God, the Creator

[James S Saint]

Although the stories of God have created many efforts to describe God and tell of the features of God, there is but one actual definition of God. A definition is not a description of features (omni-this, omni-that,...), but rather a limiting description of properties;

A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

What other attributes of God that might apply are comparatively irrelevant and usually merely someone's guess or more often, someones hyperbolic estimation, of power or ability. What counts most is what it is that determines the difference between God and anything else.

The word "God" is capitalized, not merely out of respect (as so many presume), but rather to signify the fundamental essence of the concept. A "god" is anything that has ultimate authority over a situation. It is the determiner of that one situation, eg "god of war, god of love, god of chaos". The word "God", being capitalized, refers to the essential property that permits a god to be a god at all - its ultimate authority. As it turns out, there is one thing, one ability, that allows any god to be a god. And that one property describes the ultimate nature of The God, without which there could be no gods at all.

So the question arises, what is that essence? What is there that could allow anything to be a god, an ultimate authority governing a particular situation? And I suspect that people in the past have known the answer to that question, but I can't find any reference that confirms that they truly knew. The answer is perhaps surprising to most of you. Most people today think of God in one Santa Claus version or another. And perhaps people always have (although I still hold a degree of faith that a very few have always known the more exact details).

So we know the definition of God. The question now is whether there exists anything that fits that definition. Perhaps you imagine that "the laws of physics" fit it. But they actually don't except in combination and presuming that they are accurately understood (which so far, merely out of arrogance, Man has not achieved).

So I propose to you, with far more than a modicum of confidence, that God, the creator of the universe and determiner of all that can or cannot be, is what you have previously known as "Impossibility" itself. God is not any particular impossible task, but rather the very principle of impossibility - "the fact that some things can never occur". God is not the lack of occurrence, not an entity that is itself impossible, but rather the very existence of the limit to possibility.

If there is a limit to possibility, God exists as that limit.

It is, in fact, the limits of what can possibly exist that determines what does exist. Even the fairy tale known as Quantum Physics agrees to that. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics (not Quantum Physics) proves the existence of God.

It is the impossibility of certain situations that cause what we call "matter" to form. Specifically, it is the impossibility for random electromagnetic waves to travel at an infinite speed (producing the limit of the speed of light) and also the impossibility for such propagation to be free of interference or retardation, delay. It is, in fact, the lack of freedom that causes the universe itself to exist at all.

Similarly, it is a lack of freedom that causes every society to form, even Ahdam. The word "Ahdam" literally means the blocking, or damming up, of free spirit - the propose first governing of homosapian. No society has ever formed without something either being inherently impossible or declared forbidden by law (usually resulting in merely an improbability rather than an impossibility).

It is only by the certain that anything endures. The more certain an essential element is, the more enduring its dependents are. The more certain the dollar, the more enduring the dollar's economy. All things are created and maintain by the degree of certainty within them. And God is that certainty via being the nature of impossibility itself.

Without God, there can be no reality whatsoever, because without the impossible, every possibility simply gets countered by its opposite. It is God that prevents literally everything from having an opposite in the same location at the same time .. such is impossible. And thus God, the Creator of all, is. And shall forever be.

If you believe that there is anything that is impossible, you believe in God (impossibility itself). And as it turns out, if you believe that there is anything that is possible, you believe in God as well (the effect of the impossible - creation).

[Orbie]

Therefore, God being that limit to the possible, becomes the essence of impossibility.

various correlates occur, from this, the one which comes immediately in mind, is that if Godmis impossibility per se, then not only is anything possible with God, but that God It's self is within that essence. Therefore God is the impossibility of the essential Being of possibility.

S more abstract way to think about God, is to understand existence as reduced through a sphere, consisting of all possibility, reducing to a point,many that point also vanishing. The vanishing has no outside, because the outside is possibility, and that vanishes alongside with God Himself.

So God is the impossible nothingness, which itself becomes the absolute Nothingness, which can not even be conceived.

The conception is the Absolutely Nothingness

which conceives the possibility of existence.

This conception is the imminence of eternal Being, as essentially an existential absolute Nothingness manifesting as a possibility for a relative nothingness, which is bounded by some thing, and this is what conception is.

James, if Your God exists as You have described Him, my corollaries must follow.

[A Shieldmaiden]

These arguments do not prove God's existence but show that there is a strong possibility that God exists. Ultimately, however, belief in God's existence is based on faith.

[Orbie]

I don't think God's existence is of need of proof here.
All it needs, and all it does is affirming a statement, that there is an impossibility which is bound by possibility, and that implies a state of not being bound. Therefore impossibility is not merely a possibility, it is a certainty.

[James S Saint]

These arguments do not prove God's existence but show that there is a strong possibility that God exists. Ultimately, however, belief in God's existence is based on faith.

So you don't believe that anything at all is impossible, nor possible?

[Ecmandu]

It's interesting that you're using a platonic form to describe God. The thing about platonic forms, is that there are an infinite number of them, that are within the margin of error of that platonic form. How do you define chair for example? Or stool? You start off defining God as that which determines the impossible, and I could just say God cannot determine that God cannot count all rational numbers... so there are impossibilities which transcend this ability. If God existed forever, as the realizer of these actualities and impossibilities, then you're dealing with needing to count infinity. If God didn't exist forever, then you're either looking at infinite regress for God, or something coming from nothing at all.

[Uccisore]

What does this contribute to atheism? Suppose your typical modern atheist- they believe in the cosmos, in physical stuff, energies and math and all that. You ask them if they believe their are hard limits to what is possible and impossible, they say yes. You tell them that they ought to call this limit (or the principle of this limit, if those are different) "God". Maybe they agree, maybe they don't, but what has changed about their beliefs such that they were an atheist yesterday, but today they are not?

[Dan~]

One thing I've learned is that endless people talk shit about 'god' and god does not kill them when they say "If there is a god then kill me."
I'm guessing the creator(s) of the universe are not wasting time on petty things such as human conduct.

[James S Saint]

It's interesting that you're using a platonic form to describe God.

Well, only if you consider "impossibility" to be a Platonic form. In Anglican theology, it is an "angel" (more specifically "The Angel above all others"). In some ontologies it would be a "deity", such as Hinduism. The fact that you believe all such deities and angels have to have a face, is merely your willingness to accept uneducated tripe as factual information.

The thing about platonic forms, is that there are an infinite number of them [more than that, actually], that are within the margin of error of that platonic form.

Emmm... no. All platonic forms are exactly and only what they are defined to be.

How do you define chair for example? Or stool?

However it is defined, and by whomever it is defined, as long as you are listening to him, it is exactly whatever he defined it to be.

You start off defining God as that which determines the impossible, and I could just say God cannot determine that God cannot count all rational numbers...

You can say that, but you couldn't know it unless you accept my definition to be true.
Impossibility itself, does not count numbers, rational or not. The "mind of God" is not a human mind, and only called a "mind" in metaphor and movies.

If God existed forever, as the realizer of these actualities and impossibilities, then you're dealing with needing to count infinity.

Emm... no. Impossibility has "existed" forever. But that doesn't require anyone to count infinity.

If God didn't exist forever, then you're either looking at infinite regress for God, or something coming from nothing at all.

Moot.

What does this contribute to atheism? Suppose your typical modern atheist- they believe in the cosmos, in physical stuff, energies and math and all that. You ask them if they believe their are hard limits to what is possible and impossible, they say yes. You tell them that they ought to call this limit (or the principle of this limit, if those are different) "God". Maybe they agree, maybe they don't, but what has changed about their beliefs such that they were an atheist yesterday, but today they are not?

Is the purpose to "contribute to atheism"?

It is one of many optional beginnings for them to eventually understand just how much of the Biblical stories are relevant, even to their individual lives (not that such is the purpose either, but since you asked...). The greatest flaw in anti-theism is the interpretation of the language in presuming that their anthropomorphic imaginings is what the authors were actually referring to. Primitive people need primitive visualizations and physical rituals merely to grasp the relevant concern.

Whoever said that The Creator God had a literal face (besides the Mormons)?

What is more important to the philosopher is that he comprehends the extreme priorities involved in understanding fundamental truths .. so extreme that they have caused huge effects upon all of Man since the beginning.

[Ecmandu]

It's interesting that you're using a platonic form to describe God.

Well, only if you consider "impossibility" to be a Platonic form. In Anglican theology, it is an "angel" (more specifically "The Angel above all others"). In some ontologies it would be a "deity", such as Hinduism. The fact that you believe all such deities and angels have to have a face, is merely your willingness to accept uneducated tripe as factual information.

The thing about platonic forms, is that there are an infinite number of them [more than that, actually], that are within the margin of error of that platonic form.

Emmm... no. All platonic forms are exactly and only what they are defined to be.

How do you define chair for example? Or stool?

However it is defined, and by whomever it is defined, as long as you are listening to him, it is exactly whatever he defined it to be.

You start off defining God as that which determines the impossible, and I could just say God cannot determine that God cannot count all rational numbers...

You can say that, but you couldn't know it unless you accept my definition to be true.
Impossibility itself, does not count numbers, rational or not. The "mind of God" is not a human mind, and only called a "mind" in metaphor and movies.

If God existed forever, as the realizer of these actualities and impossibilities, then you're dealing with needing to count infinity.

Emm... no. Impossibility has "existed" forever. But that doesn't require anyone to count infinity.

If God didn't exist forever, then you're either looking at infinite regress for God, or something coming from nothing at all.

Moot.

What does this contribute to atheism? Suppose your typical modern atheist- they believe in the cosmos, in physical stuff, energies and math and all that. You ask them if they believe their are hard limits to what is possible and impossible, they say yes. You tell them that they ought to call this limit (or the principle of this limit, if those are different) "God". Maybe they agree, maybe they don't, but what has changed about their beliefs such that they were an atheist yesterday, but today they are not?

Is the purpose to "contribute to atheism"?

It is one of many optional beginnings for them to eventually understand just how much of the Biblical stories are relevant, even to their individual lives (not that such is the purpose either, but since you asked...). The greatest flaw in anti-theism is the interpretation of the language in presuming that their anthropomorphic imaginings is what the authors were actually referring to. Primitive people need primitive visualizations and physical rituals merely to grasp the relevant concern.

Whoever said that The Creator God had a literal face (besides the Mormons)?

What is more important to the philosopher is that he comprehends the extreme priorities involved in understanding fundamental truths .. so extreme that they have caused huge effects upon all of Man since the beginning.

I wasn't referring to faces per se. And if I remember correctly, Abraham was visited by God in human form with two angels when God declared Sarah would have a child.

[James S Saint]

Abraham was visited by God in human form with two angels when God declared Sarah would have a child.

"In human form"??
Have the quote for that?

[Ecmandu]

Abraham was visited by God in human form with two angels when God declared Sarah would have a child.

"In human form"??
Have the quote for that?

Genesis 18 New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Three Men Visit Abraham
18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the large trees of Mamre. Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent. It was the hottest time of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. So he quickly left the entrance to his tent to greet them. He bowed low to the ground.

3 He said, “My lord, if you are pleased with me, don’t pass me by. 4 Let me get you some water. Then all of you can wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat to give you strength. Then you can go on your way. I want to do this for you now that you have come to me.”

“All right,” they answered. “Do as you say.”

6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick!” he said. “Get about 36 pounds of the finest flour. Prepare it and bake some bread.”

7 Then he ran over to the herd. He picked out a choice, tender calf. He gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 Then he brought some butter and milk and the calf that had been prepared. He served them to the three men. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him.

“Over there in the tent,” he said.

10 Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year. Your wife Sarah will have a son.”

Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old. Sarah was too old to have a baby. 12 So she laughed to herself. She thought, “I’m worn out, and my husband is old. Can I really know the joy of having a baby?”

13 Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh? Why did she say, ‘Will I really have a baby, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for me? I will return to you at the appointed time next year. Sarah will have a son.”

15 Sarah was afraid. So she lied and said, “I didn’t laugh.”

But the Lord said, “Yes, you laughed.”

[Ecmandu]

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 2. - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him. Not in addition to (Kalisch), but including (Keil), Jehovah, whose appearance to the patriarch, having in the previous verse been first generally stated, is now minutely described. That these three men were not manifestations of the three persons of the Godhead (Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Cyril), but Jehovah accompanied by two created angels (Keil, et alii, may be inferred from Genesis 19:1. When first perceived by the patriarch they were believed to be men, strangers, who were approaching his tent, and indeed were already close to it, or standing by him. And when he saw them (i.e. understood that one of them was Jehovah, Jarchi rightly explaining that the word translated above "looked," i.e. with the bodily vision now implies an act of mental perception), he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground. The expression denotes the complete prostration of the body by first falling on the knees, and then inclining the head forwards till it touches the ground. As this was a mode of salutation practiced by Orientals towards superiors generally, such as kings and princes (2 Samuel 9:8), but also towards equals (Genesis 23:7; Genesis 33:6, 7; Genesis 42:6; Genesis 43:26), as well as towards the Deity (Genesis 22:5; 1 Samuel 1:3), it is impossible to affirm with certainty (Keil, Lunge) that an act of worship was intended by the patriarch, and not simply the presentation of human and civil honor (Calvin). If Hebrews 13:2 inclines to countenance the latter interpretation, the language in which Abraham immediately addresses one of the three men almost leads to the conclusion that already the patriarch had recognized Jehovah.

[Ecmandu]

Also, if I remember correctly, God walked in the garden after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and they hid from him.

[A Shieldmaiden]

JSS wrote:

It is, in fact, the limits of what can possibly exist that determines what does exist. Even the fairy tale known as Quantum Physics agrees to that. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics (not Quantum Physics) proves the existence of God.

It is the impossibility of certain situations that cause what we call "matter" to form. Specifically, it is the impossibility for random electromagnetic waves to travel at an infinite speed (producing the limit of the speed of light) and also the impossibility for such propagation to be free of interference or retardation, delay. It is, in fact, the lack of freedom that causes the universe itself to exist at all.

A quote by Polkinghorne. “however valuable natural theology (science) may be in pointing to the divine and affording insight into his creation, it will only at best be able by itself to bring us to the Cosmic Architect or Great Mathematician. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be sought by other means.” For anyone who wants to find God, science is not the first way. Who God is and what He does must be answered elsewhere.

Jeeves and Berry (recognized working scientists). “An understanding and acceptance of modern science does not - cannot - prove anything about the existence and activity of God.”

To seek intellectual explanations down to the last detail is not always be valid.

[AutSider]

What does this contribute to atheism? Suppose your typical modern atheist- they believe in the cosmos, in physical stuff, energies and math and all that. You ask them if they believe their are hard limits to what is possible and impossible, they say yes. You tell them that they ought to call this limit (or the principle of this limit, if those are different) "God". Maybe they agree, maybe they don't, but what has changed about their beliefs such that they were an atheist yesterday, but today they are not?

Is the purpose to "contribute to atheism"?

It is one of many optional beginnings for them to eventually understand just how much of the Biblical stories are relevant, even to their individual lives (not that such is the purpose either, but since you asked...). The greatest flaw in anti-theism is the interpretation of the language in presuming that their anthropomorphic imaginings is what the authors were actually referring to. Primitive people need primitive visualizations and physical rituals merely to grasp the relevant concern.

Whoever said that The Creator God had a literal face (besides the Mormons)?

What is more important to the philosopher is that he comprehends the extreme priorities involved in understanding fundamental truths .. so extreme that they have caused huge effects upon all of Man since the beginning.

Your God concept is vague and deistic James, I think most atheists would react indifferently towards it, I know I sure did. You claim to be a theist and that biblical stories are relevant, but where are the traits that make your God theistic and biblical, what are some relevant biblical stories, what makes them relevant and why? How do you know what the authors were referring to better than they do? Are you calling primitive the authors of the bible, the theists or atheists?

Also, regarding God's face, "Jacob named the place Peniel (which means "face of God"), for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared." - Genesis 32:30
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." - Exodus 33:11

vs.

"No man hath seen God at any time." - John 1:18
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." Exodus 33:20

....

If you believe that there is anything that is impossible, you believe in God (impossibility)

This sounds to me like you're trying to trick somebody into labeling themselves a believer in a theistic God without actually believing in what most people would consider a theistic God.
I guess an atheistic equivalent would be trying to make somebody label themselves an atheist by pointing out contradictions in the bible and saying they must believe in that specific, contradictory God, if they don't, they are atheist, or saying that either they believe in a magical sky daddy who is also >add more ridiculous attributes< or they're an atheist.

James, do you at least realize that your concept of God is more similar to a deistic one than a theistic one, and that it's different from what the majority of theists actually believe? I think calling "God" what you call "God" only confuses people, because it has nothing to do with God as he has been conceived by the large majority throughout history, and this is why I advocate that if you come up with a new concept, use a new name.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Arbiter of Change wrote:

This sounds to me like you're trying to trick somebody into labeling themselves a believer in a theistic God without actually believing in what most people would consider a theistic God.

I must admit the same thought went through my mind also.

[James S Saint]

To all of you;
A) I really couldn't care less what atheists might think one way or another. Their conversion is not my job, but their own.
B) Try to consider a non-literal reading of ancient texts sometime. They make a lot more sense.
C) I haven't invented any new concept concerning anything related to scriptures. I merely reduce the noise to its basic ontology.
D) I really don't care all that much what other theists have proclaimed about God or the limits of men either.

I really haven't found anyone who can rationally argue with my definition of "The God" other than to say, "that's not the one I want to argue about". The definition has nothing to do with what anyone wants to argue about or believe in. The definition is a deductive certainty in that any other God concept, if not equivalent, will be merely subservient to the one I proposed, thus not "The God", but perhaps "a god".

And I don't call it something else simply because I happen to know that it actually does relate to what ancient authors were speaking about. How I know that is another issue that ye'ole typical atheist couldn't begin to deal with merely because he wants only to preach, never to learn. All God concepts are subservient to the impossible.

Not everything said on these boards is fuel for fire or fodder for cannons. Sometimes they are merely things that have need of being said. But feel free to argue endlessly if you feel the need.

[AutSider]

So basically James you:

1) Dismiss straight up contradictions as a literal reading...

B) Try to consider a non-literal reading of ancient texts sometime. They make a lot more sense.

2) Don't care what atheists might think one way or another, thinking that they should be the ones converting

A) I really couldn't care less what atheists might think one way or another. Their conversion is not my job, but their own.

Yet atheists are supposed to be the close-minded ones

typical atheist couldn't begin to deal with merely because he wants only to preach, never to learn

3) Don't really care all that much what other theists have proclaimed about God or the limits of men (my interpretation is right, everybody else's is wrong)

D) I really don't care all that much what other theists have proclaimed about God or the limits of men either.

Yet you appear to care deeply about what theists who authored the bible think...

And not only that, but you know precisely what METAPHORICAL meaning the authors of the bible had in mind


Personally, I'd grant you almost everything you described in the OP exists, except that I wouldn't call it God, I'd call it jubuwubu. Like it or not, the majority determines definitions of words, to insist otherwise is to intentionally cause confusion in communication, which indicates insincerity and suspicious motives.

[James S Saint]

I wouldn't call it God

Did I say that you had to?
The fact that you had no idea of even what a god was doesn't play to your argument that I am the one proposing some kind of change from your uneducated presumptions. You believe they were speaking merely about fairy tale .. that is what you are supposed to believe.

AoC, I am not here to convert your ass.

If you want to think that the Bible absolutely MUST!!!! be read LITERALLY with every jot and tiddle, that is your prerogative. And if you choose that course, of course, you are going to think that it is all bullshit. It seems that an intelligent man would at least consider an alternative to thinking that billions of people and their leaders throughout history were THAT damn stupid and yet have managed to dominate you entirely. But maybe it just takes one to know one.

Everything that is posted isn't merely for mindless atheists to argue about. But if you have an argument, no one has stopped you from posting it.

And YES!!!, I dismiss literal readings (and those who insist on it) concerning almost all literature and films (and frankly don't know of any intelligent and educated people who don't do the same).

[Zoot Allures]

That OP was actually one of the cleanest simplified theories of what a 'god' might be, that I have seen. Nicely done, JSS.

You stayed well outside the boundaries of any pathetic or anthropomorphic fallacy... a good, simple, paint-by-number deistic model you've got there.

I've seen some card carrying Thomists go to work before at Revleft on a few atheists. It was something serious man, way above my pay grade.

[Zoot Allures]

Try to consider a non-literal reading of ancient texts sometime. They make a lot more sense.

Allegorical and metaphorical readings produce varied interpretations, which would mean that the event(s) interpreted in a non-literal way could have been many different events at once! But this is impossible; whatever happened, happened just like it happened in a very certain way, for very certain reasons and/or causes. Only a literal description of events has any real meaning regarding the relevancy and accuracy of historical events.

You can say story X means this or that, but that interpretation wouldn't be any more credible than any other because, according to you, nothing literally happened.

[James S Saint]

That OP was actually one of the cleanest simplified theories of what a 'god' might be, that I have seen. Nicely done, JSS.

You stayed well outside the boundaries of any pathetic or anthropomorphic fallacy... a good, simple, paint-by-number deistic model you've got there.

I've seen some card carrying Thomists go to work before at Revleft on a few atheists. It was something serious man, way above my pay grade.

Well, thank you. It would be nice if my time could be spent challenging those theists to get even better rather than merely posting what atheists and many theists want to rant about. I have never, in many years, met an atheists who had anything relevant to say on the subject and in person, doesn't stay an atheist for long around me (Online is a very different story).

Try to consider a non-literal reading of ancient texts sometime. They make a lot more sense.

Allegorical and metaphorical readings produce varied interpretations, which would mean that the event(s) interpreted in a non-literal way could have been many different events at once! But this is impossible; whatever happened, happened just like it happened in a very certain way, for very certain reasons and/or causes. Only a literal description of events has any real meaning regarding the relevancy and accuracy of historical events.

You can say story X means this or that, but that interpretation wouldn't be any more credible than any other because, according to you, nothing literally happened.

First, realize that I didn't say that NOTHING literally happened. I said consider a literal reading .. so that you could see the options of which literally happened and which was metaphor or allegory.

But now consider the follow recent response given after a math-word problem/teaser had been proposed;

Like most of these types of things it is poorly worded.
Fact is that either having the knowledge but not the other, alone is simply not enough to choose between the the dates and the 3 line conversation is of no help.

Unless we know the reasons why the 3 line conversation occurs - such as how they know then the problem is insoluble given the information.

There was a similar problem in this site a couple of years ago, about Monks that was equally stupid.

Of course Lev had no idea that the brain teaser had a perfectly legitimate and provable answer to the riddle. Its first impression is that there is no way that anyone could resolve such a problem. Yet there was and usually is.

That exact same concern is raised when anyone speaks of metaphorical understandings of the Bible (although seldom concerning anything else). How could anyone know?!?! They immediately profess that "because there could be many interpretations, there can be no certain truth in the text". And yet, just exactly like those brain-teasers, there really is only one story that is truly consistent, comprehensive, and relevant (the very definition of Truth).

The teaser that Lev was given was;

Albert and Bernard just became friends with Cheryl, and they want to know when her birthday is. Cheryl gives them a list of 10 possible dates:

May 15
May 16
May 19
June 17
June 18
July 14
July 16
August 14
August 15
August 17

Cheryl then tells Albert and Bernard separately the month and the day of her birthday respectively. [The following conversation ensues:]

Albert: I do not know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know that Bernard does not know too.
Bernard: At first I don’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know now.
Albert: Then I also know when Cheryl’s birthday is.

So when is Cheryl’s birthday?

The unintelligent and uneducated read that problem in the same way they read everything else, including the Bible. They proclaim that there is no sense at all and the problem is not resolvable because the reader is given no clue at all. But of course, they are wrong, just as every atheist.

The fact that most people do not have the "eyes to see and ears to hear" (aka "the intelligence and education required") is why there is such a huge belief in the anthropomorphic non-sense, the "Santa Claus version of the Bible".

The religions, as with every organization, must consider the consequences of trying too hard to make every person understand the exact truth. When dealing with millions of very uneducated and unintelligent people, it is certainly unwise to disallow them to believe in what is a distortion of the truth, because that is all they are going to be able to understand for the rest of their lives.

And that is why it is not my job to convert AoC. He only has a certain amount of education and intelligence to work with. The fact that it isn't enough to see the resolve of the brain teaser, isn't something that would be wise for me to struggle against. He is going to believe that the Bible cannot be understood and that anyone who believes in anything it says is merely deluded because he already knows that it cannot make any sense .. end of story. Why should I try to change that? I can't increase his intellect from this distance.

If you can't see the truth behind the myth and you want to rant at anyone who gives you clues, who am I to force you to do otherwise.

[Ecmandu]

I realize that statistically, saying there's a God makes you more likable, and I know this is all you care about from my correspondence with you, you are like all the other apes to this regard.

But you have to understand that you're using the same argument John Bannon used, which I destroyed. I stated that there are many things, probably about 5 through the course of those threads that NO BEING can create or destroy. And you're sitting here just like John Bannon, and saying that the creator chooses what to manifest.

[James S Saint]

makes you more likable, and I know this is all you care about from my correspondence with you, you are like all the other apes to this regard.

After our private discussions, considering them in detail, are you really sure that is where you want to take this?