Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

True, but as far as we are concerned there is free will, and we are held liable to those actions since we're not a)eternal or b)omnipotent. Our perspective, for now, is the best we have to go off of until we find sentient life or AI.
I can see your point about the personificaions and I agree that the concept of God is a man-made concept. Just as the concept of black or chair is a man made concept. One is materialistic by nature another is not. I do actually believe that God's Love isn't a man made construct other than our interpretation of it. It's listed as an attributable noun in the Bible, "God is Love" . The parts where the Bible says God loves you or God is a loving God I dismiss as much as I do any other personification by adjective not proper identifier. I think our understanding of God has progreesed over years, albeit slowly and with the help of the scientific process. Using science to find "God" I believe Fr0d0 would say is an idotic excercise, but I think the scientific process can be useful in our approach to how God interacts wih the physical universe as we know it and helps define our ocncept of God.

Yes the choice is still ours. Your statement would be valid if God had no control over our choices, however he made us that way. He created us as sinners, knows when and how we will sin, and then condemns us to Hell when we sin ? this is sadistic, illogical, and certainly not what i would call "love".

Also, the concept of God is nothing like "black" or "chair". These are concepts that everyone can understand. You can ask two people with completely opposite views on every subject and they would still agree on what black or a chair is. What you describe is unique to you and many theists i know would disagree with your perception of God.

---

He didn’t make us as sinners or imperfect. He made us as decision makers in his image. It’s ludicrous to think that God created us in his image and also create us as imperfect or sinners. Your misconception lies in the fact that he created us perfect the way we are and that includes giving us the ability to turn against him and be autonomous and that each individual should be accountable for his/her own actions and decisions.

---

One problem with God is that there is absolutely no consensus on the term. It means different things to different people, which is understandable when you put it into the context that he is only a concept.

---

Or in the context that he is omnipresent and exists outside the rules of the known universe.

---

Completely the opposite. God was and is a pure concept.

No sir, there is no such thing as a "pure concept", whether you apply it to supernatural god(s), vampires, ghosts or anything else for that matter.

You seem to view it as something greater but the opposite of a mental concept or idea is an empirical object/entity that is demonstrable, something that actually exists and, this is your stumbling block here, can be demonstrated to exist. The mental conceptualisation of god like anything that exists only within the mind, without a material or physical object in reality to correlate to, is merely abstraction; therefore God is an abstract concept, not a "pure concept".

Fools came along thinking that science offered the same explanations when in reality it was a different subject. some people still hold on to such stupid notions. Only idiots replace God with Science, and vice versa.

But I guess that's why many wise theists often substitute the label "god" for the universe huh? The god/creator idea is an attempt to explain reality. It proposes a deity either intentionally/unintentionally created the universe as we know it. Science is humanity's tireless endeavour to gather knowledge and investigate reality which by corollary considers god and other logically impossible/unknowable products of myth to be utterly irrelevant in that context since there is no empirical evidence for it.

I do actually believe that God's Love isn't a man made construct other than our interpretation of it. It's listed as an attributable noun in the Bible, "God is Love" . The parts where the Bible says God loves you or God is a loving God I dismiss as much as I do any other personification by adjective not proper identifier.

You might want to reword your entire response here because that's a terrible analogy tack. You hold a position that god can be viewed as a man-made concept yet somehow his love isn't? You do realise that love is an abstract concept as well right?

I think our understanding of God has progreesed over years, albeit slowly and with the help of the scientific process. Using science to find "God" I believe Fr0d0 would say is an idotic excercise, but I think the scientific process can be useful in our approach to how God interacts wih the physical universe as we know it and helps define our ocncept of God.

Except the scientific method thrives on skepticism and new ways of thinking - religious beliefs crumble under any moderate scrutiny, and no, fr0d0 mentioned nothing about scientific study being applied to identify a god/deity existing, he stated that science doesn't hold the same kind of explanatory power as sky daddy does, which I would agree with. ^^

---

Perhaps that was poorly worded, thanks! God’s Love is a separate concept to that of the human emotion love was my point. Also that it is an identifier of God’s nature. It’s also axiomatically and unforeseeably unobtainable.
Faith also thrives on a questioning attitude and scrutiny. Honestly I don’t think religions as a whole or blind faith does though. I would also agree that science holds a better explanatory power for material existence than sky daddy does.

It's a horrible analogy, as electricity is still bound by laws. Just because there's an infinite amount of it doesn't change the fact that it is subject to certain criteria in order to be called electricity. God, on the other hand, is taken by your arguments to be the necessary author of these laws, a prescribing force rather than describing force. This raises the questions we've been asking you all along, and which you dodge continuously. For the sake of argument, I'll assume your version of God is plausible.

I'll make the questions easy and concise so you can respond to them in order.

1. What is your account for why God has a nature?
2. Can God go against that nature?
3. Why is God's will effective rather than ineffective?
4. How can an infinitely powerful being (i.e. the Christian God) have things he cannot do? [/hide]

1- He doesn’t necessarily have to have a nature, but due to his observability in this universe he therefore has some sort of nature that’s observable.
2- I suppose he could… It depends.. Can you be anyone other than you? It would be possible I’m guessing, but holds no weight because any deviation from one’s nature is a temporary and unnatural state.
3- Could you please rephrase I’m not getting it, (Sorry I’m tired)
4- I don’t see anything he can’t do. Some things are outside of his nature to do (like affect free will), but nothing prevents him from doing anything due his omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. Basically the only thing that limits God is God.