Dear Toni and Nick,

Yes, this and similar paradoxes eliminate the possibility of God's existence. The question is, who, when and why, stumbled upon this strange idea to treat God like an object, requiring God, no less, to exist, as well as to possess certain properties (such as omnipotence) and to be subjected to the rule of logic.

Speaking of either existence or logic, is nonsensical outside of God, yet someone down in history invented this nonsensical word-play - thank God for the atheists that expose it!

Yuyutsu
Maybe we're in different frames of definition . The Biblical God created the universe rather than being a super-hero lifting rocks . The paradox can be formed to suit a warped frame . And you can presume that a one-legged builder who made a house had problems so he didn't build the house , obviously . Then you could fall back to say the house is modern , moves with the times and has to exist today . Or you can remove goal-posts , throw away the rules and say the score is 30-20 because it is .

Dear Nick,

I was referring to God, rather than to the biblical god.

The biblical god is a limited being: While He can do and know so much more than humans, He still has moods, He changes His mind, He can regret what He previously did, He prefers some people over others, etc.

Don't get me wrong: the biblical god is still a good and useful construct, like scaffolds that allow a one-legged builder like us to build houses. While I often recommend Him to others, please do not confuse Him with God because God is not a construct.

But..but..the topic is about the Biblical God. If he is real with a mind, then wouldn't he do the things you describe - choose, interact and judge?

Toni and AJ don't reply to my questions about causing laws of science. How do you view it?

//This is which scientific theory ?//

It's not a scientific theory. It's philosophy. Metaphysics rather than physics.

//How do uncaused scientific laws arise//

The same way as uncaused deities: they just do.

After all, if that weren't the case then they wouldn't be uncaused, would they?

//Your ideas are as contrived as saying nature can't be un-natural//

Nature can't be unnatural (or to put it another way, supernatural).

But only if you're using a fairly strict, philosophical, definition of unnatural because it's a word that gets used a lot and has multitude of usages. If you mean unnatural in the sense of artificial or man made, then nature can indeed be unnatural. Similarly, if you mean it in the sense of something you find personally find perverse, abhorrent or distasteful in the way that many homophobes use it to refer to homosexuality, then once again nature can be unnatural. But the way I mean it, that's a contradiction in terms and a logical impossibility.

//and so isn't a universal principle//

Why does nature have to be unnatural to be a universal principle? The uni/multi-verse does not extend outside of nature.

To AJ.

The first experience was an answer to prayer. By the measure that it was prayed for and then it happened it counts as an answered prayer. In my opinion the MRI just adds an extra touch of it so to not mistake God's answer as just being lucky.

The explaination to the second experience doesn't fit either. When I prayed, I didn't pray for the depression to go away. My request was for God to let me die. Take me from this world. His reply was an abundance of love and a great feeling of peace.

You've had an experience close to the third experience I described? I would very much like to hear about it. As for the explanation. I agree the brain can do some amazing things. But a slight feeling of warmth and electric feeling I had accompany it? I don't think that God needs to give any recognizable signs of what He's doing, but if He does that's even better so we can recognize what He's done in our lives and be thankful for it. The problem with the explanation is both the event and the timing. It wasn't an eventual answer to a prayer. It was a immediate.

Same issue with the explanation of the forth experience. It was immediate. God answered the prayer and the timing of the answer removes doubt of a physiological element that my body did on it's own. (Without God's intervention).

Maturity could have been it. I don't think so though. Same reasoning with the first experience and the coma. It was prayed for, and it was answered. This one doesn't have an MRI or a physical feeling to act as an extra marker of God's answer. But at this point it's no longer needed. It is yet another prayer given and answered.

(Continued)