Shameless plug

[Helm]

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>

You think what would god think and why would god think thusly. You are in a position to do so, why? *groan*

Moron.

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.

No you see not believing in something until a clear succint believable attempt towards proving it has been made is not a bias; it's common sense. To call me a biased 'antitheist' (hahahahahahah) is to call a man that doesn't believe in the existance of quadridimensional space clowns biased. The burden of proof is on you theists. And you ARE biased, because apparently you've sat down and said "A god MUST exist! Now, let's try to prove it!" and as the aristotle which you've understood since you were eight would have told you, that's a flawed foundation in a epistemoligical attempt. Dork.

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?

Seeing how your far-less wordy replies in this thread are fairing, I indeed think I'll pass.

I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics.

Switch ignorance with lack of respect towards and don't be so suprised. If THAT'S where you're coming from, I don't think we have much more to discuss.

God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity.

Wee! There we go with ultimate terms! Omnipotence! Omniescence! Did you know that every such ultimate term contributes towards a logical fallacy? Remember the old sophist argument of the rock that god can't lift? I find it very amusing that you're using final axiomatic terms AND claim to do thusly in an epistemoligic context while keeping a straight face.

But to go with what you're saying if you're willing to accept that there's such a thing as eternity, then the universe could just as well be eternal. Your naive demand of a god is superfluous. And biased. And very funny for a man with such a high IQ.

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

There, there.