Is God really and fully omnipotent?

[Jedi]

But the baker and the cookies are both made out of the same chemicals, just arranged differently and there are more in the baker.

You’ve completely missed the point and are grasping at thin air here. Again, there’s no reason to think that God, the creator of matter, is made out of matter himself. Supposing doe was a completely different substance than what humans are made of, the analogy stands. The analogy was given to demonstrate the logic fallacy you’re committing: “We are made out of matter, so God is made out of matter” is just as nonsensical as saying “cookies are made out of doe, so we are made out of doe.”

Besides, "Spiritual" matter must share some of the characteristics of normal matter because God can interact with our world and we can interact with his. If spiritual matter were completely seperate[sic] then neither God nor Humanity would have any idea the other existed

They are separate in the sense that they are not the same. The man inside of a car is not the same as the car itself. They may have similar properties at some points, but one does not equal the other. Perhaps like a tree is similar to a computer in that they are made out of matter, perhaps the spiritual and the material are similar in that they are created by God using something else (if anything at all).

Also, here's something neat to think about: Numbers aren't made of matter, but we know very well that they exist. I think I'd be hard pressed to find someone who thought people just "made up" numbers and all their mathematical laws. We more or less discovered them. However, numbers and all their mathematical laws are not things you can taste, see, touch, smell, or hear. You can see five apples, but you are only seeing the apples and not the actual number 5. It would appear that numbers are very real, but have a different sort of existence than we humans have - a sort of non-empirical existence. This comes to show that for one thing to know of another thing, they both do not have to be made out of matter, or even have the same kind of existence.

 

[Tyranthus]

You have a good point, IF dough were a COMPLETELY different substace than physical matter then the analogy would stand, but then again IF is a very general word IF wishes were horses then beggars would ride, IF I had a million dollars then I could buy anything I wanted, but it isn't, dough IS the same matter that we are. Besides Dough is just the name we give to that particular grouping of matter, if it were grouped differently then we would call it something else. God could just be differently grouped matter. As for the car analogy, the same rules apply to both the driver and the car, the only difference is their mass, shape ect...
You are right that numbers aren't made of matter, but their concept is RECORDED on matter, when we think of five, we refer to the grouping of chemicals in our brain that represents the number five, so I suppose that "five" looks like that chemical structure in reality.

 

[Tyranthus]

Concepts don't just float around in space, they have to be recorded on something or they don't exist. Which means that God himself must be recorded on something in order to exist (recorded and "made out of" are being used interchangeably).

 

[Jedi]

You have a good point, IF dough were a COMPLETELY different substace than physical matter then the analogy would stand, but then again IF is a very general word IF wishes were horses then beggars would ride, IF I had a million dollars then I could buy anything I wanted, but it isn't, dough IS the same matter that we are.

You’re focus is completely off, though. The point is this: Are people made of dough (previous misspelling my mistake)? The fact that they are not was the entire point. No use to split hairs.

Besides Dough is just the name we give to that particular grouping of matter, if it were grouped differently then we would call it something else. God could just be differently grouped matter.

But that does not mean he is a differently grouped collection of matter. To believe so is based solely on blind faith.

As for the car analogy, the same rules apply to both the driver and the car, the only difference is their mass, shape ect...

The point is the same. Car does not equal man.

You are right that numbers aren't made of matter, but their concept is RECORDED on matter, when we think of five, we refer to the grouping of chemicals in our brain that represents the number five, so I suppose that "five" looks like that chemical structure in reality.

This point is moot. Numbers exist independently of the mind. A triangle will always have 180 degrees and three sides independant of human thought, since it is a necessary truth.

Concepts don't just float around in space, they have to be recorded on something or they don't exist.

This idea is pure folly. People just don’t make up numbers and mathematical laws, nor did these things come into existence only when people thought of them. For something to exist, it must be recorded? Utter nonsense. Plenty of things exist without being recorded.

Which means that God himself must be recorded on something in order to exist (recorded and "made out of" are being used interchangeably).

Hardly. This same logic would assert that if some event in history were never recorded, it never happened. This is quite simply absurd.

 

[Tyranthus]

You are misunderstanding me. People aren't made of "dough" but we are both composed of carbohydrates, fats sugars salts ect.....
I know that a man isn't a car but the same rules apply to both of them, that's what I was saying.
It is true that triangles will always have the same 180 degrees three angles ect... but the concept of them is what I was talking about, it was US who named triangles, and the fact that they are called triangles exists solely in the mind, that's what I meant.
As for things have to be recorded on something to exist, as I explained in my last post, they have to be MADE of something, God must be MADE of something or he doesn't exist plain and simple. That's what I meant.
And finally, while I understand what you mean, considering history is the name for the recods of the past, if there were no records of the past then "history" wouldn't exist. The past doesn't technically exist either, it exists only in memory. There is only the present what is to be.

 

[Jedi]

You are misunderstanding me.

No, I'm not. You're simply focusing on something entirely different in that analogy, and are completely overlooking the point it illustrates. Just because someone creates something does not mean the maker is made out of those same substances.

It is true that triangles will always have the same 180 degrees three angles ect... but the concept of them is what I was talking about, it was US who named triangles, and the fact that they are called triangles exists solely in the mind, that's what I meant.

Ah, but that's another moot point. "Triangle" is merely a reference to a three-sideded object composed of 180 angles. The word is a reference, nothing more, and simply because we make up a word for a particular thing doesn't make that thing any less real. We also make up words to refer to animals (i.e. a "bear"), but the word is a reference to the actual thing.

As for things have to be recorded on something to exist, as I explained in my last post, they have to be MADE of something, God must be MADE of something or he doesn't exist plain and simple. That's what I meant.

Of course. I never said God wasn't "made" of anything, but there's no reason to think that it must be matter. I think for us to try to conceive how God works and of what He is composed would be more useless than a cockroach trying to conceive the materials of which humans are composed and how we work.

And finally, while I understand what you mean, considering history is the name for the recods of the past, if there were no records of the past then "history" wouldn't exist. The past doesn't technically exist either, it exists only in memory. There is only the present what is to be.

Perhaps, although avoiding a timeline of moments is futile. History is not the name for the records of teh past, but is a name that refers to events that happened in the past (not just the records of them). Human history spans further and much more elaborate than the recorded parts.

 

[jodrey]

Hmm... I'm going to side with Tyranthus on this issue. It makes sense that in order to affect something, it must be made out of the same substance as the creator. With the baker analogy, he can make a doughnut, but the substance of the doughnut and the man are the same, if structured differently. You can't just say that the dough is a different substance because it has a different molecular structure. If God is matter then He is obviously structured differently than we are, but you could easily say that He is the baker and that we are the dough. The baker, using his hands, mixes the materials, and then molds it into the desired shape.

The rest of your argument is based on a misunderstanding, I think. Jedi is talking in an absolute sense while Tyranthus is talking in more relative terms. What Tyr means is that we cannot understand a concept (and hence it doesn't exist to our perspective) that is not based in a world we understand. I believe you (Jedi) said earlier, that we would not know it is dark if we did not know what light is, and therefore 'dark' would have no meaning to us. While the concept may exist, it doesn't matter since we can't understand it. In order for a concept to be "real" we must be able to apply it to something that we have experienced. Numbers are applied to matter. If we had not experienced matter (or something similar... hard to say what that would be since we haven't experienced it) then numbers may as well not exist, and in effect, to us, they wouldn't.

So this brings up an interesting question (one I think Tyr already asked). If we use this logic, must God be made out of matter? Since I know Jedi believes that God is spirit and spirit only, then is spirit matter? It must be if we use this same reasoning, I think. Like the baker related to the dough, God would be a more complex and powerful form of matter (an eternal form as well).

Jedi, I liked the way you addressed the original question: God may not be able to do "anything," but He may be able to do "anything possible." I strongly agree with that. I find it vexing when people say, "God is all powerful; He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn't have to conform to your logic." Well, God created our logic, and I believe He made it in such a way as to manifest Himself to us. While some things regarding God may be difficult to understand, I don't think anything is possible. Even a cockroach can have the ability to understand things about humans. The laws enacted on each creature are the same, and therefore understanding is possible, even if one creature's intellect is minute compared to the other's. This is really my own belief (and my church's), but I find it to simply be logical.

As far as being happy, I think that is the point. Knowing Him... What exactly do you mean by this? I think the process of getting to know Him is what makes us happy. Do you believe in a preexistance? If so, it is safe to say that we knew Him then, right? Is there a scripture that says that the point of our existance isn't to be made happy?

 

[Outspoken]

"Sure, we can always turn to the "If we can't think of an answer then it's something God understands but we don't" answer, but let's try a little harder, please."

*sigh* your attempt to talk down to me because I gave you a corrrect answer is quite appauling. Just because you are limited and can't think that far don't blame me. Its because you're human. Greater, smarter and more intellegent people then you or I have thought long and hard about this, I've read their works and lookie there, I came up with the answer they did. You need to give it time. You won't and can't figure out the big questions, thats why they are still questions. Its not like people of the past were stupid.

 

[Outspoken]

"they have to be MADE of something, God must be MADE of something or he doesn't exist plain and simple. That's what I meant. "

God is made of God. You can't define a word using that same word. God defines exsistance.

 

[Tyranthus]

To be honest, I think this argument is going nowhere, besides, we are not arguing what God is made of on this thread (we can start a new thread later). We are arguing wheather he is really completely omnipotent.
Now because we have not traveled to any other parts of the universe than the Earth, as far as we know, God may only occupy the immeadiate space surrounding the Earth. We can only know for sure just exactly how far he reaches when we go there. When the Bible and other religious texts were written, man theought that the universe consisted entirely of the sun, moon and a dome of stars that didn't stretch out past the sun. When they said that he took up all of existence, they only meant this immeadiate area surrounding the Earth. If this is the case, then it is mere childs play for God to fulfill all of his religious qualifications AND scientific ones. So maybe he's only omnipotent over all humanity.

 

[Tyranthus]

That doesn't detract from him in any way, he still loves us and nurtures us, and definitely has more knowledge than us. Just like what Jedi said about the cockroach. But unlike what Jedi said about the cockroach, although a human mind is incomprehensible to a cockroach, a human mind isn't infinite either. Something doesn't have to be INFINITE to be incomprehensible. God's mind may only be a few steps above ours.

 

[jodrey]

This is the answer I had in mind. Thanks. Now a side-question: are there eternal laws that even God must obey? Perhaps it's impossible to know, but perhaps it would make sense.

*sigh* your attempt to talk down to me because I gave you a corrrect answer is quite appauling. Just because you are limited and can't think that far don't blame me. Its because you're human. Greater, smarter and more intellegent people then you or I have thought long and hard about this, I've read their works and lookie there, I came up with the answer they did. You need to give it time. You won't and can't figure out the big questions, thats why they are still questions. Its not like people of the past were stupid.

No, but you see, this is the answer many Christians give when they can't think of any other; it's an escape to believe what they want to believe. If at some point it's not then it's still hard to know, because it's used on so many things. I know you see it as the logical answer, but I see it as the silliest, most illogical answer. It's simply my belief that God made Himself understandable to us. Even a cockroach can acknowledge human qualities, quantities, etc, even though it's not very bright.

 

[Tyranthus]

There must be eternal laws for God to obey. Like I said before, God must be made of something in order to exist. Now, God thinks and knows and interacts, which means that whatever he is made of stays at a constant state, in order for matter to stay in a constant form, rules must apply to it. God cannot just will himself to hod together, or he would never have existed in the first place. Therefoe, there must be rules that apply to God as well

 

[Jedi]

Hmm... I'm going to side with Tyranthus on this issue. It makes sense that in order to affect something, it must be made out of the same substance as the creator. With the baker analogy, he can make a doughnut, but the substance of the doughnut and the man are the same, if structured differently. You can't just say that the dough is a different substance because it has a different molecular structure. If God is matter then He is obviously structured differently than we are, but you could easily say that He is the baker and that we are the dough. The baker, using his hands, mixes the materials, and then molds it into the desired shape.

But this focus is completely off and misses the entire point of the analogy. The baker is not composed of the same group of particles we call “dough.” There is a gap between the composition of the dough and the composition of the baker. The baker analogy isn’t entirely parallel to God, since the baker can only reshape materials available to him. This is not the case with God.

In order for a concept to be "real" we must be able to apply it to something that we have experienced.

No, no, no. Something can be “real” without humans ever having experienced it. It just won’t be perceived as real, but subjective perspective does not determine the objective existence of something.

So this brings up an interesting question (one I think Tyr already asked). If we use this logic, must God be made out of matter? Since I know Jedi believes that God is spirit and spirit only, then is spirit matter?

No, spirit is not matter. If spirit were matter, all spiritual things would be bound by the laws of physics (since this is true for all matter), and I think it would be pure folly to say that God is bound by the laws of physics. Miracles defy just that.

It must be if we use this same reasoning, I think. Like the baker related to the dough, God would be a more complex and powerful form of matter (an eternal form as well).

Not really. Simply because we are alike in a given way does not mean that we are made out of the same substance. To say otherwise would be baseless.

As far as being happy, I think that is the point. Knowing Him... What exactly do you mean by this? I think the process of getting to know Him is what makes us happy. Do you believe in a preexistance[sic]? If so, it is safe to say that we knew Him then, right? Is there a scripture that says that the point of our existance[sic] isn't to be made happy?

The entire theme of scripture, from the Old Testament to the New, is that God’s desire for His people is to know Him – not necessarily be happy. It is knowing God that is the goal, while being happy is the side effect. Knowing God comes first, and if happiness is what follows, then great. It is not supposed to be the case where people seek happiness, and knowing God only comes about as a result of that happiness. To say that happiness is the purpose for which we were made is completely baseless and contrary to God’s recorded focus from Genesis to Exodus to Judges to Acts and Revelation. During the persecution of the early church, if happiness were the main goal, the early saints should have renounced Christ and continue on their merry way. However, they know that knowing God and standing for Him was more important than happiness and comfort.

When they said that he took up all of existence, they only meant this immeadiate[sic] area surrounding the Earth.

Or maybe He really is Lord of all creation as His word clearly states. Colossians 1:16 reads, “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” Sounds like the writer is saying that God’s in control of everything on earth and beyond.

If this is the case, then it is mere childs[sic] play for God to fulfill all of his religious qualifications AND scientific ones. So maybe he's only omnipotent over all humanity

But even this assertion is baseless and contrary to the gist of scripture.

God's mind may only be a few steps above ours.

And I think this train of thought begins to deify man while humanizing God. It’s like saying, “See? There’s really not much difference between God and us. We are much more equal than you think.”

There must be eternal laws for God to obey.

Then your statement is self-defeating. If there are eternal laws God has to obey, then God is not God, and whatever placed these laws above Him is God (the ultimate authority).

Like I said before, God must be made of something in order to exist.

Kind of like numbers, huh?

Now, God thinks and knows and interacts, which means that whatever he is made of stays at a constant state, in order for matter to stay in a constant form, rules must apply to it. God cannot just will himself to hod[sic] together, or he would never have existed in the first place. Therefoe[sic], there must be rules that apply to God as well

And why can’t God will Himself to hold together? He never had a beginning, since He is a necessary being. He is the uncaused cause who exists even beyond time, since time itself had a beginning. Time is linear, using one moment after another. If time were infinite, there would have been an infinite number of moments before this one, and so this moment we’re using now would have never arrived. But this moment has arrived, and so time is not infinite. In light of this, it’s easy to see how absurd your comments are when trying to compare God to man in saying that he’s really not as different from humans as some think. If we cannot even conceive what a being that exists outside of time is like, what makes us think that you’re able to understand how He is composed?

 

[Tyranthus]

Can you back any of your statements up with logic? Or are you just arguing for the sake of argument? You are only repeating things that you have heard other people say, but that don't really apply here.

Ok you're right, a baker is not made of what we call "dough". But a pretzel is not called a bagel, but they are made of the same stuff. Just because something has a different name doesn't mean it is a different thing.

Second, back when the Bible was written the word for "all of creation" was the same word for "the Earth" they only got seperated later. Just because something is contrary to scripture doesn't mean it is untrue. As I recall, it was once blasphemy to belive that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, but now we take that fact for granted, scripture is being disproven all the time, it is not infallible.

Third, God cannot will himself into existence because when he didn't exist there was no will to do this, he has to have formed naturally.

And finally, what is wrong with stating that Humans are closer to God than we give ourselves credit. As I recall, the HUMAn soul is mad of the same thing that God is, if we exist on the same plane as him, as well as share the capacity for free will with him (angels do not have free will, so Humans are holier than angels). Logic dictates that Humanity is only ONE step down from God at the most.

 

[Jedi]

Can you back any of your statements up with logic? Or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

Funny – I was about to ask you the same thing.

You are only repeating things that you have heard other people say, but that don't really apply here.

I’m repeating myself because people don’t listen, and everything I’ve written applies, or else I would not have written it.

Ok you're right, a baker is not made of what we call "dough". But a pretzel is not called a bagel, but they are made of the same stuff. Just because something has a different name doesn't mean it is a different thing.

So you mean to say that bagel=pretzel? Just because the creation is made out of a particular substance does not mean that the creator is made out of that same substance, and that is my entire point.

Second, back when the Bible was written the word for "all of creation" was the same word for "the Earth" they only got seperated[sic] later. Just because something is contrary to scripture doesn't mean it is untrue.

And that’s where I adamantly disagree. If Scripture=truth, and something is against scripture, then it is, by definition, false.

As I recall, it was once blasphemy to belive[sic] that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, but now we take that fact for granted, scripture is being disproven[sic] all the time, it is not infallible.

Oh, please. That was the church saying it, and taking literature that’s clearly poetry and interpreting all to be literally true. Things can be true literally, but not always literally true. Not only this, but scripture describes the earth as a "circle" in literature that's clearly Pros in Isaiah 40:22.

Third, God cannot will himself into existence because when he didn't exist there was no will to do this, he has to have formed naturally.

And this is why God never had a beginning. Do you not read what I type? He is the uncaused cause. Read up on the cosmological arguments, and you’ll get the idea.

And finally, what is wrong with stating that Humans are closer to God than we give ourselves credit.[sic]

It’s nothing more than pride. It is a play on man’s desire, just like Satan did, in saying that the human will be like God.

As I recall, the HUMAn[sic] soul is mad of the same thing that God is, if we exist on the same plane as him, as well as share the capacity for free will with him (angels do not have free will, so Humans are holier than angels). Logic dictates that Humanity is only ONE step down from God at the most.

Your first premise is completely baseless. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are made of the same components as God Himself. Furthermore, your second premise is also wrong. Merely because you are made out of the same materials does not mean that is the only factor in comparison of two things. Reason, knowledge, love, mercy, honor, grace, courage, power, compassion, forgiveness, wisdom, patience, etc. all factor into these things as well. All it would take is for God to be infinite in just one of these areas, and that would make Him infinitely greater than any human. Simply because two things are made out of the same material does not mean they even have the same potential.

 

[Tyranthus]

Scripture does not=truth. There are hundreds, even thousands of ancient religious texts, and many of them disagree. Who's to say which one is right? All that we have are the testimonies based whithin the texts themselves, and that is no basis for belif in anything. That's like beliveing a product is good because its commercial says so. When taking into consideration the nature of the universe, we cannot take ancient scriptures as evidence except perhaps as ideas to follow up. Th Bible was written thousands of years ago, and has been translated so many times, and tampered with, that it is impossible to tell which words are the originals and which were added later foe political reasons.

As for humanity's resemblence to God, all of the things that you listed that God has, Humanity can do as well, and considering that we have yet to see God demonstrate the infinite capacity for ANY of these things, we do not know if he actually has them.

Finally, lets drop the freaking dough argument, we're never going to understand each other on it, so lets set it aside until we can argue something new.

 

[Tyranthus]

Most imprtantly of all though, EVERYTHING has a beginning. God's history of existence might stretch so far back that the first primitive humans could call him nothing but infinite, that doesn't mean he is. That was just a primitive estimation. Besides, the Christian history of God is only one of many like I said before, other people who predate Christianity describe exactly how and when their Gods came into being.

 

[jodrey]

Hmmm... I think we should come to an understanding on the dough argument. It's really not that complex. Flesh and dough are very similar: the same laws act on them. They are on the same plane. Jedi, your argument is based on the idea that dough is different than what we are made out of, but that's really not true. If certain chemical reactions take place, the two materials could be made exactly the same. Because the same laws act on the substances they are virtually (although not literally) the same substance. The same would be true for someone who molds titanium. Titanium may be a completely different element than what our bodies are made up of, but it falls under the same category as our substance. Therefore, logic tells us that in order to affect something of one nature, a means produced by the same nature is necessary. This must mean one of three things: 1) Spirit is matter, 2) God also has a physical substance, or 3) God does not follow this law.

It also makes logical sense that there are laws God must obey; whether they are His laws that He chooses to follow, or if they're simply there, is not the question. The question is of whether He follows law, period. I think He does. Miracles are known as such not because they defy the law, but because they defy the law as it is known to us. Let's face it -- God knows a lot more physics than we do. If Christ walks on water, turns water to wine, or heals a leper, who are we to say that He's defying the laws of physics? We simply don't know enough about those laws in order to make that kind of judgment. The means by which He produces the miracle may be unseen, but the process is most likely there.

he baker analogy isn’t entirely parallel to God, since the baker can only reshape materials available to him. This is not the case with God.

Well, I don't exactly believe in creation ex nihilo, but that's a completely different topic.

No, no, no. Something can be “real” without humans ever having experienced it. It just won’t be perceived as real, but subjective perspective does not determine the objective existence of something.

I agree, but if no one knows if something exists then who's to say it does anyway? It's kind of like that question, "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" (Assume we don't know anything about vibrations.)

No, spirit is not matter. If spirit were matter, all spiritual things would be bound by the laws of physics (since this is true for all matter), and I think it would be pure folly to say that God is bound by the laws of physics. Miracles defy just that.

But you cannot see spirit matter, so how do you know it does not follow the laws of physics? Again, you believe that God made the laws of physics, and according to the baker analogy, He would have had to be subject to the same laws in order to create us. He could have very well placed Himself within His own laws in order to create. This does not mean that God is limited exactly, because He being the creator of the law would naturally hold the key to release Himself (and/or others if He so wished) from the law.

Not really. Simply because we are alike in a given way does not mean that we are made out of the same substance. To say otherwise would be baseless.

Well, it's difficult to say that. The only thing we see, and therefore have experience in to comprehend, is matter. According to what we see in this physical world, the law is as I stated earlier. Whether it is different with a different plane cannot be effectively determined.

The entire theme of scripture, from the Old Testament to the New, is that God’s desire for His people is to know Him – not necessarily be happy. It is knowing God that is the goal, while being happy is the side effect. Knowing God comes first, and if happiness is what follows, then great. It is not supposed to be the case where people seek happiness, and knowing God only comes about as a result of that happiness. To say that happiness is the purpose for which we were made is completely baseless and contrary to God’s recorded focus from Genesis to Exodus to Judges to Acts and Revelation. During the persecution of the early church, if happiness were the main goal, the early saints should have renounced Christ and continue on their merry way. However, they know that knowing God and standing for Him was more important than happiness and comfort.

Yes, but another major theme is that of salvation. If this was not important then why did Jesus teach to be fishers of men? Why the effort to make people righteous if the only point is only to know God? If that was true then it wouldn't matter where people ended up. Must we admit then that it is at least a secondary objective?

Or maybe He really is Lord of all creation as His word clearly states. Colossians 1:16 reads, “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” Sounds like the writer is saying that God’s in control of everything on earth and beyond.

All in regards to what though? Tyr's reasoning on this isn't so bad, because our perspective would depend on what we see as "all." It is not unreasonable to say that God meant "all" as "all you know of." Whether it really meant that I doubt, but it's possible.

And I think this train of thought begins to deify man while humanizing God. It’s like saying, “See? There’s really not much difference between God and us. We are much more equal than you think.”

I certainly wouldn't want to do that if it wasn't true, but I think it stands to reason that God is more human (except that He is perfect) than many think. While we certainly should not blaspheme, we should also seek the truth, and this seems plausible.

Then your statement is self-defeating. If there are eternal laws God has to obey, then God is not God, and whatever placed these laws above Him is God (the ultimate authority).

Interesting point. What is God? What defines that title? Would existing laws actually be a greater 'God' than He? It's possible to work within law. I have a theory that maybe I'll make another topic about law being required for freedom... Interesting stuff.

Kind of like numbers, huh?

Technically, numbers don't exist because they are not physical "things," but a concept that is applied to physical things. If you compare God to numbers then you are in effect saying that God does not exist as a being, but only as a concept (kind of like resurrection or reincarnation). Concepts are different than object-types and exist in a different way. You can't apply descriptions to numbers like you can with God or any other physically-existing thing. God is loving, omniscient, etc. You can't say that about numbers, can you? We're talking about two very different forms of existance.

 

[Tyranthus]

Good point Jodrey.
My views differ from your on a few minor points, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of them, because it would be like saying that your favorite color was wrong and mine was right. All in all, I think you hit the nail on the head.