You are defining a God for me? Why thank you : ) Sadly your 'God' has no attributes and is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, a brain fart. As are all Gods.
That is what you said to me in #180.
Now you say:
You are defining a God for me? Why thank you : )
You tell me to do something, I do it, and then you act surprised. How else can I help? However, you also added:
Sadly your 'God' has no attributes and is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, a brain fart. As are all Gods.
Au contraire. My God is all attributes so just pick one and disprove it.
Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?
Why does God bother you and others of like mind so much? Why are you so determined that He is not there? If you think I am foolish and that I believe in superstition and fairy tales, why do you care?
It seems obvious that you and the others are either oblivious to, or forgiving of, the weaknesses and gaps in science and especially in the theory of evolution, yet unforgiving of the idea of God. Why is that? Are you aware of the spiritual nature of man, a nature that is just as real as the physical/material aspects of man? Or do you simply deny that is the case and instead believe that man is a self-contained box and an evolving animal no different from the rest of the species? Do you know that all living things have most of their DNA in common, that there is little difference in the DNA of the fruit fly, man, and grass? I suppose that could be an argument in favor of evolution, so do you believe in an uncaused cause as the beginning of everything? How did time and space evolve, or are we only talking about Earth? The questions could go on but they are asked for a purpose, that being to expose the frailty of thought and knowledge themselves. A belief in an intelligent design, in an original creator of that design and an ever-present overseer of that design is more reasonable to some of us than believing in an uncaused cause and in continuing random mutations leading to progress. Does and uncaused cause and continuing random mutations leading to progress seem reasonable to you?
Ah so you can enter a mind and determine what is or is not imagination? Is it possible that "everything" in a mind is nothing but imagination? Or how does a figment in one mind become a figment in another mind?
I can conclude that your statement is your opinion and nothing more.