RAFH

Nope, hard to figure out what doesn't exist. But as to intellectual comparisons, I would argue I have the advantage over a being similar to your imaginary god, the being described in the bible, which doesn't exist. I know the value of pi. I am able to defeat iron chariots. I can even make a pile of bricks I can't pick up, which it appears your hero can not do. Plus I know about a lot more than your buddy does, like about steel, lasers, computers, atomic energy, the distance to the moon, sun, planets and stars. I could go on and on.

But predictability, hard to say, your guy doesn't exist and that's about as unpredictable as one can get. Of course, I am fairly unpredictable as well. At least most of my family and friends claim that. Then again, what's predictability have to do with any of this.

RAFH

Are you saying your god can't create himself? I thought he was omnipotent.

Besides, I could define something as not have limits, which puts the sputz to your claim that definitions place limits on things.

LGM

Reading the bible, or observing human nature, (especially the various natures of his alleged Christian followers), leads me to only one firm conclusion...

...bible god is a bumbling, incompetent, unimaginative dolt…

…or perhaps a lowbrow comedian.

hsweet

My comments were to analyze the concept of a personified God. The alternative view ( Eastern sourced) is of God, impersonal. The concept is of a Universal Consciousness manifesting itself as the universe of change that we know. It is both universal and relative at the same time. So, you could say, metaphorically, that the creation reflects the mind of the creator.

Selsaral

Your claim is indistinguishable from the claims of Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and thousands of other religions throughout history. Every religious person is absolutely positive that their religious text is so amazing only a God could have inspired, and everyone from different religions thinks those claims are absurd.

LGM

A god "impersonal" is what we call "nature" or naturalism. They are indistinguishable.
I have no idea what a "Universal Consciousness" is, or why it should be capitalized. Can you explain it? Last I checked, we don't consider stars, rocks, plants or radio frequencies "conscious". Consciousness is simply a term we use to describe a nebulous collection of attributes that are emergent in certain biological organisms with large cortexes. It is neither shared or universal.

This again, means nothing to me. It sounds like poetic babble.

If you took a dump in the woods, I wonder if some insect larva that fed off your excrement, would metaphorically imagine that your feces reflect the mind of it's creator?

hsweet

'Omnipotent' is an adjective describing an anthropomorphic diety and that is what I have taken a position against. This technically puts me into the athiest camp. On the other hand, being a-theist does not preclude the discussion of an 'existance' that is beyond the relative world of space-time-matter-energy that we experience.

To argue against such an existance based on day to day experience is akin to arguements in medevil times that air did not exist because it could not be seen.

As we expand our perception of reality we are constantly making new discoveries. We should not preclude the possibility of more.

If you think that space and time are unlimited, the current cosmological thinking is that space and time are a continium that originated about 14 billion years ago with the 'big bang'. Following this reasoning, the term 'before the big bang' would be an oxymoron. But to our intellects which evolved to function within the fields of space and time, this is inconceiveable. Never-the -less, to address issues such as this and other complexities such as ten dimension universes and the like, we need to accept the limitations of our own intelects.

hsweet

From the view of intellect, reality consists of four 'elements'. These would be space, time, matter and energy. We have progressed to the point in our understanding of these to be able to reduce the four to two -- space-time and matter-energy. We have also learned through Quantum mechanics that, at that level, the world of our senses disappears. The four 'elements' all get jumbled in an incomprehensible way. The physical universe,as we experience it, vanishes.

This leaves you with the question of understanding the source of the universe or creation that we experience. It is not a question to be dismissed simply because the source of our space-time-matter-energy world is beyond our experience.

LGM

What would this "discussion" be based on, other than your imagination?

Who was arguing that "air" did not "exist" in medevil times? And what does that have to with your speculation that something you are calling "god" exists beyond "the relative world of space-time-matter-energy that we experience."

Your analogy makes no sense.

If you have some evidence for this thing you are referring to as "god", please present it. Bad analogies and your imagination aren't likely to convince me.

Thanks for the lecture, but no one is doing that. How would we make a "new discovery" of "your god"?

How would we identify it as "your god"?

No, it would simply be a poor choice of words for describing something beyond our observable event horizon.

Not only is it conceivable, but it is frequently being speculated by cosmologists.

Are you claiming that the "limitatation of our intellects" is what is preventing us from discovering the god of hsweet?

That sounds somewhat pretentious. How is it that you came to know your version of this thing you are calling god? Surely you used some capacity of your intellect, even if only your capacity for speculation and imagination.

LGM

Really? I find the term "reality" is often abused and over simplified in comments such as these.

What category would a KitKat fall into?

Really?

That must be why I can't see electrons or quarks! :banghead:

I suppose I should take your word for that.

It vanishes and is incomprehensible, but that doesn't stop you from telling me about it...interesting...

Why does any of "this" leave me with "that"? There is by no means a "single source" to what I "experience". A KitKat bar is a sugar confection manufactured by the Hershey's Corporation. It's "source", is well known to me.

I'm not dismissing any questions, I'm simply marveling at your ability to spew bad analogies and poetic rhetoric about the “limitation of mankind's intellect”, while obviously not recognizing the limits of your own.