Your problem Stu is that you are so prejudiced in defending your Religion of Atheism that you can't even think or read straight. Who talked about "outside of time?" A Primal Cause or the Prime Mover Concept means that it is not encapsulated by anything else, including time. (see a summary of the Prime Mover Concept or Cosmological Argument discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#What_Caused_the_First_Cause.3F ) We live in 4 dimensions but that doesn't mean that there can't exist 3, 2, 1, or 0 dimension beings, and similarly there could be heavier worlds that are beyond 4 dimensions. The fact is that we don't really exist, and you don't even know it Stu despite Descartes' Existence Argument of Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum Argument. I take my hat of to Descartes, but if really believed that this argument proves one existence then he was wrong. What happens if one stops doubting for example by being knocked unconscious? Does that mean that one moved into non-existence and when one awakens and starts doubting again that one is back in existence again?
Show me someone who can argue anything with a Sophist, and I will show you a liar. You admitted already that you are a Sophist so there is no point in harboring any resentments against you or treating anything you write seriously. Sophists are not my targets. As I said my main interest is ethics -- not intellectual belief systems. I just don't like someone telling me that I would not express my views as presented here if this was a non-virtual debate. That sounded like a threat to me.
My question is, if the bible is the western god's book, why is it so full of errors? Jesus said that he would be in the earth three days and three nights, but he was in the ground from friday evening until sunday morning. What's up with that????
Interesting reaction to what was not a threat at all... No one was "telling me that I would not express my views as presented here if this was a non-virtual debate." Why does Lady Justice wear a blindfold?
Didn't I tell you that I was playing philosophical chess with you at level B and then level A? You still haven't proven yourself worthy at playing at the expert level because you haven't answered my questions -- not because I am trying to stick feathers in my tuchus and prove myself superior, but without you being able to answer those questions we can't go further in this debate. Now stop defending your Religion of Atheism Stu, and answer my questions if you want to continue this debate.
I think there is little doubt that if you start with some truth, pass it around to others via an oral retelling of the truth (filtered of course through the mind of the one telling the truth, and the one listening to the truth) and they pass it to others, then they write it down in one language and then it is changed by someone who has a personal agenda and then it is translated into different languages over the course of thousands of years... That there are bound to be some "errors" in the telling of the original truth.
You don't know? Oh well, there goes my thinking that you were the smartest man in the room...only because you seem to keep trying to tell everyone that you are playing at the "expert" level...