustine. Augustine too declared that the universe was not created in time, but rather with time."
- God and Time.
Not a valid argument. I'd debate Hawking just like anyone else on things we disagree about.
That is an argument from a religion point of view. Who says the religions are right?
I'm an atheist BTW.
It's not an argument from an atheist or religious point of view. I simply listed the most clear and consise definitions I could, made valid logical inferences from them, and drew logical conclusions that demonstrated contradictions in the definitions. Also, if it was an argument from a religious point of view, then the contradictions would show that religion's point of view to be wrong.
Time is an artificial dimension. Time is used to understand RATE of Motion.
Time is described as an "artificial" dimension in physics but that does not make it so. It's just the way the math works. Time, as simply described in the proof is change(s) of state. This is the only thing we can truly agree upon about time. Just like the definition of God. Many would add their own attributes to God, but those attributes could not be agreed upon. That time is change of state and that God is the creator of the universe are the only definitions I think that everyone can agree upon. Anything else is extraneous.
