a timeless god???

[jellybean99]

Perhaps a simple question: It is said that your god is timeless, ie; from your gods perspective all things he sees, all things he does are done simultaneously...so how does he ahem, 'find the time' to get things done?

[FONT=&quot]The frame of reference from which you ask that question is the 4th dimension, a dimension where objects moving at velocities less than the speed of light are subject to temporal limitations. No such limitations exist in the realm where your God dwells. God is not subject to time, rather, time is subject to God, for He is the creator of time and space (the 4th dimension).

Your question is much like someone living on a 2 dimensional plane contemplating the limitations of a sphere--it is beyond your grasp. Yet just as a shadow would perplex someone trapped in 2 dimensions, so does our belief in this God you speak.

Here is a "shadow" of our God that spent time in this humble abode.
http://www.100prophecies.org/

I noticed your reasoning is philosophical in nature. For you, seeing is believing; for us, believing is seeing. Your faith journey begins where your philosophical journey ends.

If you wish to encounter your God, read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are 4 witnesses pointing their fingers at a star (Christ). When you see the "star," you won't need the fingers anymore.

Where you go from here is a matter of your own choosing and is subject only to the limitations you place on yourself.

I pray that the light of the Living God Jesus shines on you so that you might turn to Him and be awaken from your slumber.[/FONT]

 

[Grega]

[FONT=&quot]The frame of reference from which you ask that question is the 4th dimension, a dimension where objects moving at velocities less than the speed of light are subject to temporal limitations. No such limitations exist in the realm where your God dwells. God is not subject to time, rather, time is subject to God, for He is the creator of time and space (the 4th dimension).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your question is much like someone living on a 2 dimensional plane contemplating the limitations of a sphere--it is beyond your grasp. Yet just as a shadow would perplex someone trapped in 2 dimensions, so does our belief in this God you speak.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here is a "shadow" of our God that spent time in this humble abode.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.100prophecies.org/[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I noticed your reasoning is philosophical in nature. For you, seeing is believing; for us, believing is seeing. Your faith journey begins where your philosophical journey ends.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you wish to encounter your God, read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are 4 witnesses pointing their fingers at a star (Christ). When you see the "star," you won't need the fingers anymore.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where you go from here is a matter of your own choosing and is subject only to the limitations you place on yourself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I pray that the light of the Living God Jesus shines on you so that you might turn to Him and be awaken from your slumber.[/FONT]

See, the problem is, I can conceptualise an entity that exists outside of our own timeline and does its own thing, but the currenttly accepted formulation of god is simply that is simply outside of time and does everything at once from it's perspective. I say that for a god who's existence is not limited to one instance where all things he does/sees/etc are not done in one instant... must exist at the very least in its own separate timeline. You could of course then fix a point on your god's timeline and play out our timeline where it would seem your god does do all things at once!...I doubt many will agree with me on this however.

The understanding of god's timelessness held by many theists confuses the notion that timeless implies an existence for which there can be no temporal separation betwen any events such that they happen simultaneously, and a god that makes decisions, a god that actualy does things not simultaneously with something else.

 

[Timuchin]

See, the problem is, I can conceptualise an entity that exists outside of our own timeline and does its own thing, but the currenttly accepted formulation of god is simply that is simply outside of time and does everything at once from it's perspective. I say that for a god who's existence is not limited to one instance where all things he does/sees/etc are not done in one instant... must exist at the very least in its own separate timeline.

Yes, this is true -- but it is irrelevant to us down here within His temporary universe.

You could of course then fix a point on your god's timeline and play out our timeline where it would seem your god does do all things at once!...I doubt many will agree with me on this however.

Here's the rub. We His creatures can't do any such thing. We will never be anything other than his creatures. God is the only real show in town. Some people go off into fantasies of being "god", but the reality eventually comes along & mugs them.

The understanding of god's timelessness held by many theists confuses the notion that timeless implies an existence for which there can be no temporal separation between any events such that they happen simultaneously, and a god that makes decisions, a god that actually does things not simultaneously with something else.

God "anthropomorphizes" Himself so that He might be understood partly through a metaphore. If he left us with ineffable concepts our minds would revolt and we would dismiss Him. On one level He deals with us as though He were in this timeline. But on another level He often starts answering our prayers before we even ask them!

On one level God is absolutely soverreign over His creation. But on the other level, God wants our fellowship and has bound Himself to us by giving us His great & precious promises -- if we do this then He will do that.

I have used His promises to gain gifts of the Holy Spirit, answers to prayer, guidance, self-control, hope of a future with God, the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness & goodness). good human fellowship and a love for others. Back when I was an atheist I found none of these things by trying to be my own god. God's reality kept intruding .

 

[Grega]

Yes, this is true -- but it is irrelevant to us down here within His temporary universe.
Here's the rub. We His creatures can't do any such thing. We will never be anything other than his creatures. God is the only real show in town. Some people go off into fantasies of being "god", but the reality eventually comes along & mugs them.
God "anthropomorphizes" Himself so that He might be understood partly through a metaphore. If he left us with ineffable concepts our minds would revolt and we would dismiss Him. On one level He deals with us as though He were in this timeline. But on another level He often starts answering our prayers before we even ask them!

On one level God is absolutely soverreign over His creation. But on the other level, God wants our fellowship and has bound Himself to us by giving us His great & precious promises -- if we do this then He will do that.

I have used His promises to gain gifts of the Holy Spirit, answers to prayer, guidance, self-control, hope of a future with God, the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness & goodness). good human fellowship and a love for others. Back when I was an atheist I found none of these things by trying to be my own god. God's reality kept intruding .

Yes, this is true -- but it is irrelevant to us down here within His temporary universe.
It is relevent when my conversations are stifled by this oversight

Here's the rub. We His creatures can't do any such thing. We will never be anything other than his creatures. God is the only real show in town. Some people go off into fantasies of being "god", but the reality eventually comes along & mugs them.
It is of course true to say that I can not do all what a supposed god can do, but this should not deter you from performing a feasibilty analysis on that which is claimed he can do, where in this case I was checking the validity of my own proposal

God "anthropomorphizes" Himself so that He might be understood partly through a metaphore. If he left us with ineffable concepts our minds would revolt and we would dismiss Him. On one level He deals with us as though He were in this timeline. But on another level He often starts answering our prayers before we even ask them!
Then your god should have left an appendix...we present day folk are not so unenlightened as our 2000+ years gone ancestors!

 

[Timuchin]

Yes, this is true -- but it is irrelevant to us down here within His temporary universe.
It is relevent when my conversations are stifled by this oversight

Here's the rub. We His creatures can't do any such thing. We will never be anything other than his creatures. God is the only real show in town. Some people go off into fantasies of being "god", but the reality eventually comes along & mugs them.
It is of course true to say that I can not do all what a supposed god can do, but this should not deter you from performing a feasibilty analysis on that which is claimed he can do, where in this case I was checking the validity of my own proposal

God "anthropomorphizes" Himself so that He might be understood partly through a metaphore. If he left us with ineffable concepts our minds would revolt and we would dismiss Him. On one level He deals with us as though He were in this timeline. But on another level He often starts answering our prayers before we even ask them!
Then your god should have left an appendix...we present day folk are not so unenlightened as our 2000+ years gone ancestors!

I'm sorry you were stifled by those who didn't understand this.

Doing a feasability analysis means putting yourself in His shoes -- if He wears shoes. A lot of people like the feel of His shoes and start toying with the idea of being god. Bad idea.

I've had people tell me that God should have told those shepherders on the backside of the desert about physics, chemistry and astonomy. They wouldn't have had any use for it and wouldn't have written it down. To reach people we have to reach out to where they are at. If you wanted to communicate with ants, you would need to become as ant-like as possible.

God finally did that by actually begetting a human son among humans so people could understand God's character through this human. Jesus dirtied His diapers, played with other children, learned a trade, got hungry & thirsty and felt pain when hurt. God sent His Holy Spirit upon this special human and performed miracles, to show what He could do for any human who came to Him. He was the perfect Christian.

I have claimed & use many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit just like Jesus did. I have guidance from God just like Jesus did. I have preached the gospel and healed numerous sick & lame just like Jesus did. I haven't raised anyone from the dead yet, but I'm working on that.

 

[Grega]

I'm sorry you were stifled by those who didn't understand this.

Doing a feasability analysis means putting yourself in His shoes -- if He wears shoes. A lot of people like the feel of His shoes and start toying with the idea of being god. Bad idea.

I've had people tell me that God should have told those shepherders on the backside of the desert about physics, chemistry and astonomy. They wouldn't have had any use for it and wouldn't have written it down. To reach people we have to reach out to where they are at. If you wanted to communicate with ants, you would need to become as ant-like as possible.

God finally did that by actually begetting a human son among humans so people could understand God's character through this human. Jesus dirtied His diapers, played with other children, learned a trade, got hungry & thirsty and felt pain when hurt. God sent His Holy Spirit upon this special human and performed miracles, to show what He could do for any human who came to Him. He was the perfect Christian.

I have claimed & use many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit just like Jesus did. I have guidance from God just like Jesus did. I have preached the gospel and healed numerous sick & lame just like Jesus did. I haven't raised anyone from the dead yet, but I'm working on that.

Doing a feasability analysis means putting yourself in His shoes -- if He wears shoes. A lot of people like the feel of His shoes and start toying with the idea of being god. Bad idea.
I disagree...under your model I would be imaginig myself as a self defined perfectly good/judgemental/.../loving entity capable of doing and seeing everything with the further property of existing in a separate dimension of time to the inhabitants of our universe, and assuming I blieved in such a thing then yes before I fully realise the powers I would have I might have a mindset to let it go to my head and do nasty things to others.

However I need only imagine myself as an entity with the property of existing in my own separate timeline to perform this feasibility analysis

I've had people tell me that God should have told those shepherders on the backside of the desert about physics, chemistry and astonomy. They wouldn't have had any use for it and wouldn't have written it down. To reach people we have to reach out to where they are at. If you wanted to communicate with ants, you would need to become as ant-like as possible.
He could have the Bible updated!...in fact the main obstacle for people like me is that we see people expect we should take to be true that which was meant for those with the enlightenment of our long gone anscestors. Yes I don't disagree that they may have been told what they perhaps needed to know, but I say that any stories about the properties of your god (supposing it exists) are either insufficiently described or over-exaggerated

God finally did that by actually begetting a human son among humans so people could understand God's character through this human. Jesus dirtied His diapers, played with other children, learned a trade, got hungry & thirsty and felt pain when hurt. God sent His Holy Spirit upon this special human and performed miracles, to show what He could do for any human who came to Him. He was the perfect Christian.

I have claimed & use many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit just like Jesus did. I have guidance from God just like Jesus did. I have preached the gospel and healed numerous sick & lame just like Jesus did. I haven't raised anyone from the dead yet, but I'm working on that.
My responses to these don't belong in this thread

 

[Chesterton]

...a feasibilty analysis...

A feasibility analysis on God! If you weren't British I'd swear you must be a high-up in the Pentagon.

I think you should start smaller. Why don't you work up a "feasibility" analysis for magnetism or gravity, you know some of the common, ordinary everyday things. Then after you've won Nobel prizes for that, you can move on to something more difficult; the feasibility of the Mind who created magnetism and gravity.

Then your god should have left an appendix...we present day folk are not so unenlightened as our 2000+ years gone ancestors!

Really? We're more knowledgeable, but more enlightened? I'm not at all sure about that.

He could have the Bible updated!...in fact the main obstacle for people like me is that we see people expect we should take to be true that which was meant for those with the enlightenment of our long gone anscestors. Yes I don't disagree that they may have been told what they perhaps needed to know, but I say that any stories about the properties of your god (supposing it exists) are either insufficiently described or over-exaggerated

The metaphorical language used in scripture is the best possible, the only possible, language. Here's what an update might read like, courtesy of the sig line of member "Acts6:5":

Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied,"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "Huh?"

 

[Grega]

A feasibility analysis on God! If you weren't British I'd swear you must be a high-up in the Pentagon.

I think you should start smaller. Why don't you work up a "feasibility" analysis for magnetism or gravity, you know some of the common, ordinary everyday things. Then after you've won Nobel prizes for that, you can move on to something more difficult; the feasibility of the Mind who created magnetism and gravity.



Really? We're more knowledgeable, but more enlightened? I'm not at all sure about that.



The metaphorical language used in scripture is the best possible, the only possible, language. Here's what an update might read like, courtesy of the sig line of member "Acts6:5":

Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied,"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "Huh?"

A feasibility analysis on God! If you weren't British I'd swear you must be a high-up in the Pentagon.
A feasibility analysis can be quite easily performed on your formulation of a god since from the outside looking in I'm not bound to venerating it as you do...Are you incapable of doing a feasibility analyis on say, Larry the Leprechaun for whom I claim created the universe and itself out of a magic pot???

I think you should start smaller. Why don't you work up a "feasibility" analysis for magnetism or gravity, you know some of the common, ordinary everyday things. Then after you've won Nobel prizes for that, you can move on to something more difficult; the feasibility of the Mind who created magnetism and gravity.
I'll leave it to those who work within those fields to take such glory..and reap the benefits later from their goddidit-less explanations

Really? We're more knowledgeable, but more enlightened? I'm not at all sure about that.
I suppose that depends on your particular definition of enlightenment!

The metaphorical language used in scripture is the best possible, the only possible, language. Here's what an update might read like, courtesy of the sig line of member "Acts6:5":

Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied,"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "Huh?"

No offence mate but an update like that would be just plain cr*p!

You have merely accomplished a mapping from a collection of distinctly non-transparent conceptual dissolutions and displaced coalescence of such, to a collection of undeterminate propositions who's composition with numerically substantial units of our common lexicon optimistically hope that an infinitesimally small subset of our population, which by the circumspect consideration of taxonomy can be determined to be non other than humanoid; can not glean from this configuration a commodious mental reresentation of the message you seek not to convey with conspicuousness.

Or in human language you've merely swapped fuzzy-wuzzy metaphors with a fuzzy-wuzzier statement by using big words and combining them meaninglessly to achieve the desired level of obfuscation.
I say a god that has a fraction of the power you suggest could do much better

 

[Chesterton]

A feasibility analysis can be quite easily performed on your formulation of a god... since from the outside looking in I'm not bound to venerating it as you do...Are you incapable of doing a feasibility analyis on say, Larry the Leprechaun for whom I claim created the universe and itself out of a magic pot???

There's two distinct ideas: that this Larry created the universe, and that Larry created himself. The first is entirely feasible, the second is not. It's not feasible that the universe (or anything else) created itself. However God did not create Himself because He is eternal. Eternity is not comprehensible, but it is entirely feasible.

I'll leave it to those who work within those fields to take such glory..and reap the benefits later from their goddidit-less explanations

Don't hold your breath. But you do realize if and when those happen, then their explanations will require explanations, then those will have to be explained, and so on. You seem to think there might be some "bottom" or ultimate ground to reality. Well we're in agreement then; but Christians know the basis and source of reality as a living being.

You have merely accomplished a mapping from a collection of distinctly non-transparant conceptual dissolutions and displaced coalescence of such, to a collection of undeterminate propositions who's composition with numerically substantial units of our common lexicology optimistically hope that an infinitesimally small subset of our population, which by the circumspect consideration of taxonomy can be determined to be non other than humanoid; can not glean from this configuration a commodious mental reresentation of the message you seek not to convey with conspicuousness.

I did that? Wow.

Or in human language you've merely swapped fuzzy-wuzzy metaphors with a fuzzy-wuzzier statement by using big words and combining them meaninglessly to achieve the desired level of obfuscation.

Where does fuzziness lie? In the eye of the beholder, not in the object. What is fuzzy to you is not fuzzy at all to the believer. "He that hath eyes to see, let him see."

I say a god that has a fraction of the power you suggest could do much better[/quote]

He could do much worse. He could prove to everyone He existed and in so doing destroy free will, destroy the virtue of faith, and destroy the chance for love.

 

[Grega]

There's two distinct ideas: that this Larry created the universe, and that Larry created himself. The first is entirely feasible, the second is not. It's not feasible that the universe (or anything else) created itself. However God did not create Himself because He is eternal. Eternity is not comprehensible, but it is entirely feasible.



Don't hold your breath. But you do realize if and when those happen, then their explanations will require explanations, then those will have to be explained, and so on. You seem to think there might be some "bottom" or ultimate ground to reality. Well we're in agreement then; but Christians know the basis and source of reality as a living being.



I did that? Wow.



Where does fuzziness lie? In the eye of the beholder, not in the object. What is fuzzy to you is not fuzzy at all to the believer. "He that hath eyes to see, let him see."

I say a god that has a fraction of the power you suggest could do much better

He could do much worse. He could prove to everyone He existed and in so doing destroy free will, destroy the virtue of faith, and destroy the chance for love.[/quote]

There's two distinct ideas: that this Larry created the universe, and that Larry created himself. The first is entirely feasible, the second is not. It's not feasible that the universe (or anything else) created itself. However God did not create Himself because He is eternal. Eternity is not comprehensible, but it is entirely feasible.
Hmm...now what would the average theist say to the above where Larry a substitute for god? lets see...I know: "Do you compare yourself to Larry??? How can you as a human bound to a universe created by Larry Herself possibly talk about how Larry was Herself created by Herself with a magic pot???. We who have faith see that She in Her boundless power is able to do what is said in scripture: the Lepra'con"

But the above aside,you have actually demonstrated that for any other entity than your god you can indeed consider whether a given proposition is feasible or not!...and also I'm sure you see it wasn't particularly difficult

Don't hold your breath. But you do realize if and when those happen, then their explanations will require explanations, then those will have to be explained, and so on. You seem to think there might be some "bottom" or ultimate ground to reality. Well we're in agreement then; but Christians know the basis and source of reality as a living being.
I don't hold my breath, nor do I expect to be alive if/when such an explanation is found...but even if the ultimate ground to reality as you put it is a god, I say that it is neither your formulation of a god nor mine!

Where does fuzziness lie? In the eye of the beholder, not in the object. What is fuzzy to you is not fuzzy at all to the believer. "He that hath eyes to see, let him see."
Well it is fuzzy to me!

He could do much worse. He could prove to everyone He existed and in so doing destroy free will, destroy the virtue of faith, and destroy the chance for love.
Not surprisingly I disagree with this statement on a number of levels

 

[Chesterton]

Hmm...now what would the average theist say to the above where Larry a substitute for god? lets see...I know: "Do you compare yourself to Larry??? How can you as a human bound to a universe created by Larry Herself possibly talk about how Larry was Herself created by Herself with a magic pot???. We who have faith see that She in Her boundless power is able to do what is said in scripture: the Lepra'con"

I don't understand at all what you're saying here.

But the above aside,you have actually demonstrated that for any other entity than your god you can indeed consider whether a given proposition is feasible or not!...and also I'm sure you see it wasn't particularly difficult

No, I just said an eternal God is feasible; I guess that means you agree? - your giving Him a new appellation or substitute persona doesn't affect anything.

 

[Timuchin]

Doing a feasability analysis means putting yourself in His shoes -- if He wears shoes. A lot of people like the feel of His shoes and start toying with the idea of being god. Bad idea.
I disagree...under your model I would be imaginig myself as a self defined perfectly good/judgemental/.../loving entity capable of doing and seeing everything with the further property of existing in a separate dimension of time to the inhabitants of our universe, and assuming I blieved in such a thing then yes before I fully realise the powers I would have I might have a mindset to let it go to my head and do nasty things to others.

However I need only imagine myself as an entity with the property of existing in my own separate timeline to perform this feasibility analysis

No, I would agree with you. Your strawman would be pretty bad. But the possibility of less comprehensive ego mania is more likely. The more out of touch with reality, the quicker God's reality would come along & mug them!

I've had people tell me that God should have told those shepherders on the backside of the desert about physics, chemistry and astonomy. They wouldn't have had any use for it and wouldn't have written it down. To reach people we have to reach out to where they are at. If you wanted to communicate with ants, you would need to become as ant-like as possible.
He could have the Bible updated!...in fact the main obstacle for people like me is that we see people expect we should take to be true that which was meant for those with the enlightenment of our long gone anscestors. Yes I don't disagree that they may have been told what they perhaps needed to know, but I say that any stories about the properties of your god (supposing it exists) are either insufficiently described or over-exaggerated

God gives us updated wisdom and guidance through the Holy Spirit that is in us Christians. I have been led by a direct word from God for over 30 years. When I FOLLOW that word, no matter how strange, things work out.

We are not "people of the Book" like the Jews and Muslims. We are people of the Holy Spirit -- who wrote the Bible, by the way. The Holy Spirit communicates to us through a spiritual voice, dreams, visions, and an "inner knowing." A Christian without this is terribly handicapped. Most Christians do.

God finally did that by actually begetting a human son among humans so people could understand God's character through this human. Jesus dirtied His diapers, played with other children, learned a trade, got hungry & thirsty and felt pain when hurt. God sent His Holy Spirit upon this special human and performed miracles, to show what He could do for any human who came to Him. He was the perfect Christian.

I have claimed & use many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit just like Jesus did. I have guidance from God just like Jesus did. I have preached the gospel and healed numerous sick & lame just like Jesus did. I haven't raised anyone from the dead yet, but I'm working on that.
My responses to these don't belong in this thread

That's okay. I know what Richard Dawkins has to say already. We are called liars when we bring up the supernatural aspects of our faith. Why? Because Richard Dawkins says these things couldn't have happened. But they DO happen for me and those around me. Try to be open minded. Look up my Order of Saint Patrick website.

 

[Grega]

I don't understand at all what you're saying here.



No, I just said an eternal God is feasible; I guess that means you agree? - your giving Him a new appellation or substitute persona doesn't affect anything.

I don't understand at all what you're saying here.
When you first encountered my using the words "feasibility analysis" your initial reaction was akin to: "feasibility analysis on God!!!?...preposterous!...this is god we're talking about!!!". But when I asked if you could do the same with a deliberately incoherrent entity I made up, you, not bound by the shackles of veneration for this entity easily determined what wasn't feasible. So what was in red could have been a response I would given were I to hold it true that this Larry exists and has at least those properties I suggested.

No, I just said an eternal God is feasible; I guess that means you agree? - your giving Him a new appellation or substitute persona doesn't affect anything.
You identified that the proposition Larry created the universe and itself from a magic pot is ludicrous...you determined it to be not feasible. You could do this because it wasn't your god under the magnifying glass (as it were)

 

[Grega]

No, I would agree with you. Your strawman would be pretty bad. But the possibility of less comprehensive ego mania is more likely. The more out of touch with reality, the quicker God's reality would come along & mug them!
God gives us updated wisdom and guidance through the Holy Spirit that is in us Christians. I have been led by a direct word from God for over 30 years. When I FOLLOW that word, no matter how strange, things work out.

We are not "people of the Book" like the Jews and Muslims. We are people of the Holy Spirit -- who wrote the Bible, by the way. The Holy Spirit communicates to us through a spiritual voice, dreams, visions, and an "inner knowing." A Christian without this is terribly handicapped. Most Christians do.
That's okay. I know what Richard Dawkins has to say already. We are called liars when we bring up the supernatural aspects of our faith. Why? Because Richard Dawkins says these things couldn't have happened. But they DO happen for me and those around me. Try to be open minded. Look up my Order of Saint Patrick website.

God gives us updated wisdom and guidance through the Holy Spirit that is in us Christians. I have been led by a direct word from God for over 30 years. When I FOLLOW that word, no matter how strange, things work out.

We are not "people of the Book" like the Jews and Muslims. We are people of the Holy Spirit -- who wrote the Bible, by the way. The Holy Spirit communicates to us through a spiritual voice, dreams, visions, and an "inner knowing." A Christian without this is terribly handicapped. Most Christians do.
But this 'updated wisdom' would require that I have the mindset to find truth in one holy book over all others...it requires that I be content to accept properties of this god, and concepts related to it which I say are false under the most reasonable or common interpretations of them...Essentially it requires me to commit the act of double-think.

That's okay. I know what Richard Dawkins has to say already. We are called liars when we bring up the supernatural aspects of our faith. Why? Because Richard Dawkins says these things couldn't have happened. But they DO happen for me and those around me. Try to be open minded. Look up my Order of Saint Patrick website
Thats a bit cheeky!...implying I'm a sheep are you? Would you be happy if I was to suggest that you merely copy what Kent Hovind has to say on such matters?

Besides, though I like his works (not so sure I enjoy his 'God Delusion' though) his mission is de-convert and to pursuade that belief in any supernatural entity is silly...I on the other hand would be just content to have a better defined god, one which is not contradictory, a god who's attributes can either be justified & measured against criteria that don't actually use this god in the first place, or not mentioned/ invoked at all. If this ever became so then I would be then happy to silently accept or remain undecided on the proposition he exists, and say nothing more about it!

 

[Chesterton]

When you first encountered my using the words "feasibility analysis" your initial reaction was akin to: "feasibility analysis on God!!!?...preposterous!...this is god we're talking about!!!". But when I asked if you could do the same with a deliberately incoherrent entity I made up, you, not bound by the shackles of veneration for this entity easily determined what wasn't feasible. So what was in red could have been a response I would given were I to hold it true that this Larry exists and has at least those properties I suggested.

No, no. Read it again. I claim the exact same of the Christian God as I do for this Larry character. Christianity does not claim God created Himself.

You identified that the proposition Larry created the universe and itself from a magic pot is ludicrous...you determined it to be not feasible. You could do this because it wasn't your god under the magnifying glass (as it were)

No. Here's what I said:

Larry created the universe = feasible. (Of course what you're calling Larry, I call Jehovah God.)

Larry created itself = not feasible (and not claimed by Larry-anity ).

(But I don't get the addition of a magic pot - does it symbolize something?)

 

[Grega]

No, no. Read it again. I claim the exact same of the Christian God as I do for this Larry character. Christianity does not claim God created Himself.



No. Here's what I said:

Larry created the universe = feasible. (Of course what you're calling Larry, I call Jehovah God.)

Larry created itself = not feasible (and not claimed by Larry-anity ).

(But I don't get the addition of a magic pot - does it symbolize something?)

Response via pm