I'm wondering why you've used a definition which you don't accept to correct another perspective of the same thing . . .

Questions to get back on point.

1- Does your "God" in the supposition have a consciousness or is it just a set of forces?
2- Is it within or outside the known universe?
3-Is it within the confines of known laws of nature?
4- Does/ How does it connected to percievable reality?

(January 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: I'm wondering why you've used a definition which you don't accept to correct another perspective of the same thing . . .

Is that @ me? If so: I do accept that definition.

I find talking with you to be a bit of an effort fr0d0.

(January 15, 2010 at 8:41 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: I find talking with you to be a bit of an effort fr0d0.

Most of us do.

Sorry Frodo,

You can't use a traditional view of God.

That is the point of the thread.

To step outside of that box .

But, we have concluded that God is not an emergent property.

But a Creator.

But since the universe is approx. 14 billion years old, it's objectives

are not just that of the human race worshipping it.

So what would it's ultimate goals be?

refining of matter and the laws of nature to teh most effecient and simplest likeness?

Also to bump:
Does your "God" in the supposition have a consciousness or is it just a set of forces?
2- Is it within or outside the known universe?
3-Is it within the confines of known laws of nature?
4- Does/ How does it connected to percievable reality?

(January 15, 2010 at 8:41 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: I find talking with you to be a bit of an effort fr0d0.

I find little reason to talk with you. I answered your question... what more do you want??

(January 15, 2010 at 8:55 am)theVOID Wrote:

(January 15, 2010 at 8:41 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: I find talking with you to be a bit of an effort fr0d0.

Most of us do.

And that's the most coherent thing you're likely to respond with.

(January 15, 2010 at 9:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Sorry Frodo, You can't use a traditional view of God. That is the point of the thread. To step outside of that box. But, we have concluded that God is not an emergent property. But a Creator. But since the universe is approx. 14 billion years old, it's objectives are not just that of the human race worshipping it. So what would it's ultimate goals be?

Others were talking of the Christian God Zen and I was merely answering them.

'We have concluded' LOL
...'Someone' has suggested God is a creator yet not emergent without any logical trace. How do you make such a leap?

'It's' ultimate goal is clearly nothing to do with human adoration. Another wild leap of logic.

...seems to me you're simply butchering a concept you have very little knowledge of rather than making any progress towards formulating a realistic theology.


Omnipresence is a universal 'god' attribute which VOID ignorantly rubbishes. Pippy made a perfectly rational point which was irrationally dismissed. God is indeed seen as 'everything'.

(January 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God is indeed seen as 'everything'.

Exactly, define it that way and god has no characteristic attributes that define it whatsoever.

You've hereby managed to dissolve the god concept into oblivion. Congrats.

I'm confused. Wasn't this about postulating exactly what kind of god COULD exist as per scientific discoveries up to this point?