I’m not really comparing it with ignoring traffic lights. It’s more that the perceived importance of a question may be specific to a person’s perception of their circumstances.
Let me offer a different example: many people, unless they are nervous flyers, pay little attention to the pre-flight safety briefing on a passenger aeroplane. If that same briefing was given as the plane was making a steady engineless descent from 30,000 feet people would be paying it much more careful attention.
People who consider this life might end with an encounter with God consider the question of who God is, and what God is like to be much more important than those who consider it simply ends in blank oblivion.
Sorry. I don't wish to believe in the Christian God or in any god.
Let me put it this way: an ornithologist studies birds; he does not wish to be a bird.
Christians don't want to be God, so I have no idea what the hell you're getting at here.
Much like gravity, God will exist whether or not you believe in it.
I have no wish to believe in anything but find superstition, folklore, new-age beliefs, and the beliefs of extinct and extant religions fascinating and inspiring. My approach to belief is that of comparative mythology/comparative religion.
I'm no so sure about your last point. The existence or non-existence of God might be like the Observer Effect. I prefer to believe there is no God.
That's almost explicable, in an ethnographic sort of way, but Colin really needs to understand we're not a different species (let alone genus or class).
See my comments above. Studying belief, not studying believers!
How is that different from a Christian view point? I can still be stuck by the wonder of the universe. I believe it was created by God, you don’t yes and I believe it reflects the wonder of its creator but we still experience the same feeling. It is a human thing
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
That's almost explicable, in an ethnographic sort of way, but Colin really needs to understand we're not a different species (let alone genus or class).
See my comments above. Studying belief, not studying believers!
Now you've said it out loud, do you realise just how stupid that sounds? Belief doesn't exist in the abstract. It exists, and only exists, in believers.
Well, you've missed the crucial part of the exchange, which is in the middle.
If "why" is of no interest to you, than faith and philosophy are likely to hold little interest also. Why is to me of far more importance than how. All of the questions of meaning are "why" questions, rather than "how." Hence my reference to Kierkegaard upthread.
But comparing ignoring why questions to ignoring traffic lights is itself quite inane. I do agree that interrupting a religious discussion and asking for evidence for a particular assertion is also inane. I know that quetzalcoatl moistens the earth every morning with his tears, that's good enough for me. Evidence is by the way.
I thought Colin meant he was studying Christians but didn't want to become one. Though still an odd analogy.
Nope. interested in belief in its many forms from superstition, folklore, through new-age, to established religion.
Though your later comments suggest that in essence my interpretation of your analogy was correct, whether it be Christians or believers of any kind. Your 'ornithologists studying birds' analogy was not, as was being suggested, implying that Christians study God and want to become God, but rather that you are studying believers (and in this context Christians) but don't want to become them. The analogy was about you studying believers, rather than believers studying their God. That needed clarification.
Sure. And all of my responses. But Rook's last two posts I think might be the ones to focus on. Plus, BroJames has just pointed out some more of Susan's inanity. This thread is lousy with it.
Well, again, I don't get that. Susan seemed to be saying that "why" is redundant, which I tend to agree with on a large scale. BroJames compares this with ignoring traffic lights. Eh? That doesn't make sense.
I also believe that asking "why" is redundant. Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me. Humans have a deep-seated need to ask "why" and undoubtedly that question helped them survive and evolve, but not everything has a "why" answer.
God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Well, that depends on one’s understanding of God. I would say God as understood in Christianity desires (not demands) relationship. God, or gods, as understood on other religious traditions, maybe not so much.
I’m not really comparing it with ignoring traffic lights. It’s more that the perceived importance of a question may be specific to a person’s perception of their circumstances.
Let me offer a different example: many people, unless they are nervous flyers, pay little attention to the pre-flight safety briefing on a passenger aeroplane. If that same briefing was given as the plane was making a steady engineless descent from 30,000 feet people would be paying it much more careful attention.
People who consider this life might end with an encounter with God consider the question of who God is, and what God is like to be much more important than those who consider it simply ends in blank oblivion.
OK, it seems circular to me. If you are interested in God, you will tend to be interested in God type questions.
I do think some atheists break into theist type discussions in an inappropriate way. We don't make our assumptions explicit in every conversation, it would be very tedious. It is OK to say that God loves me, without giving evidence.
That's almost explicable, in an ethnographic sort of way, but Colin really needs to understand we're not a different species (let alone genus or class).
See my comments above. Studying belief, not studying believers!
Now you've said it out loud, do you realise just how stupid that sounds? Belief doesn't exist in the abstract. It exists, and only exists, in believers.
I'm studying plumage, not birds.
Are you familiar with comparative religion and comparative mythology?
My interests in belief go from lucky horseshoes, through Ancient Egyptian concepts of the soul, via spirit animal guides, through runic divination, to Tarot cards, and all manner of things, including Christian, Islamic, Greek, Roman, Norse, Polynesian, and Amer-Indian beliefs.
I'm here because I think a group of Christians might offer me a bit of insight into Christian belief. As part of my research I recently asked a question regarding the "other gods" mentioned in the Bible and got some interesting information.
Well, you've missed the crucial part of the exchange, which is in the middle.
If "why" is of no interest to you, than faith and philosophy are likely to hold little interest also. Why is to me of far more importance than how. All of the questions of meaning are "why" questions, rather than "how." Hence my reference to Kierkegaard upthread.
Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me.
That's because it's not a criticism. It's an observation not a criticism.
Just as it's not a criticism of the discipline of history that it doesn't explain supernovas.
If some historian were to come along and say that because history doesn't explain supernovas, therefore there is no explanation of supernovas, it would be a criticism of that historian.
The view that there is no answer to why questions is a perfectly valid philosophical view. But it's not a scientific view.
tbh, I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. So far as I'm concerned, everyone here professing that God has an objective exists is misrepresenting God because God is a personification of something going on in the human mind, but I don't feel the need to run around telling them so. If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?
I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Mentioning that on a discussion site, especially on this Hell board, is apt to be fraught, though. This board can be a brutal place. Not that you shouldn't. Just be aware.
But you might be better off staying off the Hell board. Many Shipmates never set foot here, and stick to the gentler boards: Heaven, Circus, All Saints. Purgatory can be difficult, too, but somewhat differently than Hell. Posters may ask you to defend your ideas, consider theirs, etc. They're not allowed to insult you, but they can insult and shred your ideas.
I'm not sure why some people are reacting (IMHO) so defensively to the idea of someone exploring ideas/beliefs beyond their own. You'd think no one had ever heard of comparative religion/mythology--and that everyone on the Ship was expected to be locked into one true set of ideas.
I'm not sure why some people are reacting (IMHO) so defensively to the idea of someone exploring ideas/beliefs beyond their own. You'd think no one had ever heard of comparative religion/mythology--and that everyone on the Ship was expected to be locked into one true set of ideas.
We have all heard of comparative religion studies. Just that the people doing the comparing are normal trained professionals who work to a code of ethics regarding their subjects and have oversight by committee.
Rank amateurs blundering in and upsetting the natives are going to get short shrift, whatever religion is under consideration. Questions might be tolerated, if they're asked from a position of genuine enquiry, but I've listened to enough episodes of Thinking Aloud to know that it's futile to separate the practice from the practitioner.
I've tried to explain this to SusanDoris a number of times, but I think we all agree she is too dumb to understand a simple thing like this. I still have hopes for Colin Smith, but maybe I'm being naive. Time will tell.
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it.
This is patently false. When you (say) throw a ball, the universe has responded to you. The ball, a part of the universe, flies through the air. The air, part of the universe, is parted as the ball passes through. If the ball falls on grass, the grass, which is part of the universe, bends. All because you threw a ball.
Did you read Rook's post? And my responses to Susan Doris' inanity? What is vague?
Well, RooK has written about 7 posts here, so do you mean all of them?
I can’t add any more to this really. My friend worked in cancer research at DNA level. He then saw the need for GPs and retrained. He now does a bit of both I believe. The rest would pretty much be my answer.
How is that different from a Christian view point? I can still be stuck by the wonder of the universe. I believe it was created by God, you don’t yes and I believe it reflects the wonder of its creator but we still experience the same feeling. It is a human thing
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
New Atheists like Colin Smith are as interesting as drying paint. You realise that to the denizens you are not much more than a new chew toy, don't you Colin? SusanDoris never seems too have grasped that.
What I really want to know is - was Betts' account really hacked?
I'm not a new atheist.
Okay then.
And yet, he asserts stupid basic errors like:
I do dislike it when believers in a God grab things that are in the realm of science.
It takes a special kind of un-scientific n00b-atheist to set up "science" as a competitive religious-like entity. Science is a tool for refining knowledge, that's all. Science can inform us a great deal about space, time, and gender. But it has exactly nothing to tell us about hypothetical pre-time causation.
@Colin Smith , I suggest you forego your defense of what you think of science, and leave it to the people who know stuff. Stay in your narrow, shallow lane.
Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me.
Who has done so?
One has to ask "Why something" and set a context for your enquiry, or you are exposing ignorance of scientific method. Experiments using basic Cartesian methodology can answer a lot of "Why"s, if you frame your question in a way that science can handle it.
<snip>There is no pre-time. Rationality tells us that.
I disagree. Rationality allows us to conceive of something existing outside of time. Whether pre-time is the best label for it is a different question. I also wonder what it is that tells us rationality is right.
It might, but that's not the object-verb-subject agreement of your earlier statement.
I think I see the misunderstanding. I am not studying Christians in order to understand belief. Apart from anything else that would be an odd thing to do because the group of Christians here are not necessarily typical of all Christians.
What I mean is that this group of Christians will be a lot more informed than I am about aspects of Christian belief. So far I have asked about the Easter vigil in churches and now I have asked about the other gods mentioned in the Bible. Both times I have received informed and useful answers that I have incorporated into things I am writing. I hope to ask further questions in the future.
Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me.
That's because it's not a criticism. It's an observation not a criticism.
Just as it's not a criticism of the discipline of history that it doesn't explain supernovas.
If some historian were to come along and say that because history doesn't explain supernovas, therefore there is no explanation of supernovas, it would be a criticism of that historian.
The view that there is no answer to why questions is a perfectly valid philosophical view. But it's not a scientific view.
Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me.
Who has done so?
This was the comment I was referring to. I read this as a criticism because it implies that there are limits to what science can understand about the formation of the universe. I don't agree that there are limits.
It takes a special kind of un-scientific n00b-atheist to set up "science" as a competitive religious-like entity. Science is a tool for refining knowledge, that's all. Science can inform us a great deal about space, time, and gender. But it has exactly nothing to tell us about hypothetical pre-time causation.
tbh, I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. So far as I'm concerned, everyone here professing that God has an objective exists is misrepresenting God because God is a personification of something going on in the human mind, but I don't feel the need to run around telling them so. If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?
I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Mentioning that on a discussion site, especially on this Hell board, is apt to be fraught, though. This board can be a brutal place. Not that you shouldn't. Just be aware.
But you might be better off staying off the Hell board. Many Shipmates never set foot here, and stick to the gentler boards: Heaven, Circus, All Saints. Purgatory can be difficult, too, but somewhat differently than Hell. Posters may ask you to defend your ideas, consider theirs, etc. They're not allowed to insult you, but they can insult and shred your ideas.
I'm not sure why some people are reacting (IMHO) so defensively to the idea of someone exploring ideas/beliefs beyond their own. You'd think no one had ever heard of comparative religion/mythology--and that everyone on the Ship was expected to be locked into one true set of ideas.
Point taken. I hadn't even noticed this was on the hell board.
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Demand back.
Sorry. I am really not interested in believing in any God or gods. If I ever need to believe in something I think I would follow Shinto.
<snip>There is no pre-time. Rationality tells us that.
I disagree. Rationality allows us to conceive of something existing outside of time. Whether pre-time is the best label for it is a different question.
Yeah, "pre-time" is a terrible name, and a contradiction in terms. Absent the existence of time, concepts like "before" or "after" are meaningless, hence the "pre-" prefix is misleading. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "something existing outside of time"? To what extent can we say something "exists" if it has no duration? Usually when we say something exists for zero length of time that's the equivalent of saying it doesn't exist.
If there's no pre-time, then do you think {the universe | Creation | all that is} always existed?
And is reality necessarily rational and/or structured to be grasped by reason, and reason alone?
Answers on a post card.
Our one of infinite from eternity universe is 13.8 ga old. One can pretend that it had no beginning due to the fuzziness of time in the quantum perturbation of the field that seeded it. But that's just specious. There has been eternal infinity of creation to now. There has always been time; tock following tick following tock.
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Demand back.
Sorry. I am really not interested in believing in any God or gods. If I ever need to believe in something I think I would follow Shinto.
Aye, it does take an effort to have a rational conversation with a figment of ones imagination. Sooty helps.
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Demand back.
Sorry. I am really not interested in believing in any God or gods. If I ever need to believe in something I think I would follow Shinto.
Aye, it does take an effort to have a rational conversation with a figment of ones imagination. Sooty helps.
Funnily enough, I have endless conversations where figments of my imagination talk to each other.
I'm interested in lots of things. I don't treat those people who do those things seriously as a bunch of misguided and deluded idiots.
At least, I don't if I want answers to my questions.
Err. Where on earth have I done that?
Throughout this thread. If you're struggling for examples, I suggest you go back and read your comments regarding your distaste for any 'grab' by believers onto what you think is the realm of science, the idea of a personal relationship with God as 'anathema', and that you've even managed to piss off other atheists.
You can think these things. You can even say them, but you're not making friends when you do. And again, I absolutely maintain that while you might write 'about' Christianity, your approach will never allow you to write a Christian (or anyone of faith) convincingly.
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Demand back.
Sorry. I am really not interested in believing in any God or gods. If I ever need to believe in something I think I would follow Shinto.
Aye, it does take an effort to have a rational conversation with a figment of ones imagination. Sooty helps.
Indeed. All you have to do is get in to character. Acting, writing. I don't see why you should have a problem making up Christians.
I'm interested in lots of things. I don't treat those people who do those things seriously as a bunch of misguided and deluded idiots.
At least, I don't if I want answers to my questions.
Err. Where on earth have I done that?
Throughout this thread. If you're struggling for examples, I suggest you go back and read your comments regarding your distaste for any 'grab' by believers onto what you think is the realm of science, the idea of a personal relationship with God as 'anathema', and that you've even managed to piss off other atheists.
You can think these things. You can even say them, but you're not making friends when you do. And again, I absolutely maintain that while you might write 'about' Christianity, your approach will never allow you to write a Christian (or anyone of faith) convincingly.
I don't believe Christians and other people of faith are another species so I'm reasonably happy that I can depict someone who is a church-going Christian. Nor do I regard Christians as as a bunch of misguided and deluded idiots. I do think that when religion strays from the personal into describing how the universe was created it is in error.
The idea of a personal relationship with God is anathema to me, but I accept others see things differently.
Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me.
Who has done so?
One has to ask "Why something" and set a context for your enquiry, or you are exposing ignorance of scientific method. Experiments using basic Cartesian methodology can answer a lot of "Why"s, if you frame your question in a way that science can handle it.
This was the comment I was referring to. I read this as a criticism because it implies that there are limits to what science can understand about the formation of the universe. I don't agree that there are limits.
It takes a special kind of un-scientific n00b-atheist to set up "science" as a competitive religious-like entity. Science is a tool for refining knowledge, that's all. Science can inform us a great deal about space, time, and gender. But it has exactly nothing to tell us about hypothetical pre-time causation.
"Science can't do X" is a criticism of science only if you think "For all X, science can (or should be able to) do X." RooK doesn't think that. So you are clearly misreading him.
This was the comment I was referring to. I read this as a criticism because it implies that there are limits to what science can understand about the formation of the universe. I don't agree that there are limits.
It takes a special kind of un-scientific n00b-atheist to set up "science" as a competitive religious-like entity. Science is a tool for refining knowledge, that's all. Science can inform us a great deal about space, time, and gender. But it has exactly nothing to tell us about hypothetical pre-time causation.
"Science can't do X" is a criticism of science only if you think "For all X, science can (or should be able to) do X." RooK doesn't think that. So you are clearly misreading him.
I do believe, to use your phrase, "For all X, science can (or should be able to) do X." Rook thinks I am elevating science into something it isn't. I think he is imposing an unnecessary limit on science.
Comments
Nope. interested in belief in its many forms from superstition, folklore, through new-age, to established religion.
Let me offer a different example: many people, unless they are nervous flyers, pay little attention to the pre-flight safety briefing on a passenger aeroplane. If that same briefing was given as the plane was making a steady engineless descent from 30,000 feet people would be paying it much more careful attention.
People who consider this life might end with an encounter with God consider the question of who God is, and what God is like to be much more important than those who consider it simply ends in blank oblivion.
I have no wish to believe in anything but find superstition, folklore, new-age beliefs, and the beliefs of extinct and extant religions fascinating and inspiring. My approach to belief is that of comparative mythology/comparative religion.
I'm no so sure about your last point. The existence or non-existence of God might be like the Observer Effect. I prefer to believe there is no God.
See my comments above. Studying belief, not studying believers!
It's different because the universe completely ignores my existence even though I am aware of it. That makes me insignificant, which I like. At the same time, and contradictory, is a feeling that I and I alone am witnessing it which is an immensely powerful feeling.
God is something altogether different. God appears to demand a relationship with me which I do not want.
Now you've said it out loud, do you realise just how stupid that sounds? Belief doesn't exist in the abstract. It exists, and only exists, in believers.
I'm studying plumage, not birds.
But comparing ignoring why questions to ignoring traffic lights is itself quite inane. I do agree that interrupting a religious discussion and asking for evidence for a particular assertion is also inane. I know that quetzalcoatl moistens the earth every morning with his tears, that's good enough for me. Evidence is by the way.
Though your later comments suggest that in essence my interpretation of your analogy was correct, whether it be Christians or believers of any kind. Your 'ornithologists studying birds' analogy was not, as was being suggested, implying that Christians study God and want to become God, but rather that you are studying believers (and in this context Christians) but don't want to become them. The analogy was about you studying believers, rather than believers studying their God. That needed clarification.
I also believe that asking "why" is redundant. Criticising science because it can't answer "Why" makes no sense to me. Humans have a deep-seated need to ask "why" and undoubtedly that question helped them survive and evolve, but not everything has a "why" answer.
OK, it seems circular to me. If you are interested in God, you will tend to be interested in God type questions.
I do think some atheists break into theist type discussions in an inappropriate way. We don't make our assumptions explicit in every conversation, it would be very tedious. It is OK to say that God loves me, without giving evidence.
Are you familiar with comparative religion and comparative mythology?
My interests in belief go from lucky horseshoes, through Ancient Egyptian concepts of the soul, via spirit animal guides, through runic divination, to Tarot cards, and all manner of things, including Christian, Islamic, Greek, Roman, Norse, Polynesian, and Amer-Indian beliefs.
I'm here because I think a group of Christians might offer me a bit of insight into Christian belief. As part of my research I recently asked a question regarding the "other gods" mentioned in the Bible and got some interesting information.
My interest is in comparative religion and comparative mythology. Partly that is a general interest but I also adapt and use what I find in my writing, such as here: https://bardoftweeddale.wordpress.com/category/the-supernatural/
I rest my case.
Sigh. Perhaps my thread on the "other gods" mentioned in the Bible might suggest otherwise. https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/1468/who-and-what-are-the-other-gods
Just as it's not a criticism of the discipline of history that it doesn't explain supernovas.
If some historian were to come along and say that because history doesn't explain supernovas, therefore there is no explanation of supernovas, it would be a criticism of that historian.
The view that there is no answer to why questions is a perfectly valid philosophical view. But it's not a scientific view.
Further thoughts in Purgatory.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Mentioning that on a discussion site, especially on this Hell board, is apt to be fraught, though. This board can be a brutal place. Not that you shouldn't. Just be aware.
But you might be better off staying off the Hell board. Many Shipmates never set foot here, and stick to the gentler boards: Heaven, Circus, All Saints. Purgatory can be difficult, too, but somewhat differently than Hell. Posters may ask you to defend your ideas, consider theirs, etc. They're not allowed to insult you, but they can insult and shred your ideas.
I'm not sure why some people are reacting (IMHO) so defensively to the idea of someone exploring ideas/beliefs beyond their own. You'd think no one had ever heard of comparative religion/mythology--and that everyone on the Ship was expected to be locked into one true set of ideas.
We have all heard of comparative religion studies. Just that the people doing the comparing are normal trained professionals who work to a code of ethics regarding their subjects and have oversight by committee.
Rank amateurs blundering in and upsetting the natives are going to get short shrift, whatever religion is under consideration. Questions might be tolerated, if they're asked from a position of genuine enquiry, but I've listened to enough episodes of Thinking Aloud to know that it's futile to separate the practice from the practitioner.
This is patently false. When you (say) throw a ball, the universe has responded to you. The ball, a part of the universe, flies through the air. The air, part of the universe, is parted as the ball passes through. If the ball falls on grass, the grass, which is part of the universe, bends. All because you threw a ball.
Who has done so?
I can’t add any more to this really. My friend worked in cancer research at DNA level. He then saw the need for GPs and retrained. He now does a bit of both I believe. The rest would pretty much be my answer.
I'm interested in lots of things. I don't treat those people who do those things seriously as a bunch of misguided and deluded idiots.
At least, I don't if I want answers to my questions.
Demand back.
There is no pre-time. Rationality tells us that.
If there's no pre-time, then do you think {the universe | Creation | all that is} always existed?
And is reality necessarily rational and/or structured to be grasped by reason, and reason alone?
Answers on a post card.
One has to ask "Why something" and set a context for your enquiry, or you are exposing ignorance of scientific method. Experiments using basic Cartesian methodology can answer a lot of "Why"s, if you frame your question in a way that science can handle it.
I think I see the misunderstanding. I am not studying Christians in order to understand belief. Apart from anything else that would be an odd thing to do because the group of Christians here are not necessarily typical of all Christians.
What I mean is that this group of Christians will be a lot more informed than I am about aspects of Christian belief. So far I have asked about the Easter vigil in churches and now I have asked about the other gods mentioned in the Bible. Both times I have received informed and useful answers that I have incorporated into things I am writing. I hope to ask further questions in the future.
This was the comment I was referring to. I read this as a criticism because it implies that there are limits to what science can understand about the formation of the universe. I don't agree that there are limits.
Point taken. I hadn't even noticed this was on the hell board.
Exactly. Even the professionals in comparative religion/mythology had to start somewhere.
Err. Where on earth have I done that?
Yeah, "pre-time" is a terrible name, and a contradiction in terms. Absent the existence of time, concepts like "before" or "after" are meaningless, hence the "pre-" prefix is misleading. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "something existing outside of time"? To what extent can we say something "exists" if it has no duration? Usually when we say something exists for zero length of time that's the equivalent of saying it doesn't exist.
Experience.
Our one of infinite from eternity universe is 13.8 ga old. One can pretend that it had no beginning due to the fuzziness of time in the quantum perturbation of the field that seeded it. But that's just specious. There has been eternal infinity of creation to now. There has always been time; tock following tick following tock.
That's rational.
Throughout this thread. If you're struggling for examples, I suggest you go back and read your comments regarding your distaste for any 'grab' by believers onto what you think is the realm of science, the idea of a personal relationship with God as 'anathema', and that you've even managed to piss off other atheists.
You can think these things. You can even say them, but you're not making friends when you do. And again, I absolutely maintain that while you might write 'about' Christianity, your approach will never allow you to write a Christian (or anyone of faith) convincingly.
I don't believe Christians and other people of faith are another species so I'm reasonably happy that I can depict someone who is a church-going Christian. Nor do I regard Christians as as a bunch of misguided and deluded idiots. I do think that when religion strays from the personal into describing how the universe was created it is in error.
The idea of a personal relationship with God is anathema to me, but I accept others see things differently.
Point: missed.
"Science can't do X" is a criticism of science only if you think "For all X, science can (or should be able to) do X." RooK doesn't think that. So you are clearly misreading him.
I do believe, to use your phrase, "For all X, science can (or should be able to) do X." Rook thinks I am elevating science into something it isn't. I think he is imposing an unnecessary limit on science.