Reading this reminded me of Pastor Rick Warren's BS. Like when he says **** like: "God smiles when you find your calling." HOW THE **** DO YOU KNOW WHEN GOD SMILES YOU FAT DOUCHE?

I just had to lol at "God sees the entire loaf of bread."

You seem like the kind of guy that's easy going.

I mean, is that kind of thinking even necessary?

So you're now adding in a new realm by which God is bound?

The point of my question isn't to disprove the concept of God. And maybe this could have been a part of the "God explains" thread, but I felt that thread was already large enough that putting it in there would get it diluted when it's deserving of its own discussion.

The point, I think, is that forming a working concept of God is incredibly difficult.

If we can't even conceive of how God could act without time, then to speak of him having performed actions like the creation of the Universe as if this is a convenient explanation flies out the window.

We're now not only suggesting that God is not directly evidenced, but that we can't even imagine how he could be. He's falling further into absurdity as a concept.

I think this covers Bunny's response too. Although I think he is only just barely a "theist" as his version of God appears rather trivial to me.

If we accept Bell's Theorem are we not ceding that ultimate reality is atemporal?

Except unlike Pastor Rick Warren's BS....the bread analogy is consistent with currently accepted physics. You can read books written by brilliant physicist who happen to be atheists which use this very same bread analogy.

Yes even God is bound.

What do you mean? Bound to/by what? Any such condition nullifies omnipotence, by default.

I can go with you on this. Ideas like God cannot defy logic. Of course it creates huge amounts of trouble to suggest that God is now in a realm of its own physics, for want of a better word, as it further removes God from being an explanation for anything. We're trivialising him to the point that his suggestion is of no use and also increasing the problem that he's not a properly defined or workable concept.

I should also mention for other posts that I think relativity is an aside. It only needs to be agreed that action implies passing of time still. That time is only relative does not seem to get around this.

Which bit? I agree with pretty much everything you wrote:
Agreed - I think it's fundamentally impossible (which doesnt make the exercise in trying valueless - we can never know the decimal expansion of pi, yet we keep looking).
Whilst I agree - we're stuck with language. There's lots of things we can't accurately describe - that doesnt mean we shouldnt speak about them using figurative language. It's also possible that such considerations and/or debate allow us to move from an extremely poor underatanding of God to just a very, very poor one.
Being unknowable doesnt imply it is absurd.

I also maintain there is direct evidence, just not objective evidence and hence the weakest form we have. The only thing I have which lends me to think God exists is subjective, spiritual experience. I don't think anyone else should pay any attention to that and I think it is inferior to most other forms of evidence - if my religiously derived beliefs contradicted those backed up by science I would reject the unverifiable.

Suppose one day God decides to create another omnipotent being which He calls Zod. Then the next day Zod decides to test his omnipotence by challenging God. Zod says to God, "I can do all things and to demonstrate that I will use my will to move this feather". God then replies, "I can do all thing and to demonstrate that I will use my will to keep the feather still".

Which omnipotent being wins this contest? I put my money on God because God's own omnipotence prevents him or binds him from creating another being who is also omnipotent.

paradox much?

i guess we see the world in fundamentally different ways, because to me this story of yours disproves omnipotence itself, through a pretty well constructed reductio ad absurdum.

to you, it simply leads to a conclusion that i find equally absurd.

There can pr. definition only be one omnipotent being in the universe, so we don’t need any special rules for why God can’t create another one.
He cannot do it because it is logically impossible.

so, his omnipotence is limited by logic and definitions is what you're saying.

Most theist do not really understand what omnipotence means.....omnipotence has limits. In a nut is means to be able to do all that can logically be done. It precludes the illogical, nonsensical and absurd.

This can't happen. DUCY?

Never mind, I'll just tell you. The concept of having two "equally" omnipotent beings is invalid. It would reduce to one. Not only that, but it no longer makes either being omnipotent. Tangentially, it would also mean that it's invalid to think of three gods, each having one of the "omni" powers. This, as it happens, is the response to the standard, "what about all these gods," objection, but there will always be someone who brings it up, so it's not worth bothering.

one time this jehovas door to door guy came to my house. midway through his spiel about why the jehovas have it right he looked at me with a 'heres the kicker' type look and said "did you know that the christians believe in god, jesus, and the holy spirit? how can one god be three different entities?" he looked at me like that was the most ridiculous notion in the world.

Wait, don't they believe in the trinity?

witnesses? no, they dont.

Still not sure; according to wiki, they do. But, I suppose, wiki might be wrong here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah...es_beliefs#God

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is the creator and supreme being. Witnesses reject the Trinity doctrine, which they consider unscriptural."

Oh, I read the "Jehovah's Witnesses" one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

opening sentence:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity."

anyway, doens't really matter.

Then I misread it.