A Civil Religious Debate

Wow just caught this and I am flattered!

If a being has its own spacetime it cannot be a god because it is limited. Thus it cannot have its own bubble either because it would be limited.

Right where I'm getting to! So we cannot categorize God as a product of Existence, rather it is either the product or the entirety of Non-existence.

This means that the beong must ne eternal and not affected by the laws of science and it must exist in its own realm. Nothing can create an eternal being. This being must have abilities that defy our knowledge. It doesnt have to be limited by our scientific laws. Science has not explained everything and only explains the things in our universe.

Soooo God is a quark?

Not quite. If it exists outside of our spacetime then how can one see or touch it?

My point exactly.

If this being is eternal then it must be omnipotent and it must be able to exist outside of it.

Right, but is being eternal even a real thing? There is nothing that'd lead me to believe so.

Can you elaborate on this "paradox"?

The paradox is: That which does not exist cannot have a name, shape, form, or purpose, because names, shapes, forms, and purposes are things that exist; and existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive, by definition.

True true but if this is an eternal being he exists outside of the realm of space and time and thus can control everything on the inside of this realm.

There is nothing that suggests that an external entity could hold any influence on our spacetime. But let's, for the sake of further argument, suspend the disbelief.

So by an intelligent designers power he could break that law and that law could apply to everything inside the realm.

Well, no, because that entity would have to have it's own spacetime to be able to choicefully interject at select intervals of our own spacetime, and the total entropy of the two systems, even through the "addition of matter" into our own, would still have to be contained. Which is to say that in order for there to be a God, God would need to be a cognitive spacetime bubble that loses energy to our own spacetime, making God an ever-retreating ever-depreciating entity, contrary to the claimed omnipotence He has.

One could ask if that law was applied then who created or what created all of this.

Again you bring it back to who, when who implies not only an intent, but a concept of real things or people or entities beyond reality, which is a paradox. In order for it to exist, it has to be within existence.

the laws of thermodynamics do support the existence of a powerful eternal creator

Except they do not on the premise that the second law of thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy, state that energy cannot be created or destroyed; two things God does quite often.

Ahahaha alright! You open with your argument then, would you kindly?

AGAIN ?!?!?!?!

A belief in an afterlife is something several cultures throughout history have developed and has spread thanks to many a conquest and impositions into what we know as religion; and to many merits it's still a cultural phenomenon in select pockets. Nevertheless, attributing it to the value an individual of such a belief places on a given life itself is completely disregarding the nature of the moral codes of only the respective religion, but the culture and society and so on. Even if one could cite an example where all conditions align and there are malicious or careless persons, due to a belief in the frivalance of life, it is not soley a faculty of the religion at hand, but a culmination.

However this does not disregard the reality that religion in and of itself has been a rather dogmatic and a fervently reluctant device to conquest, and in it's own respect it is an opium to man and kind.

Proof is the physical, verbal, or numerical evidence of an occurence, seperate from belief or opinion and logical fallacies, that validates said occurence.