no and didn't slip thro 2cents, .the devil Satan created Darwinism and all that Evilution. Your question presupposes God. That's ok but when God is presupposed then so is Gilbert. Then the question did Gilbert create science is equally valid.. Also in presupposing God there is no way for It to be omniscient without allowing all other equally trivial presuppositions to be omniscient too. So therefore any of them can be , and all knowing is then nothing in particular. But for God (still presupposed of course) to be omniscient It could be no more knowing than It is said to be. So God (presupp...yea you knowâ¦) can't know more than it does. So It can't do something .So It is not omnipotent either. Worse still when anything is said to be possible for God like adding to Itself say God+1 (1 = anything more - like some extra knowledge /power etc for example ) it isn't omnipotent in the first place, as greater power / more knowledge than It held was possible all along. Even worse still whatever God is said to be then by adding 1 to It , up pops Gilbert. Gilbert is of course whatever God is +1. So we get the eternal equation God+1 = Gilbert God can't get over a little matter of omniscience without Its believers resorting to illogical absurd argument , if It can't +1 to It's infinity without denial or just plain old belief against the claims made on Itâs behalf , then God just ain't up to the job from the get go of creating something as useful as science. My answer(as if you hadn't guessed) therefore will be no just my 2 cents , 2cents thankyou.
c'mon it may be meaningless to u but no need to offend another poster who is just contributing his vision also, thanks for your answer but ¥ + 1 = ¥ therefore am not saying God is ¥, not even that God "is" for that matter, but if "It" were there would be no contradiction here... sorry for your imaginary friend Gilbert... NB: ¥ = infinity (the mathematical symbol) for the purpose of the above... if s.o. knows how to write it within ET let me know... thks
why is that offensive? Giving my opinion that a meaningless concept is meaningless is being offensive Why 2cents.? Taking meaninglessness too seriously perhaps? His opinion I respect but his statement is meaningless, is my opinion You could respect that. Not admonish me for giving it.
"Worse still when anything is said to be possible for God like adding to Itself say God+1 (1 = anything more - like some extra knowledge /power etc for example ) it isn't omnipotent in the first place, as greater power / more knowledge than It held was possible all along. Even worse still whatever God is said to be then by adding 1 to It , up pops Gilbert. Gilbert is of course whatever God is +1. So we get the eternal equation God+1 = Gilbert" Stupid has used this nonsense multiple times on God threads to demonstrate either his ignorance, willful stupidity, or a complete lack of understand the concept of God and/or unlimited which cannot be added to, as there is nothing outside of God to add to God. It is funny because when ask stupid where did this so called 1 that is added to God come from...he is mute. To say that the 1 came from outside of God, is to say that he is working from a definition of God being something that can be added to, as if there was something outside of God that could make God greater. God is the greatest that there could possible be by definition, as there is no "outside" of God in which something could come from which would enter God to make God greater, everything exists within God. Of course the 4 year old mental development of stupid at his point says "everything +1 is greater than your eveything" like a child would say to another child in childish one-upmanship games. If the love of stupid's life can be added to, then there is something outside of Gilbert to be added to Gilbert, which is not Gilbert, therefore Gilbert is not God. Adding an imaginary 1 to anything doesn't make it larger anyway, which also reveals the confusion or stupidity of stupid. It is a crackup, or an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, maybe both, to say what stupid says is an imagination (God) could superseded by his imagination of God +1. Damn silly actually...this claim that his imagination is greater than someone he claims is just using their imagination...how juvenile.
c'mon zizzz why not just address the question in the poll... its not very conducive to allowing other people to express themselves if u 2 start the same fight again here is it? please
I think that man created God in the absence of science. However, even though we now have a more advanced and evolving understanding of science, the notion of God as a deity persists, as it has been grandfathered through generations by a surprising proportion of people who you would think should know better by now. You asked for an opinion. That is my opinion.
no - but an agnostic could. Not because of prejudice but because of an atheist would be shown to lack the thinking skills to be president. (tougher test on all politicians post gwb the idiot. A believer by definition has faith. Something we know is beyond measurement. An agnostic says I can't measure it so I doubt its existence. An atheists has faith in his disbelief. yet pretends it is not faith. Without testing without knowing what happened before the big bang - an atheist states God could not have caused the big bang. That disconnect - that lack of rational thinking would cause the atheist to be unelectable.