[Sethomas]

Sethomas wrote:
Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?


Moron.

Is that really all you have to say? Assuming you really did have a point, are you saying that if there were a god, he would want his existence to be an undisputed fact? Giving him sentience, I don't think he'd want that at all. <obligatory>dumbass.</obligatory>

In other words, you mean to say that you're a biased and pretentious dork with no actual solid concept on what you're discussing, right?

How the fuck does the term "dork" have any weight on an internet message board, exactly? We're both fish in the same goddamn school. I'm not biased in having a concept of an existing god any more than you're biased for being antitheist. Unless you greeks somehow have a transcending omniscience of the ethereal, you're just a very black pot calling the other kitchenwares names.

"Look forward to my next article which you will not be able to read". Right.

I never said you were incapable, you ever-presumptuous twat. The article to which I was refering is not nearly close to completion and currently is at over 4,500 words. Then I'm probably going to rewrite the whole thing in a deist perspective. Still interested?

If you say god did not set the universe in motion in a specific point in time, then you're logically saying that god did not set the universe in motion. How this is beyond you I fail to understand.

I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics. God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity. Creation did not take place in time, as Creation was the inception of time itself. This is not stuff that I'm making up, such an idea has been around since Boethius.

You are right in thinking that it's akward to conceive of action in the absence of time, and this is the subject I'm dealing with now in my writings on coeternalism.