29 Oct So the minute you adopt a plural, saying that there`s several, 1,2,3,4, you are already making yourself a decent image, and so you are in contradiction with the verses stating that there`s nothing like God, that of God, there is no patima, there is no statue, there is no sculpture, there is no portrait, there is no drawing, there is no picture, there is no painting, there is no photograph.
That may be, but to test anything you've got to start somewhere--and the Abrahamic version of god seems to be the preferred model of what "god" is, including supposed testimonial "evidence." Once done with that you could expanse the notion I suppose, but quickly figure out they all are about equally ridiculous---did the Pacific Ocean come from a sorrowful goddess, as the Polynesia myth? Was the yazidi god really cast to Earth to form the Sinjar mountains etc. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox Originally Posted by Oxycodone Yes, God does not comply to human logic. Leave space for the possibility, because you don't know. Originally Posted by Oxycodone Yes, God does not comply to human logic.
God will not come down to tell the scientist that this world is a test for the afterlife, because God is busy. God is in another dimension, in something we cannot define. We can't evaluate the merits of god using things we cannot imagine, nor are rational people such as scientist, obligated in anyway to measure the merits of the unimaginable, or untestable before making taking the default position that the orbiting tea pot god doesn't exist.