Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Paleophyte]

Nope, why would I? This ramble is +50 pages long, and your deluded if you think I'm reading through that.

I said my theodicy was one early post. (I'd like to think the search tools could help you find it). But you insinuate I asked you to read 600 posts.  Here again, funny that I'm the one accused here of reading issues.

So mind control and child sacrifice is what keeps our magnets from falling off our fridge? Explain to me how that's sanity.

Moving the goalposts again. Originally I was talking forces like gravity and magnetism with everyone, then you jumped in with an apparent objection to child sacrifices and, when I respond to that, jump back to forces like magnets.

You're a moving target.

That isn't moving goalposts. That's addressing the "deity" that you credit as the source for magnetism and the other fundamental forces in your very opening statement. Yahweh is an absurdity that anybody would be rightly ashamed to worship if it weren't for tradition. But hey, keep telling us about why this god of child sacrifice is your example of sanity.

[Jal]

No contact? That's even worse. Now I don't even have to swing the intangible golf club to move the ball. It's all magic - really it is.

Come back to me when you start making sense.

b-mine 
All things are possible with god.  You really ought to spend more time with that thought right there.

So a fair, charitable reading of the Bible is to claim that Yahweh can make 2 + 2 = 5?

Even in ordinary life, SEEMINGLY unqualified language is actually of limited force. For example if you are having a meeting you say, "Let's get started, as I can see that everyone is here."

Everyone? Everyone on the planet? Obviously the words have limited force.   Same way i read most "seemingly" unqualified assertions in the Bible. 

Again, funny I'm the one accused here of illiteracy.

[Jal]

I said my theodicy was one early post. (I'd like to think the search tools could help you find it). But you insinuate I asked you to read 600 posts.  Here again, funny that I'm the one accused here of reading issues.

Moving the goalposts again. Originally I was talking forces like gravity and magnetism with everyone, then you jumped in with an apparent objection to child sacrifices and, when I respond to that, jump back to forces like magnets.

You're a moving target.

That isn't moving goalposts. That's addressing the "deity" that you credit as the source for magnetism and the other fundamental forces in your very opening statement. Yahweh is an absurdity that anybody would be rightly ashamed to worship if it weren't for tradition. But hey, keep telling us about why this god of child sacrifice is your example of sanity.

Jumping all over the place. I'm not even sure in which sense you are asking that question. 

Maybe ask me something more  specific.

[Paleophyte]

Yes, God is 100% tangible.

Awesome! We can measure God! How and where?

Spoiler: Don't hold your breath. We're in for a big disappointment.

[Ravenshire]

That isn't moving goalposts. That's addressing the "deity" that you credit as the source for magnetism and the other fundamental forces in your very opening statement. Yahweh is an absurdity that anybody would be rightly ashamed to worship if it weren't for tradition. But hey, keep telling us about why this god of child sacrifice is your example of sanity.

Jumping all over the place. I'm not even sure in which sense you are asking that question. 

Maybe ask me something more  specific.

(my bold)

Why? You'll just spin it, twist it, or ignore it.

[Paleophyte]

That isn't moving goalposts. That's addressing the "deity" that you credit as the source for magnetism and the other fundamental forces in your very opening statement. Yahweh is an absurdity that anybody would be rightly ashamed to worship if it weren't for tradition. But hey, keep telling us about why this god of child sacrifice is your example of sanity.

Jumping all over the place. I'm not even sure in which sense you are asking that question. 

Maybe ask me something more  specific.

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time following this. What part of addressing your original statement do you find difficult? We know where Yahweh came from and it's embarrassing. You might as well be worshipping Thor, crediting him with the fundamental forces, and shrieking about how anybody who dares to disagree is clearly mad.

Do you understand why you sound like a crazy person?

[Jal]

Yes, God is 100% tangible.

Awesome! We can measure God! How and where?

Spoiler: Don't hold your breath. We're in for a big disappointment.

Absolutely you could measure God, if you have instruments capable of measuring across 100 billions galaxies and beyond.  I (tentatively) believe the Totality of matter (i.e. tangible substance) extends quite a distance, admittedly finite, beyond our universe.

Yes indeed, finite instruments could certainly quantify the finite sum of matter called Yahweh.

But of course, first He'd have to show Himself. He's in the business of cleverly hiding himself even from our instruments.  

He often shows Himself to prophets, e.g. "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."

Also two prominent segments of Him are localized to thrones, known as the Father (seated on a throne) and the Son shaped in His physical image and seated (at His right hand), both clearly shaped like a man. 

Hope this clarifies the biblical depiction of Yahweh.

[Paleophyte]

Awesome! We can measure God! How and where?

Spoiler: Don't hold your breath. We're in for a big disappointment.

Absolutely you could measure God, if you have instruments capable of measuring across 100 billions galaxies and beyond.  I (tentatively) believe the Totality of matter (i.e. tangible substance) extends quite a distance, admittedly finite, beyond our universe.

Yes indeed, finite instruments could certainly quantify the finite sum of matter called Yahweh.

But of course, first He'd have to show Himself. He's in the business of cleverly hiding himself even from our instruments.  

He often shows Himself to prophets, e.g. "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."

Also two prominent segments of Him are localized to thrones, known as the Father (seated on a throne) and the Son shaped in His physical image and seated (at His right hand), both clearly shaped like a man. 

Hope this clarifies the biblical depiction of Yahweh.

So... the opposite of tangible. In fact, has never been tanged and is actively avoiding it. 

But he definitely has dangly bits.  God's intangible balls that's stoopid.

[Jal]

Jumping all over the place. I'm not even sure in which sense you are asking that question. 

Maybe ask me something more  specific.

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time following this. What part of addressing your original statement do you find difficult? We know where Yahweh came from and it's embarrassing. You might as well be worshipping Thor, crediting him with the fundamental forces, and shrieking about how anybody who dares to disagree is clearly mad.

Do you understand why you sound like a crazy person?

You have the option to disbelieve in Yahweh's existence. I do not. 

You do have common sense, right? Then you will understand that the only way for Yahweh to reliably reveal Himself is by an invincible revelation, i.e. one that is irresistibly persuasive. That's the only way it could feasibly work, right? For the last 500 years, evangelicals refer to this experience as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. 

I can't even prove that you exist. In the same way, I can't prove that Yahweh exists. I just don't have the option to disbelieve it.

Now proceed with your anticipated mis-extrapolations of what I just said, like virtually everyone else around here seems to do.

[Jal]

Absolutely you could measure God, if you have instruments capable of measuring across 100 billions galaxies and beyond.  I (tentatively) believe the Totality of matter (i.e. tangible substance) extends quite a distance, admittedly finite, beyond our universe.

Yes indeed, finite instruments could certainly quantify the finite sum of matter called Yahweh.

But of course, first He'd have to show Himself. He's in the business of cleverly hiding himself even from our instruments.  

He often shows Himself to prophets, e.g. "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."

Also two prominent segments of Him are localized to thrones, known as the Father (seated on a throne) and the Son shaped in His physical image and seated (at His right hand), both clearly shaped like a man. 

Hope this clarifies the biblical depiction of Yahweh.

So... the opposite of tangible. In fact, has never been tanged and is actively avoiding it. 

But he definitely has dangly bits.  God's intangible balls that's stoopid.

Misextrapolation. Do you have any common sense?