Doesn't this definition of god render him non-existent?

Frank Turek, apologist, author, and radio host often defines his god as "spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.' This is to say that his god doesn't occupy space, isn't bound by time, and isn't made of anything. As i see things its exactly describes everything that doesn't exist. Is it then much of a stretch to say that "Dr." Turek is pretty much admitting that his god doesn't exist?

Update:

@Traditional Girl: it doesn't describe love at all. Love is the effect of physical processes, it's confined to the mind of the one affected, and it can fade with time and will die when the person does.

21 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I wouldn't say that defines him as non-existent. In theory, it's possible that something could be intangible but still exist. But it does practically define him as something that's indistinguishable from an idea that somebody just made up. If there's no empirical way to falsify the existence of a proposed entity, then there's really no point in expecting other people to believe in its existence.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    How would you describe thought or love? How much space does love occupy? How much material is in a thought? One description of god has been all time, space and energy. The abrahamic version of God, would be the great I am. Descartes axiom states I think therefore I am. The same thoughts written down in a book, can also be stored as bits of information on a comp, quite literally just taking the form of energy.

    The rather simplistic idea that love or thought is just a chemical reaction in the brain, may be true but consider this. Light behaves different if observed then if not observed. It acts as a wave or probability of being in a location when not observed, but as a particle when observed. In other words, observation, something that has no mass and occupies no space can actually change how energy behaves. Given E=MC^2, all matter is energy. So this naturalistic ideal seems to be lacking in a true understanding of the universe. Further would you not consider observation to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I'd like to know what reliable source of measurable/testable information Frank Turek used to draw that conclusion from.

    BTW, God is made of dancing hamsters. Don't ask me how I know that, just trust me. I have a super-genius level IQ, so it's totally acceptable to defer to me - even on subjects other people may not think I'm qualified in!

  • ssrvj
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Frank Turek:- "spaceless, timeless, and immaterial."

    Hindu Religion says :-

    =>God is beyond space-limits ="Adhya Dhishta Daca Angulam" (Ref:-1)

    => God is beyond time-limits="Kaala Thryaa Atheethham" (Ref:-2)

    => God is NOT material=Pradhaanam--Prakruthi.(Ref-3)

    Sikh Religion says:-

    God is beyond time-limits=Akaalam=Akaal

    Source(s): Ref:-1=>Purusha Sooktham Ref:-2=>Tattriya Upanishad Ref:-3=>Brahma Sutram
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Pretty much.

    The 'omnipotent entity who loves us' is also pretty good but that requires knowledge of human suffering and a dictionary. Yours just requires a dictionary. Then again, some people think God is a guy sitting on a cloud and made of atoms. Eh.

    Still I do like what you've done. I love it when someone takes theists words, especially famous theists, and points out that they're arguing against what they believe in. It's like the people who are touting God are the very people creating atheism. It's very ... judo.

  • 9 years ago

    From another angle, if you consider the observer effect, that you cannot observe an event without affecting it, then it follows that people can affect God. God is vulnerable to us. God is NOT omnipotent. If God can interact with us, then he is part of the natural universe, and thus not supernatural, but just any other natural being, and no more worthy of special devotion than any other part of the natural universe (like your next door neighbor).

    If God is supernatural, not consistent with the laws of physics and part of the natural universe, then he is irrelevant. We can't see him, hear him or interact with him and vice versa, so there's no point wasting time or energy on him.

  • 9 years ago

    I disagree. There are abstract forms that do exist even though they are immaterial, timeless and spaceless. A pyramid shape exists as an abstract form, even if it didn't exist in the physical world. That is exactly the quality that is usually ascribed to God, namely that he is a spiritual being.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    That also describes Love. Love does exist. It is the most real part of Life itself.

    God is Love.

    The material world is hardly the only thing that is real in life.

    Sorry, Love doesn't die. Infatuation maybe, or conditional acceptance but not Love.

    You sound young. Give life a few years and you may see.

    Even after death, Love is real.

  • 9 years ago

    Sometimes when they are grabbing for straws to try and explain something, they paint themselves into a corner. There may be a god, however, it will not be the ones man has made up. None of their resumes

    stand up to what it would take to be God.

    Source(s): Hitchens and Turek debates
  • 9 years ago

    I think mr. Turek is showing his brain does not exist.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.