Objections to the Conclusion

Objection 1: In our enlightened age, to speak of God is the same as to speak of fairies or pixies. It is to embrace myth, which is childish.
Reply 1: This is philosophy, not mythology; what myths constitute part of this argument? Those who use this approach use it as a magical incantation, and spellbind themselves with their pomp.

Obj 2: When we speak about "the universe," we mean everything. Is not God a part of "everything"? Is He not in time?
Re 2: Obviously not, to both questions; the argument has shown otherwise. Why should He be contained in time? If you have arguments based on the Bible, click here. Otherwise, your reason might be answered below.

Obj 3: If God acts (in creating), then He is contained in time, for we know from experience that it takes time to do anything.
Re 3: Since this generalization proceeds from our experience, who are bound in time, and we have no basis to judge what it would or would not be like to be or act outside of time (obviously), the objection fails. Further, for us, to act involves some change in ourselves, and for this reason any of our actions can only happen over the passage of time, but for what reason should we think that God's actions involve any change in him? It is impossible, as the overall proof shows.

If you have other objections, email me.

Click here to return to argument summary.

© Copyright 1997, Luke Wadel. Written permission of the author is required for copying, electronically or otherwise.