99Percent

Pompous Bastard: I have to admit that I have no idea what your most recent post to me means. Can you restate your point more clearly? Thanks.

I was thinking that someone that acts within the boundaries of understood laws, but not in an entirely predictable way could be maybe said to be a god too, since he is having a will of his own. This god if we are unable to communicate with him would either have to be destroyed (like in Ender's Game) or it would have to be submitted to, I rather accept the former because I don't think the human mind is capable of having its own will submitted to another being of whose actions are bound by laws that are understood.

I think your basic argument is that any being that we might think of as god is, by definition, supernatural but any being that interacts with us in a manner consistent enough for us to gain knowledge of it must be bound by some set of laws and, therefore, should be considered natural. A natural being is, by definition, not a god, so no god can exist. Is this correct?

This is correct.

Theli

This is an interesting point you're making. If god would be able to communicate with humans he would have to have a natural form from wich he "emits" and "receives" information through a natural medium such as air (if he was speaking, that is...)