The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

God is temporal (that is to say God exists in time)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,887 times Debate No: 13814
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

Many God believers , claim that God exists "outside/beyond" time only, I will be arguing that God exists in time

My opening argument is as follows

1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time

Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover

* Please note, I am looking for a debate on Gods relation to time, not a debate on whether God exists or not, there fore premise 1 is assumed to be true by both sides

If you don't want to assume premise 1 as true, but still want to debate Gods relation to time I am open to suggestions
vardas0antras

Con

Here is my refutation:
1.God created time, meaning that he existed before time.
2.Ergo God is eternal.

My definition of temporal can be found here:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
And my focus is this:
"enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory ( opposed to eternal)."

Yes this is short but I'm curious as to how my opponent will respond.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate........

Con says

Here is my refutation:
1.God created time, meaning that he existed before time.
2.Ergo God is eternal

I refute your first premise

"1.God created time, meaning that he existed before time."

my refutation to this is

1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")
2) There was no time before God created time
3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false

or to put it another way

1) There is no time before time exists (This should be a self evident and can't be argued with)
2) Where there is no time, there is no "before/present/future"
3) Nothing can exist before time exists
4) Therefore the claim that God exists "before" time is false

My argument still is.....

1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time

Con has not proved my argument to be false, I await any further arguments he might have
vardas0antras

Con

"1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")"

My opponent has completely forgotten who God is. You applied the idea of time which was created by God and limited him to his creation. Let me make this clear- God is not limited by his own rules and creation ergo God can and I believe that he does exist before time.

"3) Nothing can exist before time exists"
The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time.

In conclusion my argument is the same
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

My opponent has an interesting objection, he does not argued with the logic of my argument, he merely objects that the logic can't be applied to God in this situation because

Con Says -

"Let me make this clear- God is not limited by his own rules and creation ergo God can and I believe that he does exist before time."

"3) Nothing can exist before time exists"
The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time."

My opponent has mis understood my argument, I don't argue that God is limited to creation, but my argument rests on logical necessity

And yes even God works within the confines of logic, if you object to this, ill give two examples why you can't argue with this

1) God is both Good and evil
2) God exists and doesn't exist

I'm assuming my opponent would highly object to these statements, but on what grounds would he object ? he would say that are contradictions and thus are false

But what if my counter argument was something like "God is not limited by his own rules and creation"

Would he accept that argument ? I doubt it

Con says

3) Nothing can exist before time exists"
The creator of time can exist before time. Therefore God existed before time.

This is just as much of a contradiction as

1) God exists and doesn't exist
or
2) X exists and doesn't exist

My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected.

Maybe it would help my opponent if I explained a bit more about what we mean by "before"

By before we are talking about the temporal relations between 2 different things (eg time)

Maybe my opponent thinks by me arguing that God does not exist "before" the universe this equates to God does not exist at all, if this is your understanding then you have mis understood the argument. My argument is based on a temporal relations to God and the universe/time.

For instance if I claim that God is timeless absent the universe and temporal with the universe this is still consistent with my statements of

1) God exists
2) God does not exist "before" the universe

My arguments still is

1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")
2) There was no time before God created time
3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false

and

1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time
vardas0antras

Con

"I'm assuming my opponent would highly object to these statements, but on what grounds would he object ? he would say that are contradictions and thus are false"

My Response Would Be:
It seems that you don't know that logic is nature of God just like love hence God is omnipotent but since his nature is logical and loving he can't be an evil idiot. He can do anything that is within his nature.

"But what if my counter argument was something like 'God is not limited by his own rules and creation' "
My Response Would Be:
I would say that logic is not Gods creation but Gods nature hence you fail.

"My opponent is arguing that 'time exists before time exists' this is completely contradictory and must be rejected."
No I'm arguing that time is Gods creation hence you fail.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

Con says "No I'm arguing that time is Gods creation hence you fail."

Con says "Let me make this clear- God is not limited by his own rules and creation ergo God can and I believe that he does exist before time."

Con says "It seems that you don't know that logic is nature of God just like love hence God is omnipotent but since his nature is logical and loving he can't be an evil idiot. He can do anything that is within his nature."

I had said previously

"And yes even God works within the confines of logic, if you object to this, ill give two examples why you can't argue with this"

I would say to con

1) God has a rational nature
2) There fore God can't do the irrational
3) Therefore God works within the confines of logic

I thank con for re-enforcing my statement about Gods working within the confines of logic

Now remember my entire argument rests upon the rationality of God and the refutation of the irrationality of God existing "before" time began.

1) For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")
2) There was no time before God created time
3) Therefore God existing "before" time is false

And

1) There is no time before time exists (This should be a self evident and can't be argued with)
2) Where there is no time, there is no "before/present/future"
3) Nothing can exist before time exists
4) Therefore the claim that God exists "before" time is false

Con has not be able to refute the contradiction of his claims about God existing "before" time

I would remind Con that I have being very specific about God not existing "before" time in a time context

Therefore my argument still is

1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time
vardas0antras

Con

I feel like I'm talking to a dead man but hey at least you're trying. Anyway what is it that you can't comprehend?
Ill try my best to be clear and easily understandable, if I fail now I don't know what I will have to do in the 5th round:

1. God is logical
Therefore God cannot contradict himself

2. Logic is part of Gods nature
Therefore God is logical

Conclusion:
God is logical because God is by his own nature logical, in other words that is his character.

2. Time is not Gods character
Therefore God is not limited by time however he is limited by logic.

Q.Wouldn't that make him not omnipotent ?
A.Depends on your definition of omnipotent. One definition says that omnipotence is the ability to do anything within your own nature which is the one I am using. The other says that God can make 2+2=770.

3. God created time
Therefore God is outside of time
Q.Wouldn't that be a contradiction:"My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected.".
A.That is ignorance at its plainest. My opponent is saying that one can't be outside of time... I think its becoming more and more evident why I think that my words are falling on deaf ears.

Q.But look I have logic on my side:"For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")".
A.That is mere ignorance on your part. Like I was saying you are simply ignoring the idea that God is outside of time.

You: I still don't get it.
Me: No problem lets compare logic to time:
Time: Gods creation
Logic: Gods character

You: Thats my point God is logical hence he can't be outside of time!!!
Me: You're forgetting that time is a mere creation of his. It is logical to assume that the creator is outside of his creation.
You:But look at my logic!!!!!!!
Me: Like I was saying you're simply ignoring the fact that God is outside of time. I can see how your logic can apply to humans.Nevertheless you can't compare God to his creatures and you can't say that because humans can't be outside of time, God also can't be outside of time. Why should the creator follow the rules he set up for his creatures?
You: I am not convinced!!!!!
Me: Like I said "I feel like I'm talking to a dead man".

Thank you for reading and I'd like you to know that if I seem to be offensive at some points, its the result of mere frankness. I don't intend to insult you but besides ignorance there was no better word I could have used furthermore I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says:

"Q.Wouldn't that be a contradiction:"My opponent is arguing that "time exists before time exists" this is completely contradictory and must be rejected.".
A.That is ignorance at its plainest. My opponent is saying that one can't be outside of time... I think its becoming more and more evident why I think that my words are falling on deaf ears."

"Q.But look I have logic on my side:"For anything to exist "before" something else can only happen in time (that is to say if X exists before Y, then X exists in a time frame before "y")".
A.That is mere ignorance on your part. Like I was saying you are simply ignoring the idea that God is outside of time"

"You: That's my point God is logical hence he can't be outside of time!!!
Me: You're forgetting that time is a mere creation of his. It is logical to assume that the creator is outside of his creation"

My opponent has lied on what my position is, previously I had said

"For instance if I claim that God is timeless absent the universe and temporal with the universe this is still consistent with my statements of

1) God exists
2) God does not exist "before" the universe"

The rest of my opponents arguments are personal attacks like "I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man." I do not need to respond to them, since they are off topic.

My opponent still maintains the position of "God exists "before" the universe. I have show in previous rounds why this is clearly false.

Rather than than go over the arguments again, I will make the point, that absent the universe, God is in a changeless state, where there is no change there is no "time". The beginning of time marks a boundary, the first "moment" , but before this "first" moment, there were no prior moments, hence no "time"

To say that God existed "before" the first moment of time, is to say, that God had temporal relations (since my opponent claims God exists "before" the universe", but what did God have temporal relations with absent the universe ? nothing.

God existing "before" time, was shown clearly false in my logical proofs, and as clear a contradiction as God existing and not existing, my opponent was not able to refute these proofs.

My opponent making false claims, time and time again about some how my argument was limiting God to creation couldn't hide the fact, that his position is clearly logically false.

Maybe my opponent is still having trouble understanding that the argument has two situations, God absent the universe, and Gods' co existence with the universe.

At the start of this debate my argument was

1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time

My opponent has not refuted any of my premises, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Vote Pro.
vardas0antras

Con

I knew that this is going to happen, anyway here are my arguments:

"My opponent making false claims, time and time again about some how my argument was limiting God to creation couldn't hide the fact, that his position is clearly logically false."
I let this one go by

"The rest of my opponents arguments are personal attacks like "I do feel like I'm talking to a dead man." I do not need to respond to them, since they are off topic."
I suppose there is no point in arguing with you over the trivial though you are wrong.

"My opponent still maintains the position of "God exists "before" the universe. I have show in previous rounds why this is clearly false."
Oh yes you did but there's one problem: You ignored the fact that God created time.

"God existing "before" time, was shown clearly false in my logical proofs, and as clear a contradiction as God existing and not existing, my opponent was not able to refute these proofs."
If I recall correctly I did this in the 4th round.

'1) God exists
2) God exists in the present
3) The present exists in time
4) Therefore God is temporal/in time'
*Sigh* here is my version:
1)God exists
2)God created time
3)Therefore my opponents argument are of no merit

Its either this:
"3) Nothing can exist before time exists"
Or this:
Creator can exist even if his creation does not yet exist.
(Note:I know that " does not yet exist" implies time but how else am I supposed to describe a divine being?)

I noticed from that you quote the word "before" I am not sure what you mean by this but I think we all can agree that all this does is glorify God, I mean you can't honestly be doing what I think you're doing. If so then I must ask do you believe that when the bible says that God is jealous, do you think its the same jealousy we experience?

You guessed it:

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
????? I can't control what people do, did you consider alot of debate I have been in my opponent gets a vote bomb too ?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I haven't seen IC in a single debate where he didn't get at least one vote bomb.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Your intellectual honesty is refreshing chrysippus, unlike some people but I think you mixed up your comments, you said pro when you meant con, and con when you meant pro (I hope this is what you meant.)

Then there are the other voters, what kind of person just votes with the position they are agree with regardless of the merit of the arguments ?
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Very poorly argued, Pro.

Although I believe God exists outside of time, I am forced to vote con. Clearly, in conduct, grammar, and logical coherance, con won this debate.

A side note: con is right, it is illogical to speak of something being before time. Because he was (so very, very easily) able to change this debate from "outside" to "before," there is no question who won this.

The analogy I would use here would be a short thread floating in an ocean; time being finite and surrounded on all sides by eternity.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
absolutely pathetic. I would've loved to take this debate though, I have a fantastic argument. But whatever. All I know is that con definitely won.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Why would you even do this?
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
And yes even God works within the confines of logic, if you object to this, ill give two examples why you can't argue with this

1) God is both Good and evil
2) God exists and doesn't exist

I'm assuming my opponent would highly object to these statements, but on what grounds would he object ? he would say that are contradictions and thus are false
But what if my counter argument was something like "God is not limited by his own rules and creation" Would he accept that argument ? I doubt it.

Ogan: Do you know God? Some say that God is the Supreme Deity - the Supreme Good - who sent forth the seeds and let them develop themselves in the soil – which is Time or Motion of material substance. So a flower exists in seed form prior to being planted and replicates its secret archetype using the material as a temporary form. The spiritual seeds exist, the material exists, but the forms are temporary in the circulations of good and evil or Time. All is in flux here, while the Spiritual Entity or Seed lives NOW. This actual NOW is not the little now - the razor between what I am about to say and what I have just said. It is the Observer who watches imagination and listens to thought, both of which are unable to know the Observer. Intellect is a marvellous tool and so are the senses, but the Observer remains a Mystery to both of them. We must become Conscious, and like the flower, open our petals to the Supreme Sun of our Delight.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"If God is transcendent and omnipresent, then god in and of himself is a contradiction."
No
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
If God is transcendent and omnipresent, then god in and of himself is a contradiction.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Seeing that you raised an objection to premise 1, i should probably make some rules,
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Sojourner 6 years ago
Sojourner
Illegalcombatantvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04