The Prince James Argument for the Existence of God

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Prince_James, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    TAKE HEED: This is NON-RELIGIOUS. This is pure philosophy. I am not proving the Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Taoist, Wiccan, American Indian, et cetera, God, but a God divorced from all religious traditions. This argument is purely from but the august tradition of philosophical theology.

    I shall attempt here to offer compelling proof for the existence of something which we might dub with the name of "God", although it might well fall short of what some Theistic traditions have considered God to be. To accomplish this I shall argue for the necessity of the following:

    Eternity
    Infinity
    Immutability
    Omnipresence
    Omnipotence
    Omniscience (or a type of such)
    That these are all united in one thing

    I shall also be demonstrating the impossibility of certain things, amongst these:

    God as a Conscious Being
    God and Love
    Omnibenevolence
    God as a Creator

    -

    Let's begin with eternity:

    Reality may be bisected into two seperate halves, which we might dub with the names of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence). These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category. These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites. To be something is to be anti-nothing, to be nothing is to be anti-something. Now, it is clear that there cannot have been a time where there was neither something nor nothing, for if there is no something, there is nothing, and if there is no nothing, there is something, and thus we can say for certain that this is so and here we have proof one of eternity. A second proof can be found in that one half of any opposite can only exist with the other, that is to say, if one has long, one immediatly has short, and thus somethingness and nothingness, being opposites, must create one another, and owing to the fact that one can never not have them, they must eternally "co-create" one another.

    A question may arise as to why eternity is necessary at all, to which one can simply answer: Eternity must exist because we all ready know of something which is eternal, namely, energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is the very definition of eternity, having neither the capacity to be created, nor to be destroyed. The two proofs of eternity listed above demonstrate the incapacity for either to be created, but that they must be real eternally, as it is an impossibility that they could ever have not been or that they can cease to be.

    We must also realize that the two sides of reality are necessarily absolute, for two reasons: 1. That which is eternal cannot not be absolute, otherwise it could cease to be. 2. Nothingness, by default, cannot be anything but absolute, as there are no degrees of nothingness capable, one is either nothing or...nothing, just as one cannot be "a little pregnant", and the opposite of an absolute must also be absolute lest it cease to be an opposite.

    Infinity:

    Existence can be, and must be, infinite on two levels: Infinitely large and infinitely small. It can be because, being eternal, it need not incrementally reach either (which is impossible), and it must be because to be finite is to be non-absolute. Moreover, since nothing does not exist - it is, however, a reality and thus has something I call 'noixstence' - something cannot have a boundary, as if there ceased to be somethingness, there must be, by default, nothingness beyond it, as these are the two absolutes anything can be considered being apart of, but since nothingness cannot ever be reached (one cannot reach what does not exist) somethingness must persist forever in all directions.

    Immutability:

    That which is infinite cannot change, as change is litterally impossible. If it changed, it would not be infinity, and one must ask what it would change to? If it is infinity, and is to remain infinity (which it must as it is linked with the absolute of existence), to change at all would be to violate its own infinity and that is impossible. This, of course, leads us to a problem, which I call The Problem of Temporality and Transcience. This problem reads thus:

    How can there be temporal and transient things, if existence is both infinite, eternal, and immutable?

    The answer is not as complicated as one thinks, nor does it invalidate the notion of something which is infinite, eternal, and immutable. Temporality and transcience stem from something which has not yet been touched upon, that is, that all opposites must necessarily produce a third thing, that is, the middle-point betwixt the two extremes. To visualize this mathematically, let's assume that 1 and 10 are opposites (they are not, but let's assume). If 1 and 10 are opposites, their average of five, is their mid point. NOw, what would be the mid-point betwixt something and nothing? Something which partakes of somethingness and nothingness to varying degrees, that is to say, exists less then infinitely and eternally, but is not nothing, to be both temporal and transient. MOreover, we see from this midpoint an infinite series of other midpoints, with some partaking nearly exclusively of existence, yet still ultimately temporal and transient, to those which partake nealy exclusively in non-existence and the same. So to be temporal and transient is to partake of both the nature of existence and non-existence simulteneously, but not to both exist and not-exist at the same time, but simply to not be an absolute and thus to be coming into being (existing) and ceasing to be (non-existing) in a relative sense, whilst also only taking up a specific measurable, non-infinite place in space.

    Omnipresence:

    If all things which exist are part of existence and existence encapsulates the entire scope of infinity, then nothing is seperate from existence (and nothingness is seperate from somethingness!) and thus existence is omnipresent. This is also demonstrated in how everything is made of energy, be it as energy or as matter which is capable of being reduced to energy. This also points to the fact that all is one, on one level, and that we are apart of this one.

    Omnipotence:

    Since all things are part of existence, then all things which are done, and all which is possible, is done by that which is existence, and hence existence is omnipotent. The question arises, however, as to whether omnipotence also includes the power to do that which is impossible, to which it must be answered clearly: No! For that which is impossible does not exist. A square-circle is impossible precisely because it does not exist, and since omnipotence is something which is part of existence, it cannot partake in something which does not exist.

    Omniscience:

    Again, since all things are part of existence, existence is privy to all things going on. However, owing to an argument that shall be shown later, this does not mean that what existence is conscious, but were existence conscious, it would know everything, and does "know everything" in the sense that all is within it.

    That These Attributes Must be United:

    It should be clear that since existence is eternity, infinity, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, that they must necessarily be united in a whole, depending on existence's absolute and eternal nature to be. Something could not be eternal and not at the same time be infinite, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

    God as a Conscious Being:

    God cannot be a conscious being (a thing which can think) for several reasons:

    1. Sense is an emergent property on the macroscopic level, not part of absolute existence, and sense is required for thought (see my "Refutation of Transcendental Idealism" for proof of this).

    2. God cannot think as he has all knowledge all ready (omniscience).

    3. God cannot think for thinking is a process of change and God is immutable.

    God Cannot Love:

    Quite simply, as a thing (not a being) God cannot love, as love can only be something a being can participate in.

    Omnibenevolence:

    God cannot be omnibenevolent because:

    1. God is not a being and goodness requires beinghood.

    2. Epicurus' Riddle - as well as other arguments - clearly demonstrate that omnibenevolence does not fit into reality.

    3. There is no objective standard of good and since God is not a being, he cannot hold even a subjective notion of good.

    God as a Creator:

    Simply, existence is eternal and thus cannot be created nor destroyed.

    Conclusion:

    Aside from God's existence being demonstrated to be so through these arguments - albeit in a manner slightly outside the Western Theological model - it has also been demonstrated that the Pantheistic model is essentially right, in that since God is all existence, and all which exists (obviously) is part of existence, we are also God, or rather, a part of God. This is not, and this cannot be stressed enough, in anyway a support of the "mysticism" that some Pantheistic schools of thought ascribe to, as it is just a simple fact that we are part of God, which has no further significance aside from it being a necessary truth of God's existence, and though through this we may be "one with all things", our seperateness as finite beings from other things (aside from God) is pronounced and real.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Prince:
    Interesting thread, and one that is sure to draw some discussion and arguement.

    I shall respond after some thought however I shall warn you I see many problems that are going to take some doing to sort out.

    Can I suggest you number the main points so that reference is easier.....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Do you base this deduction on your observation of Gods, or of humans? Aren't you extracting your definition of God from human considerations and limitations? Don't you see any problems with doing that?

    If sense emerges on a macroscopic level, why should it disappear on a macro-macroscopic level, so to speak? You're working from a reductionist perspective, which is why you end up with "God" being less than "love" (again: something you have only observed from human perspective - as a receptive being). You have a microscopic God, "mere" eternity, and a complex, macroscopic, emergent humanity - who is only "less" than God on the eternal scale... In your model humans are statistically inferior, but not practically.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    Sounds fine! I look forward to tempering my argument in the furnace of Quantum Quack.

    I might do that tomorrow, yes.

    Jenyar:

    If God does not have the same process of thinking as we do, we cannot rightfully claim him as "thinking" at all. There also seems to be no way, logically, that any system of thought could violate the empirical foundation for thought.

    Because the organic molecules which, when arranged in such and such a manner, give rise to the organs of sense and thus to consciousness, are not present in the "macro-macroscopic level".
     
  8. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    What we term "thinking" could also be a subset that is emergent from what God does. It might not be "thinking" as we perceive it - over a period of time - but it might still be a determined process with a desired result, as God intends it. There's nothing that determines that "thought" should not apply anymore. If the variable doesn't fit, you can't just throw it out - you may have to revise the equation.

    So it's specifically an organic definition of "sense" that you're using? You should specify your definitions more clearly.
     
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Jenyar:

    We'd certainly have to have some positive proof of this before asserting this. Moreover, we must ask if God can desire anything, being all ready complete?

    There has been no verified extra-organic senses ever proven and even if they were, one would have to ask at what level they develop and whether or not they'd have an upper limit.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You make some good arguments for eternity, etc... and you also make some good arguments about the nature of God, but I dont' see how they relate. You haven't proved anything about God's existence. In fact, your arguments about God are the some of the same ones I used to support atheism.
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Spidergoat:

    That is a problem: My Pantheism essentially grinds down to an impersonal God which is equatable to existence, aka, atheism-lite.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Prince:
    I thought I might take it a chunk at a time.
    I believe there is a major glitch in your reasoning that when ironed out will help solve your logic riddle or puzzle.

    Btw I don't expect miracles as I hold no license on a logical truth or the ability to find logic. In other words take my offering or leave it...it's up to you.
    please read through the entire post to gain full context before responding if you choose to do so.

    Eternity:

    There is an immediate and important error in this portrayal of reality being of two halves. Nothingness cannot be a half as it is noixistant, so to claim it is a half is contradictory.

    Something can not fit into the category of nothingness.

    Nothingness has no opposite as it can’t because of it’s noixistant nature.

    For nothingness to be anti- anything it must exist yes?

    True if one gives time a value. Nothingness can not exist in time as it is noixistant.
    However the equation you are postulating can not be considered as reversible or symmetrical.
    Nothingness does not require something ness for it’s noixistance. Nothingness can noixist without something but something can not exist with out nothingness’s noixistance.
    So there is not equivalence or symmetry involved in this proposition.

    It is the existence of something ness that allows nothingness to noixist. But even if something ness doesn’t exist nothingness continues to noixist.

    There is a major problem with this contention. Firstly energy is defined as “work performed” or the “potential to do work”. Work in progress can only be achieved by a differential in energy. It is the difference in energy that allows work to be done. The same could be said for forces, if there is a difference then work can be done thus we have energy.

    Now as to eternity, if the universe continues to experience entropy and eventual balancing of those potentials then no work can be done thus no movement would occur. Thus no work is being done and thus no energy is existing to do work. NO movement means no time. So whilst you are correct energy cannot be destroyed it can however be rendered neutral, which in my opinion is the same thing. No potential to do work means no potential to create time. No work done means no time....etc

    So if we subscribe to current scientific thought the universe will slowly loose the capacity to continue it’s movement. And this includes moving through time. Thus eternity is an unproven possibility only.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2005
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    This is my main arguement for a trinary polarisation rather than a duality of only two poles.

    <img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/trinary.gif>
    think of the colours as indicative of pole and not colour.

    Even if we take a simple bar magnet we often forget that between the two poles is zero attraction. North - Center - South......when you place two bar magnets in a line of attraction and let them come together the new center of non-attraction is the combination of the two attracted poles. Thus when a positive pole comes together with a negative pole it creates nothing. [ except a bigger bar magnet.]

    So I see a trinary relationship in reality and not just a duality.
    Polarisation must include zero for it all to work.

    So zero is not dependant on value but value is dependant on zero.
    No symmetry to the relationship exists.
    So in this context God must be noixistant for reality to function....funnily enough, this appears to be the case any way.....ha :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    [it is amazing how much philosophy can be gained by playing with two bar magnets - maybe you should try it one day ]
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2005
  14. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Quantum Quack:

    I've read through your entire post, but will respond based in the regular quoted segments.

    I do not mean a physical half here, I mean that it is a "half" in the sense that two absolute categories can be "existence" and "non-existence". Anything which can be imagined must either be part of existence of non-existence.

    Surely it can! All false things fit into this category of nothingness. What is it so say something is impossible? Is it not to say it does not exist (partakes of nothingness)? A square-circle is impossible, it thus cannot exist, and that which does not exist noixsts in nothingness. All truth values are determined by whether it exists (truth) or does not exist (falsehood).

    I would disagree, due to very nature of what nothingness nis (non-is). Something has space, time, energy, tangibility, substance, et cetera, whilst nothing has no space, no time, no energy, no-tangibility, no-substance, et cetera. Since it has these negative-attributes, and something(ness) has the opposite of these negative-attributes, nothingness must remain being an opposite.

    No, as somethingness has "existence", and thus nothing, to be its opposite, must have non-existence.

    This is true, but I mean that nothingness must always noixst and could never cease noixisting.

    See my argument from absolutes and their opposites. Also consider this argument: The only way to determine if something does not exist, is to compare it to something which does.

    Again, see my further arguments for dealing with this.

    Ah, but true entropy can never be reached, as there is necessarily an infinite amount of energy to be had, and thus no matter how much energy becomes unusuable, there is still an infinitely higher amount of energy there. Of course, this may not hold true in the universe, but as the universe is expanding, and had a beginning and will seemingly have some sort of end, we can rightfully conclude that the universe cannot possibly be the sum total of existence.

    As to your Trinary Polarization Argument:

    Whilst it is certainly true for magnetism and the normal number line, do you think it can truly be made to fit in with reality? What would be on both sides of nothingness?
     
  15. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    Just a couple of comments off the top of my head after reading through the first post of this thread.

    First, let me say that I understand and agree, for the most part, with your positive assertions (Eternity Infinity Immutability Omnipresence Omnipotence Omniscience That these are all united in one thing), but do not agree with the conclusions of your negative assertions (God as a Conscious Being, God and Love, Omnibenevolence, God as a Creator).

    God as a conscious being. While I agree that God is not a conscious, thinking being, I disagree that God is not conscious. I would say that God (based on your definition) is conscious being (note that I did not include the article 'a'). Being, as such, being existence itself. I do not consider consciousness as being relegated entirely and exclusively to the process of thought (idea association). The consciousness of God would be purely intuitive, as God is omniscient. All things considered and concluded simultaneously at once eternally. There is no separation between ideas, but all are eternally present as the totality of existence. Thus, God is conscious being, but not a conscious thinking being. The process of thought (as opposed to pure intuition) is part of the middle path, as it moves from "non-knowledge" (non-science) to "knowledge" (science), but as you clearly state, never reaching all-knowledge (omniscience). Human intuition is not pure intuition, and operates on that same principle of the movement from non-knowledge to knowledge. However, as you have also pointed out, it is on the end of the scale that is closer to pure somethingness rather than pure nothingness. Pure intuition is part of pure somethingness, as it is eternally immediate and full knowledge of all. This can only be an attribute of pure somethingness, and I would argue IS part of pure somethingness. Thus, God is conscious existence, but not a thinking existence.

    God and Love. Again, I disagree with your assessment of this. However, before stepping into this topic, I would first propose that we have a working definition of love. As I do not yet have one specific to my mind (but only general and somewhat vague, but intuitively grasped on a basic level) I will refrain from making my argument as yet.

    Omnibenevolence. First, I would like to state that this has more to do with love than goodness (as a moral aspect, or even as a state of being). From the Latin words for "all" "good" and "will" it would be more of a reference to All-loving (doing all good toward), than All-good. However, I believe you are using the term in the sense of "all-good" and so I will argue under that understanding.

    Again, we need to define how we're using the term "good." Is it meant in the moral sense, or the static sense? I would argue that the moral sense stems from the static sense, and so will argue from this standpoint.

    From metaphysics, we identify that all things, as beings, are good (statically). I would argue that this is because they bear the property of somethingness (and I believe this stance is actually supported in metaphysics). God, as all-somethingness, would necessarily be all-good.

    Morally speaking, God would not be all-good, but neither would God be all-evil. Moral goodness, as I have said, stems from static goodness. When a thing tends (by choice) toward the end of the spectrum which is pure somethingness, then that thing is becoming "more something," and thus "more good." Thus the action, the tendency, is what we have termed a moral good. Moral evil is merely that tendency toward nothingness, or becoming "less something," since goodness (statically) is rooted in being. Since God does not tend either way, but simply is existence, God cannot be morally good, but simply staticlly "all-good." Thus, if we are to term this omnibenevolence (which I wouldn't, I would merely call it all-good (whatever the latin term may be)), then it can be seen that God is necessarily omnibenevolent.

    God as a creator. I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment of this, but neither do I agree with it. By the very nature of somethingness (pure somethingness), juxtaposed against nothingness (which is actualy non-existent, and thus can have no causal effect on anything) are the middle points actuated. Thus, in this sense, the creator of anything, would be pure somethingness, though this creative act would not be temporal, but actually eternal, neither beginning nor ending, merely being.

    However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this stance either... I've got a bit more pondering to do. Something is sneakingly false about a very important part of your theory. I need to think on it more.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2005
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Prince :
    Do you consider that which is imagined as having existance?
    Whilst I cannot visualise a square circle I can certainly use it as an object of discussion. Thus does a square circle exist or not in your opinion?

    a square circle does exists in some form IMO
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    PJ - you have, if I have read this right, in essence said nothing more than "There is existence" and "existence exists".

    And you have assigned "existence" the label of "God".
    And thus led to "We exist and are thus part of existence - so part of God."

    If I have not read this correctly, please can you let me know exactly what you have defined as "God" - as I can find nothing else - as you jump from discussing existence to discussing God - with seemingly no linkage.

    If I am correct, however, then this entire discussion has nout to do with religion but everything to do with the nature of existence.

    While interesting in itself, I was expecting something more contrary to my agnostic atheism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. alain du hast mich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    "Reality may be bisected into two seperate halves, which we might dub with the names of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence). These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category. These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites."

    sorry, i disagree. there is matter, and antimatter. 'nothing' is not a tangible concept, but is simply a situation where there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus something can come from nothing, but it will have a biproduct of an equal amount of anti-something


    aww crud. quantum quack already beat me to this, oh well
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Unfortunately Anti-matter and matter both "exist" - and the resultant combination of the two is still matter - albeit 100% converted into energy.
    So both halves still exist.
     
  20. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    trinity... Man!.. that's what I said!!... you can solve the most mysteries of the universe simply by playing with a couple of magnets!!!!! the whole world.... rests on this balance... it is everything...

    you know... this is what the trees in the garden of eden means!! the lifetree is nothingness/oneness, which gives the life streaming into the tree of knowledge of the good and evil (the visible world of illusional duality)...

    But nothingness can fit into something?

    Gray is similar... it is the manifestation of "nothingness", balance, on color level, it has no opposite color!!

    it's a friggin play of words.

    What? "Nothingness" has no sides. It is the relation!!
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Otherwise known as Tao.

    The Tao is like a well:
    used but never used up.
    It is like the eternal void:
    filled with infinite possibilities.

    It is hidden but always present.
    I don't know who gave birth to it.
    It is older than God.


    Tao Te Ching vs. 4
     
  22. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    beyondtimeandspace:

    An interesting idea. But I have a hard time concluding that such could be possible without the capacity for thought. Tell me, in what way do you use the term "intuition" here? Perhaps with a clarification on that we might agree.

    -Very- interesting line of thought. I look forward towards a bit of clarification on the idea of intuition, in order that I might see whether or not I agree. But thank you for this -great- input.

    I would say to love is to value something, specifically to value something in oneself or in another. For instance, if I value intellectual debate (which I do) I tend to love (to one extent or another) someone who can give me said debate. I would also argue, as I have argued in the past, that in order to love something, you must:

    Care for it.
    Respect it.
    Know it.
    Value its existence.

    Yes, I use the definition of "allgood", as in, perfect moral goodness.

    What would be the static sense?

    Ah, the argument that being = goodness. This is something the Catholic Church often uses, no? I seem to recall reading something about that at www.newadvent.org. Hmmm, I think it is a wee bit of a bastardization of the term, though. I do not see how one can say "being = goodness", as surely a murderer participates in being, no?

    Hmmm, but again, it would seem that to use being = good is a bit of a bastardization. In what way is it good to be?

    But it wouldn't create in the traditional sense, of a conscious God creating something out of nothing. Nothing would ever "come out of nothing", but would eternally be, as a necessity and not as an act.

    Take your time! I look forward to more input! Thank you for the wonderful points.

    Quantum Quack:

    How so? In terms of perception? Because I am not speaking of perception, but an actual square which would be, simulteneously, a circle, in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

    Sarkus:

    I try to give reasons for -why- existence exists, so I would disagree that I am basically reitterating that existence exists.

    I give it the title of God because the qualities of it are united in one thing and are traditionally held to be part of God. They contain all the possible absolute perfections.

    No, you read it correctly, but my link is that this existence is God.

    Pantheism tends to be pretty disappointing as regards that, yes. One ends up getting a God which is not, as I noted, very much akin to Theistic conceptions.

    alain:

    Anti-matter and matter do not produce "nothing" when they annhilate, but produce energy. Moreover, see my proof for how nothingness is quite a part of reality, in that all false things partake of it.

    Sarkus:

    Good response.

    c7ityi:

    I was asking what his conception of nothingness, which was placed in the middle of two poles, would have on each side.

    spidergoat:

    So funny you should mention this, as I strongly believe my system is in line with Taoist thought. In my version of the Tao Teh Ching, there is a passage that goes something like:

    The one begets the two
    The two begets the three
    And the three begets the myriad things

    In my system: The one is somethingness or nothingness, the two is somethingness or nothingness, the three is the mid-point, and the mid-point produces all the other infinite mixed states.

    I would also argue that the Yin Yang symbol can be used to illustrate my point that existence and non-existence, by virtue of being opposites, create one another, the dot of the other in each representing this relation.

    Also, I should note that my theory originally began in Taoism. Lao Tzu's ideas sparked mine.
     
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Do you base this deduction on your observation of Gods, or of humans? Aren't you extracting your definition of God from human considerations and limitations? Don't you see any problems with doing that?

    So, how does one go about observing gods?
     

Share This Page