Eyyup lads, men are about to become redundant

It would be fairer to say that commonly taught sense tells us these things have scarcely a chance of existing. Considering our knowledge is basically 0.00000000000000000000001% of the collected knowledge of the Universe we are not in a strong position to start judging what can and cannot exist and what does or does not exist. For what it's worth I've never been much of a believer in God myself I just don't happen to think that I'm in a position to make a decision. I'm more of a Buddhist, though I'm sure folk will think reincarnation a ludicrous idea as well. To which I say if by coincidence I came to be, by coincidence I may come to be again.

But from the little we do know, we can basically say virgin births, djinns, elephant head transplant on human-being, possibility of 72 virgins being in one place at one time, etc. is basically bullshit.

And nobody is telling you to make an absolute decision either way, I don't.

But if you were to say that time is an illusion and is in fact circular then God would exist at all times and thus would never have been created. Don't you get to the same point with the Universe when you try and trace it back in your mind and hit a wall where time is concerned? Because surely there was either a time when there was nothing, or else time never existed at all? Yet if there was nothing, where did it all come from?

At this point, you could also start to ask if what we exist in is reality and if maybe God exists outside of that reality, but I agree it's mostly a philosophical rather than a scientific concept. Yet still, the lack of evidence for God does not count as evidence against God. Like all things, God either is or isn't. And is it really necessary that God is an omniscient, omnipotent being? I've gone to great lengths to construct a more valid representation of God, merely as a creator of OUR universe - which is not an impossibility.

There is nothing in that concept of God that preaches mortality, omnipotence, omniscience, just something that created something. But again, this is in philosophy and if you're going to oppose me with your science against my philosophy, neither of which have evidence, it shall prove to be a very circular argument (as, I note, it is already becoming). Personally, I do not believe God to be an impossibility. I do believe the God of religion to be highly unlikely. As for the God of my mind . . .

Chivalry Augustus wrote:But if you were to say that time is an illusion and is in fact circular then God would exist at all times and thus would never have been created. Don't you get to the same point with the Universe when you try and trace it back in your mind and hit a wall where time is concerned? Because surely there was either a time when there was nothing, or else time never existed at all? Yet if there was nothing, where did it all come from?

At this point, you could also start to ask if what we exist in is reality and if maybe God exists outside of that reality, but I agree it's mostly a philosophical rather than a scientific concept. Yet still, the lack of evidence for God does not count as evidence against God. Like all things, God either is or isn't. And is it really necessary that God is an omniscient, omnipotent being? I've gone to great lengths to construct a more valid representation of God, merely as a creator of OUR universe - which is not an impossibility.

There is nothing in that concept of God that preaches mortality, omnipotence, omniscience, just something that created something. But again, this is in philosophy and if you're going to oppose me with your science against my philosophy, neither of which have evidence, it shall prove to be a very circular argument (as, I note, it is already becoming). Personally, I do not believe God to be an impossibility. I do believe the God of religion to be highly unlikely. As for the God of my mind . . .

To which the same question can be asked - where is the evidence for it? More to the point, where can we look for the evidence for it? We can't - it's a completely untestable hypothesis. I can make the statement that all life is a dream too, and that is equally impossible to analyse and provide any kind of answer. The trouble is, that as soon as you step completely outside the bounds of any kind of rational debate you can say anything at all and it can't be challenged. It's not that you can't say that, it's that there is no point having any kind of further discussion on it.

By the way, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. It is a logical impossibility - think about it.

Now, if you go down the route of "God" being a simple force of nature, in the same way that Einstein thought, then it's something that has some degree of validity as a debating point. But I then struggle to see why anyone would call it "God" at all, let alone worship it, any more than you'd worship clouds.

Started to say something to similar in parts to shoeshine's post above, but edited.

WHat he said^^.

But what about the spunk then?

Much less a cloud, much more a parent.

Personally, I cannot agree with the paradox of God being either omniscient or omnipotent. If God created a stone too heavy for him then he couldn't lift it and thus wouldn't be omnipotent?

A common answer is that God could create the stone in his omnipotence and then increase his strength via his omniscience, thus enabling him to have created the stone he couldn't lift whilst still devising a method of lifting it. I don't know if that's correct though.

Though the wider argument would be that God possesses no physical aspect and thus does not lift anything - his mind is both his power and his knowledge.

I like the conundrum though, even if it is generally unsolvable because it envisages God as a human. God, as they say, was created in man's image.

The paradox is simpler than that. If God is omniscient how can he change his mind? Therefore he cannot be omnipotent.

Yeah, but God doesn't have a mind therefore he cannot be omniscient. God doesn't have a muscle therefore he cannot be omnipotent. God doesn't have a penis therefore he cannot be a he and has little relevance to this thread either on that basis due to a lack of sperm. God is simply omni, omnipresent. The paradox, as I say, is based on a human perception of God as a HE. I mean, could God create something that cannot exist? Yes, no, maybe.

The whole question and answer thing's a load of rubbish.

And really, I'm bored of God now. Let's talk about tomatoes. And my shrink. In all my original post no-one brought up my shrink. Odd.

Ah, well it was nice to talk about weightier issues for once, but that probably is enough.

How's the greenfly?

Chivalry Augustus wrote: God, as they say, was created in man's image.

Which man?

This one (my idea of a 'god'):





Or this one:

I think a better question is which god?

If there is an 'almighty', it is more mad scientist, who is certainly not partaking in an 'all merciful' experiment.

just be glad he gave you a qunt, filo, or you'd have everyone throwing stones at you . . . that's merciful . . .