Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

  • Thread starter Royce
  • Start date
  • #36
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Royce
I have been and am very busy this last week. I apologize for not keeping up and replying sooner.
M. Gaspar here's the bone you requested. Yes, the universe is isolated. It has to be becaus it is all that there is. Out side the universe is void, nothing, dimensionless/timeless space, nul-space, if there is and outside. If there is another universe or multi-verse then again it must be totally isolated physically for it there were any interaction then it would still be the same universe, wouldn't it?
So there is still hope, room for you entity, the living conscious Universe.
We agree quite a bit in our philosphy of the universe, perhaps more than we both think. Ever here of the Gaia Theory or Principle where the Earth and all of life on it is concidered to be one living conscious life form that alters it's environment to better suit life on earth? You are making a case for the same thing on a galactic or universal scale, Super Gaia. The main differences that I see is I call it God or a part of God in one of his many manifistations. You see no need for God as it is perpetually reprocucing or replicating itself. Okay, I have no trouble with that.
Issac Asimov said in one of his hundreds of books that he thought the univere may be pulsating rather than banging and crunching much like resperation. The Comsological constant (due I think to the property of spacetime wanting to be flat) causes the universe to expand unil the CC decreases to a level where gravity is stronger and takes over and contracts the universe until the CC is strong enoug to cancel the momentum of gravity and the universe begins to expand again.

You're singin' my song, Royce. And, as I said to the cheeky Mentat's "Breath in, breath out..." a few posts up: my point exactly.

And that's two bones for me in one post! Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Royce
Now in reply to your last post, some think that this life on Earth is Hell or all the hell that there is. In the afterlife when we go to "Heaven" or wherever, that then, we are in the ultimate reality.
As far as Buddhist and even christian meditation is concerned, I know many westerners, of which I am one, get the impression that meditation and Nirvana is escapism; but, it is just the opposite. It is enlightenment, total enlightenment or the state of being fully awake and aware in complete harmony with the universe including ones self. Meditation is a method of attaining such a state and practicing meditaion improves our heath, awarness, wakefulness and harmony along the way. It is a process not a goal.

As Glen said there is no mystery, magic or supernatualism to meditation. Even if my post seem to imply spiritualism, I don't mean to imply that. Whenever people here or read the words God, spirit, soul or Jesus, they get a mind set about about it being other worldly or supernatural or holy spiritual. That is not what I intend or mean at all. Maybe I should use more secular words like center of consciousness, super ego, id and subconscious.


Another Buddhist saying that I love is; "If everything is sacred; then nothing is sacred." Think about it. Either this is the kingdom of God and we are all of God and God of us, so that it is as natural as bad breath in the morning or this in not any or all of the above; but, we still have bad breath in the morning.

Just going to make it brief:

I think "Heaven" and "Hell" are states of mind...even after we "die".

I think nothing is "supernatural". If it happens in the Universe, then it happens naturally.

I do not agree with the statement you love (sorry). My take: "If everything is sacred, then, EVERYTHING IS SACRED!" ...which I believe it is.
 
  • #38
Mentat
3,918
3


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
A POX on that body!

What does that mean?

Well, as a matter of fact, I am bluffing...but I just expect to draw to an inside straight! Why? BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I INTEND.

I knew you were bluffing (you had tells comin' up the wazoo, and I couldn't even see your face :wink:), but (no offense) you'll probably draw a 10 of spades, Jack of spades, Queen of spades, King of spades, and 3 of diamonds - just barely missing the mark of a convincing argument against one of the Laws of science...but we'll see.

OK, smarty pants! I'll get back to you on this.

Sure .

Stop looking at the "litter" and start looking at the RDER!

Right back at ya, but in reverse order. Stop looking at the apparent order, and start looking at the ever-more-present chaos.

What are you talking about? I don't even "have to" turn on my computer.

Forgive me, dear friend, I meant (of course) that that's what you'd have to do to prove your argument.

As to the path of greater resistence? I never said that. It's all from "potentialities" that everything springs ...with one just as "easy" as another, their manifestation just "dependent" on whichever are the "strongest" INTENTION(S).

"One is just as easy as another"? Puh-lease! The path of least resistance is for absolutely nothing to happen out of that which is allowed by the Laws and theories of Science. It would be a path of noticably greater resistance for the Universe to "choose" to (for example) keep a star from crashing into another star, or save humans from possible world-wide suicide (or is it speci-cide, or...well whatever the word is to describe the self-annihalation of a species ).

And since when are "intentions" whims?

They look like synonyms in my Thesaurus. What difference does it make anyway? If the Universe has the "intention" of following a path of greater resistance (at any time), then you have to show an example of this ("have to" in order to prove your argument, of course).

As to entropy increasing... I don't "see" a thing. IMO, the Universe will NEVER expand into a cold, grey soup of elementary particles. More baryonic matter will condence out before that happens. More matter, more gravity, CRUNCH.

What? There is a limited amount of energy that can condense into baryonic matter, and that would run out (if the amount of energy was infinite, then space would have to be infinite, in which case the Universe could never "CRUNCH").

And what could be more "organized" than the Primary Singularity?

I thought you said the Universe was tending toward greater order? If that were so, then the Universe now should be "more organized than the Primal Singularity", shouldn't it?
 
  • #39
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, I've just got a few minutes so I'm only going to address a couple of issues, then I'll let you and M. Gaspar my other buddy go at it some more.

Ok then, I'll keep at this (though I don't much fancy the idea of arguing with two of my buddies at the same time, when they don't even both agree about this subject).

Heat is, I think, the lowest form of order or highest disorder, however you want to say it. It is as you know radiated in the form ov electromagnetic waves and heats up and forces clouds of hydrogen and dust to begin contracting and begin forming new stars that eventually go nove which supplies even more energy pressure and dust and specially heavier elements to form the cores of new planets and more star and on and on and on. This is not increasing entropy as each star and planet is a decrease in entropy and if and when life forms this greatly decreases entropy.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong here, as every formation of stars and planets produces greater heat (disorder). You see, it's not just the supernovae that shoot out heat in every direction, it's also the very congealing of the matter that produces stars and planets in the first place.

The total energy of the universe is not decreasing nor is it yet becoming more disorganized or homogeneous.

Actually (and I think this misconception tainted the first (quoted) part of your reply), decreasing energy and increasing chaos are exact opposites. IOW, I'm not arguing that the energy is decreasing. Au contraire, I'm arguing that it is increasing, and with it the amount of disorder that is produced by heat.

Nor will it so long as there is hydrogen to form stars and burn. Anyway this is a misapplication of the 2nd law of TD as the law clearly specifies a closed system and the universe is not a closed system.

Why do you say that?

If all you see when you look ing a mirror is random QM you better get you glasses and or eyes checked or maybe a new mirror.:wink:

But if I did that, I might collapse the wave-functions of the particles that make me up, and cease to exist altogether (well, that's exaggerating but...:smile:).
 
  • #40
Royce
1,514
0
Or exist in reality instead of probability. Who know you might like it.
Was it Robin Williams who said; "Reality! What a concept!"?

The versions of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that I've read all say that entropy (disorder) increases in any closed system. Look it up and tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not real strong on thermodynamics anyway.
I am under the impression that it was developed studying mechanical things like steam engines trying to make them more efficent. Steam engines are of course a closed system and I have know argument with TD as applied to systems here on Earth where heat/energy can obviously escape. The problem that I have is can TD as it stands legitimately be applied to the entire universe. Where can the heat go without driving something to a more organized, lowered entropy state? The universe has a long time to go before heat energy starts become hemogenous.
 
  • #41
megashawn
Science Advisor
443
0
MG if we as parents carry a child constantly in fear that s/he may fall and hurt themselves, the child will never learn to walk on its own. We all must try and fail and get hurt and try again. This is the only way we can learn. That is what we are here for and why the physical world was created, so we can learn to stand and walk on our own.

So you say that in order for us to learn to "walk on or own" we must seek belief in something beyond imagination, which, makes no noticable or apparent effort to hold your hand while you learn to walk, as any good parent would.

Although, I agree with what you say, just not what your trying to prove with that thought.

There are as many paths to God as there are people to walk the paths. There is no one path or even a preferred path and each path has many side paths down which may wander for a while but we will always be led back to our true path. This is no secret. It is not a maricle. It is the way it is, the way itself.

And if this is true, then what is wrong with my path. I do not deny the possibility of some master mind, or even as gaspar suggests, but not I, you him or her can provide one shred of juicy "sink your teeth in" proof for just what exactly happens after death/before life.

And this is where I also agree with Buddha, in that if afterlife is eternal, and controlled by a god, worry about it then. For the time we all can agree on that we share here, we should make the most of it.

I just don't see the need in attributing nature to some allmighty creator. Surely, if he disagreed, he'd inform me. I choose to walk a path of indepedance and appreciated everything I expeiriance in the time I have. If I live my life and die, and wake to find there is an eternal afterlife, well, I just hope they have dirt bikes and simulated Earth physics.

edit: I got some more comments, just lack the time right now.
 
  • #42
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by megashawn
So you say that in order for us to learn to "walk on or own" we must seek belief in something beyond imagination, which, makes no noticable or apparent effort to hold your hand while you learn to walk, as any good parent would.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am just responding to your post about God standing by and eating pop corn. The are numerous personal stories of people hitting bottom in substance abuse or other problems and finding help or finding that they were being help by God or Jesus and it changed their lifes.

And if this is true, then what is wrong with my path. I do not deny the possibility of some master mind, or even as gaspar suggests, but not I, you him or her can provide one shred of juicy "sink your teeth in" proof for just what exactly happens after death/before life.

Nothing is wrong with your path. Nor, can I offer one shed of proof about afterlife or the main topic of this thread. My purpose here was to show a rational line of reasoning that supports the existence of God and that he created the universe and us along with it. This is to counter the statement that belief in God if a pure act of faith alone.

I just don't see the need in attributing nature to some allmighty creator. Surely, if he disagreed, he'd inform me. I choose to walk a path of indepedance and appreciated everything I expeiriance in the time I have. If I live my life and die, and wake to find there is an eternal afterlife, well, I just hope they have dirt bikes and simulated Earth physics.

I would like to say that since he hasn't informed you, obviously, he must agree. However, its possible that he is telling you but you are not listening.

Personally I'm looking forward to cheap, uncrowded, meticulous groomed golf courses.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Royce
Or exist in reality instead of probability. Who know you might like it.

Reality is probability. :smile:

The versions of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that I've read all say that entropy (disorder) increases in any closed system. Look it up and tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not real strong on thermodynamics anyway.

No, you are correct.

I am under the impression that it was developed studying mechanical things like steam engines trying to make them more efficent. Steam engines are of course a closed system and I have know argument with TD as applied to systems here on Earth where heat/energy can obviously escape. The problem that I have is can TD as it stands legitimately be applied to the entire universe. Where can the heat go without driving something to a more organized, lowered entropy state? The universe has a long time to go before heat energy starts become hemogenous.

Heat cannot "drive something to a more organized state". It does the exact opposite. Besides, this "organization" just produces more heat than it takes away, anyway. The point is that everything in the Universe (except conscious beings) always follows the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is to produce greater heat, and disperse. In order to produce this heat, things must come together (not to mention the fact that gravity pulls things together, which really helps the process), and "spit out" more heat into the Universe.
 
  • #44
heusdens
1,736
0
First law Vs. Second law of Thermo Dyn.

There are circuling a number of ill concepts of the First & Second law of Thermo dynamics, as applied to the universe as a whole.

If we state something about the nature of the system, we call universe (in which with universe, we mean the totality of all things), we must state that equally for both the First law and the Second law.

For instance, sometimes it is argued that the universe as a whole is a closed thermodynamic system.
Wether or not that is really the case, is apart from this, but when we state that, this must hold equally well for the First and the Second law.

According the the First law then, the notion of the universe as a closed thermo dynamic system must mean, that no matter or energy ever left or enterered the system. Sinc we know there is matter and energy content now, this must mean therefore that this has always been the case, back to the infinite past and into the infinite future.

Now the Second law is then used to indicate that the universe has a general tendency of increasing it's entropy, which is to state that the amount of usueable energy, must be steadily lowered.

Taking the two combined, we arrive at a contradictionary situation, since from the first law we must assume that the universe must have existed for an eternity, and from the second law we must assume that it's level of entropy must have been increasing, thus lowering it's level of usueable energy.
The contradiction is then that, if both notions are correct, it would be impossible for the universe to still exist and still have usueable amounts of energy left.
Since: when I go outside, I discover that the sun is still shining, which means that there are still amounts of useuable energy left.

So which one is correct: the notion that the sun still shines (since that would have to be impossible), or my notion that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system which constantly reduces it amount of useuable energy?

The only way out of this appearent contradiction is to state that the universe conserves matter and energy in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Hence no 'heat death' for the universe.
 
  • #45
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by heusdens
First law Vs. Second law of Thermo Dyn.

There are circuling a number of ill concepts of the First & Second law of Thermo dynamics, as applied to the universe as a whole.

If we state something about the nature of the system, we call universe (in which with universe, we mean the totality of all things), we must state that equally for both the First law and the Second law.

For instance, sometimes it is argued that the universe as a whole is a closed thermodynamic system.
Wether or not that is really the case, is apart from this, but when we state that, this must hold equally well for the First and the Second law.

According the the First law then, the notion of the universe as a closed thermo dynamic system must mean, that no matter or energy ever left or enterered the system. Sinc we know there is matter and energy content now, this must mean therefore that this has always been the case, back to the infinite past and into the infinite future.

Now the Second law is then used to indicate that the universe has a general tendency of increasing it's entropy, which is to state that the amount of usueable energy, must be steadily lowered.

Taking the two combined, we arrive at a contradictionary situation, since from the first law we must assume that the universe must have existed for an eternity, and from the second law we must assume that it's level of entropy must have been increasing, thus lowering it's level of usueable energy.
The contradiction is then that, if both notions are correct, it would be impossible for the universe to still exist and still have usueable amounts of energy left.
Since: when I go outside, I discover that the sun is still shining, which means that there are still amounts of useuable energy left.

So which one is correct: the notion that the sun still shines (since that would have to be impossible), or my notion that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system which constantly reduces it amount of useuable energy?

The only way out of this appearent contradiction is to state that the universe conserves matter and energy in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Hence no 'heat death' for the universe.
While I am certain that someone will be telling us why this is not the case, let us bask in your reasoning for the moment.

I have shared this same view -- that in the "closed" and "isolated" System that is the Universe -- the Conservation of Energy will prevail over Entropy -- but apparently anyone who KNOWS anything about thermodynamics say it aint so.

Entropy, as I have come to understand it, is when all the existing energy gets spread out evenly within the Whole. Thus, no new "hot spots" like the Sun.

However, I am currently reading a paper on Chaos Theory that may shed some light on what is -- or will -- actually happen within this closed system we call the Universe.

In a nut shell -- which is apt for any theory of mine -- even the most minor of perturbations in the System will CAUSE It to make a necessary change toward SELF-ORGANIZATION. Hence, "hot spots" may dissipate ...but others will emerge/form elsewhere. In a closed and isolated system, this would go on "forever"...so, voila, you have your eternal Universe which will NOT be catching Its death of cold!

I'm about to be more specific with regard to Chaos Theory within this thread, but in another post. First, I await what the nay-sayers have to say ...which, of course, is "Nay!"

I'm even inviting my "entropy coach" over ...who will probably drop me like a hot-tho-cooling pototato now.
 
  • #46
M. Gaspar
679
1


Originally posted by Mentat
What does that mean?
A "pox" is a curse for misfortune and calamity, tho originally a disease characterized by purulent skin eruptions. Thus, I have put a POX on the body of knowledge you keep trotting out as Gospel.

I knew you were bluffing (you had tells comin' up the wazoo, and I couldn't even see your face :wink:), but (no offense) you'll probably draw a 10 of spades, Jack of spades, Queen of spades, King of spades, and 3 of diamonds - just barely missing the mark of a convincing argument against one of the Laws of science...but we'll see.
Let me, at this moment, go look at the date when I said I would draw to an inside straight (I'll be right back). DAMN! No dates below. Well, it couldn't be more than a week...and yet, as a matter of fact, I have drawn THREE ACES to the ACE and WILD CARD I was already holding.

So I'm about to respond to you and your "brainy brethren" as to the "hints" the Universe keeps dropping about Its consciousness ...hints that have been lurking -- in plain sight -- within Chaos Theory ...hints that, apparently, you left-brainers keep missing.

But before I do, let me point out that my INTENTION to DRAW the necessary "cards" yeilded RESULTS in less than a week! I'm getting better at this Game of Manifestation than I thought!

Sure .
I told you I'd be back!

Right back at ya, but in reverse order. Stop looking at the apparent order, and start looking at the ever-more-present chaos.
You're making my blood pressure go up with you "ever-more-present" cheap, salty meat. I need water.

"One is just as easy as another"? Puh-lease! The path of least resistance is for absolutely nothing to happen out of that which is allowed by the Laws and theories of Science. It would be a path of noticably greater resistance for the Universe to "choose" to (for example) keep a star from crashing into another star, or save humans from possible world-wide suicide (or is it speci-cide, or...well whatever the word is to describe the self-annihalation of a species ).
When I tell you about my take on Chaos Theory, grasshopper, all will become clear. :wink:

They (intention and whim) look like synonyms in my Thesaurus. What difference does it make anyway? If the Universe has the "intention" of following a path of greater resistance (at any time), then you have to show an example of this ("have to" in order to prove your argument, of course).
You really don't get it, do you?

Let's look upon the "gap" between that which could happen -- i.e., the potentiality -- and the intender.

Now let's look at another "gap" between something ELSE that could happen -- a different potentiality -- and the same intender.

It is INTO THESE "GAPS" that the intender sends his INTENTION to have something in particular (or meeting certain specifications) to manifest. Note, it is not any more "difficult" to send the intention into one or the other "gaps": it just goes "out there" and crosses the gaps (perhaps infinite in number) until the most nearly suited potentiality is found and activated!

I suppose this is much like the chemical messengers that shoot across the synapses in our neural networks: the juices are flowing to get our desired results.

But do you see that there is no "path of least or more resistence" in this process ...just a "messenger" (as with "chemical") looking for a "receptor" (as within the brain).

Of course, from an "outsider's" point of view -- without knowledge of intention's impingement -- it all looks like things are happening "at random".

May I ask you to please think about what I have just written before telling me why I am wrong. Banter is one thing: but I have just taken my precious time to write the above...and you have taken yours to read it.

What? There is a limited amount of energy that can condense into baryonic matter, and that would run out (if the amount of energy was infinite, then space would have to be infinite, in which case the Universe could never "CRUNCH").
If it "had to", all the energy in the Universe could turn itself into baryonic matter to CAUSE Itself to CRUNCH. And if you say otherwise, you can start looking for those pustules.

I thought you said the Universe was tending toward greater order? If that were so, then the Universe now should be "more organized than the Primal Singularity", shouldn't it? [/B]
Here's you problem (should you decide to accept it as such): you're only looking at what is happening NOW!

The Universe at each Big Bang blows Itself into DISORDER ...then spends the next, what, 20 billion years having Its Experience ...as Its fragmented parts -- physical, conscious and spiritual -- expand away from each other then come together.

I call it "shuffling the deck" ...the same deck, I might add, that has just dealt me a winning hand ...which I will be turning up shortly.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Philophysicist
5
0
Strong Proof for the Existance of God:

I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists. Then we apply the argument to that entity and so forth up the chain of existence to God.

Note that the above argument does not depend on the nature of your external reality(ie you could be thinking you exist on someones computer, somewhere).
This argument is strictly between you and God.
 
  • #48
Prometheus
346
0
Philophysicist said:
Strong Proof for the Existance of God:

I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists. Then we apply the argument to that entity and so forth up the chain of existence to God.

For the sake of argument, I will agree to concede that this is an inductive proof, and that it is valid as an inductive proof, without passing judgment on the quality of the logic used. If I were to change one or two words, I would have an equally valid proof that god does NOT exist.

What would be the value of our proofs in the context of the existence of god in the real world? Zero. They have no value at all. At best, they are mazes of words in which we can hope to get lost, losing sight of the fact that they are meaningless.

Inductive logic, as with deductive logic, has no meaning in and of itself. Such proofs, although proofs according to the tenets of logic, have zero relevancy in the real world. Your mistake is in trying to make the mistaken leap from your proof using logic to a proof in the real world.

Each and every statement that you make reeks of presuppositions. Each of these should be outlined, addressed, and subjected to challenge. In a proof such as yours, however, presuppositions are quite valid, and allow you to skirt the issue of their validity.

Inductive logic has no bearing on the existence of god, and any proof based on it is meaningless in a real world context. This is a word game proof, and nothing more.

I suggest you learn about the purpose and limits of inductive logic, and as well examine the nature and importance of presuppositions.


Philophysicist said:
Strong Proof for the Existance of God:

What do you mean by a strong proof? A proof is a proof. You have made a proof, and it is a valid proof, but in the context that you attempt to use it is is a meaningless proof.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Evo
Mentor
23,925
3,264
Philophysicist said:
Strong Proof for the Existance of God:
I do not see any proof, strong or weak, of anything in your post.
Philophysicist said:
I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists.
Ok, so when are you going to supply your proof that a greater entity than ourselves exists?

As it stands, your statement "The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists
."
is meaningless. You have proven nothing.
 
  • #50
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
The argument is circular. You first assume that an intelligent entity created you, then prove that an intelligent entity created you.
 
  • #51
fizzzzzzzzzzzy
44
1
thats kinda good but not that good. it has too many assumptions. I think that God must exist because of this: if the universe is infinite the universe would have died out an infinite time ago. therefore the universe must have begeing. therefore we move on to the big bang theory. In the big bang theory, it is a complete miracle that 1 planet substaining life was created the chances were about 3 trilion or more to 1. therefore scientists believe that there must be an infinite amount of parallel universes. however everything has a cause. there must be somthing creating them. For argument's sake let us call this God #1 this God can create parrallel universes all the time however for the reason above, This God could not be constant as in always doing the same thing so therefore it must have the ability to decide when to make worlds because nothing is completely random. therefore it must have a mind like ours with feelings and etc. because simple consiouses only live to live, humans however actually have cause to live we think about ourselves instead of simply trying to make life better. we have morals. This version of God i will call God #2. we know that every thing that can create can also destroy. If this seems like an assumption, please tell me an example where this is not true. There for God #2 has turned into God#3, an almighty God. This God must have at some time wondered what its capabillitys are since it has lived forever and like the human mind, it is inquistive, however this is impossible because it must have at sometime wondered whether it can destroy worlds as soon as it can create them to experiment this it must have started destroying worlds and sreating them simutalniuolsly. if this continues forever. our world would have been destroyed an infiniter time ago. That is not true. so therfor it must know all about itself and how it does things. if it knows all about itself and how it does things. it also obviusly knows al about the worlds it creats it must know every thing unless there is a higher consiousness.either way this God is omnicent and omnipotent to all of us. this God we will call God #4. However since it knows everything and has feelings like us it must know that many of us have cursed him and all the thing said against him. If it is excatly like humans or even near the selfishness that humans have. it would have destroyed us all. therefore this must be a God that is merciful even to the point of someone doing everything he hates. therefore This God must be omnicent,omnicent and all-loving. this is Basicly what God is. thanks for reading through this incredibly long post
 

Suggested for: Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
761
Replies
3
Views
621
Replies
1
Views
378
Replies
60
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
557
Replies
2
Views
845
Replies
12
Views
398
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
768
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
346
Top