Pericles,

>>You seem to be drawing a distinction between Mr Sellick's "impossible God", and "the Christian idea of God". Is the former related to the latter, or are they different concepts?<<

I don’t know except that I assumed that if Mr Sellick calls something “impossible God” it is different from what he believes in. I assume neither you will believe in a thing you refer to as “impossible”.

>>what is the image of God that, according to you, Christians do not believe exists?<<

Well, you have to reread the article to see what Sellick describes as “impossible God”. I am not going to reinterpret Peter Sellick, but as for me (I thought you knew) any concept of God whose existence can be investigated by scientific methods (like e.g. the existence of a remote galaxy, or a bunny, a fairy, a teapot, a Boeing 747) thus looking for “evidence” that will convince everybody - educated or not, living in our or previous or future centuries - or a magician-god who performs tricks on demand, is not a God I could believe in. I presume most 21st century educated Christians will agree with my rejection of such a God amenable to scientific investigation.

>>what exactly (or even approximately) are "the two problems of existence”?<<

I thought it was obvious from the context: the existence of God and the existence of Easter Bunny you introduced.

>>You may substitute any irrational belief, such as "ghosts" or "fairies", and the point is the same. <<

Of course, you are right, you may substitute these things and compare the number of books and articles written by philosophers and scientists about them with those written about the concept of God and you will get the same result.

It is impossible for anyone to discuss this sensibly, George, if you can pick and choose your definition of God, as you see fit.

>>I assumed that if Mr Sellick calls something “impossible God” it is different from what he believes in.<<

That tells us nothing about the God that he believes in, only what he doesn't believe in. Hence my reference to Easter Bunny, fairies, ghosts etc., which also describe things that many people do not believe in.

You take exactly the same line.

>>...any concept of God whose existence can be investigated by scientific methods (like e.g. the existence of a remote galaxy, or a bunny, a fairy, a teapot, a Boeing 747) thus looking for “evidence” that will convince everybody - educated or not, living in our or previous or future centuries - or a magician-god who performs tricks on demand, is not a God I could believe in<<

And who could possibly have a quarrel with that? But the context of my original query was that somehow, atheists were dragged into your ponderings, courtesy of the Reverend Bruce Barber...

"we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not 'exist', in that sense in which philosophical theists and atheists are forever locked in futile dispute.".

As I said at the time, only Christians concern themselves with the shape, form, existence, manifestation, temper, even the number of their God. There is, in short, no dispute at all, futile or otherwise, between atheists and Christians.

It is educational for me, to watch Christians dispute amongst themselves the minutiae of their beliefs. But it is simply not polite to drag atheists into the ongoing confusion, it has nothing to do with us.

As always interesting food for thought, George and Pericles...

" I assume neither [will you] believe in a thing you refer to as “impossible”."

Lots of reflection to be found in abstract ideas, as there is in this 'modern' concept of God. A bit like with numbers. You know, in the way numbers can be transcendental which though irrational is rational according to the rules.

Rules (which can be likened to tenets of belief) which result in something impossible: 'Using the digits 1,2,3 & 4 and any of the basic rules of mathematics – add, subtract, divide, multiply and parentheses, what is the first natural, positive integer that cannot be obtained?'

Though such belief in an impossible something can be cause for contemplation and reflection it does not require worship.

Maybe this is where 'thoughtful' Christians and atheists part company?

Do others think one is not the loneliest number if you are a trinity?

I am disappointed that "the two problems of existence" seem to be "of God and the existence of Easter Bunny..." and not that of the philosophical question of whether your legs are joined at the top or the bottom.

per-ridicules/quote>>,,<<>.As I said at the time, only Christians concern themselves with the shape,>>

god looks like an engorged nipple..raining out life..that then takes<<.. form, existence, manifestation, temper, even the number>>

in short every thing we see hear smell taste sense create destroy..everything/in its totality..is within gods form

its sad that Pericles comes closer to seeing the real god..<<..of their god>> because you plainly got confused..[CONFOUNDED]..by what god really is..AND SHE IS THE TRINITY.

THERE IS REALITY[PHYSICAL]/
reality]..SPIRITUAL/reality..METAPHYSICAL[
THAT YOU CALL GOD=THE SUN..that you *think of as* god=the holy spirit

everything you experience/do..is because god created it/or set it in train..and sustains its being..to learn more of thyself...to fix it firmly into our neurons/thus her neurons/numberless times.

all organic life if you like..works just like your own minds neurons
just as all the suns..in the nipple shaped universe..are neurons of the wholly spirit...her holy nippleness

you can delude anything..into god..but god = the sun
however you decide..thus will he..[god]..be felt by you...in your minds neuron/patternation..in that itself resembles a nipple..regardless..of how your neurons tell you..they percieve

<<>.There is,..in short,..no dispute at all,
futile..or otherwise,..>>..ENTER ABSURDiUM..THATS INSANE..yes im aware of the irony.

if we could read minds..its clear we all envision..in our minds..'god'
[or else we could not find it in our neurons to know of which we speak.

my visioning..of god..is far divergent/than your neuron 'god'..linkages..some see a hollywood image..of god..YET OTHERS the son..as god..[son/not sun..]

just because they sound the same/are specifically designed to be confused by the same..[there are no co-incidences]

continues..on
[tirelessly like our old nipples
you all bare theie/his/her.. mark..upon thyne chest

[oh come on..give it a rest..
see negative voices abound..just DO THYNE BEST]
LOVE ONE AND OTHER/AND STOP THIS NIPPLE OBSESSION..OR AT LEAST..GET WHY..

[NOW YA KNOW]

now you know..try and envision de-vision
draw thyne own nipple..AS YOU WOuld if you could but see
every nipple looks as different..as your face looks different from me.

everyone's neuron pattern/
programed OR found..wiull by/envisioning..of god
in our minds eye..by our neurons activated..will all be /is\..different
eveN UNIQUE..[ie the personal good/god]..of which our jesus did speak

lest we forget/satan\offered jesus these realms
thus..our mind image OF SATAN..[neural/activation/mind image..will vary..far less..if we mind visualize him..as a her].

[and visualization of the ezta' bunny'..will vary even less..[my point being]..when you say jesus is the SON..i know he isnt the sun
but in the past it wasnt that clear cut.

<<It is educational for me,>>
and visa versa/

here you are next to george and david..as equals [in my mind] to watch Christians dispute amongst themselves the minutiae of their beliefs.>>

IN FULL AGREEMENT
but for me its like their mind images..of god being fixed by reality
or..washed out of it.

<<..But it is simply not polite to drag atheists..into the ongoing confusion,..it has nothing to do with us.>>

OH BULL..AND RUBBISH..the demons show great joy
at the christs divided house..

he came to repair/the fathers [sun]s divided house..and saul/paul..built the house of the sun...posturing the time of the roman sun god..

come-on..it has everything to do with the godless wanting their 'secular'/gOD FREE AGENDA..divide and con..and going by pert/peter sell/us out..your mates are doing just fine..thanks be to him who betrays three times before the trumpets crow.

6 may 2014=judgment day

<<if only one of you would come-up..with new methods>>
ahh-men..but for freewill being sacred/and not wasting pearl on swine..perhaps..but as solo-man..says..there is nothing new..no new truth..under the sun..same again..nice predictable sameness...please dont startle the sleeper's sheep.

Maybe god looks like E.T. at-least its more conceivable then relying on the some crap from an old book that has countless rewrites to suit whoever was in power at the time, I might go tell my granddaughter that Peppa Pig is the daughter of god, Then when she is older she can start her own religion and milk the masses for every cent,so then they can continue on brain washing their children.