The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
this universe. And as a result can have no direct
contact with anything within this universe.

How can one prove the existence of anything before time began?
So all we can do is use reason and logic to discuss the
existence and characteristics of God. No direct evidence
will EVER be possible.

For instance, if the universe displays creative characteristics
A,B and C, it stands to reason these properties are also
inherent within the ultimate source of creation, and in
an idealized form. Just as the properties of a parent
are often reflected in their children.

And since religious philosophy attributes the intrinsic
creative properties we observe in the universe to
define God, then the definition of God becomes reliant
on our observations of reality.

And it's science that does the observing, so it's science
that defines God for religious philosophy.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, notice how they assert
/analogies/ between observed reality and God are the
only paths forward on these questions. The logic of
religious philosophy as expressed by the Vatican is
not just well-reasoned, but bulletproof.

At least to those with an open mind.

The Nature and Attributes of God

(iii) Finally it should be observed that, while predicating pure
perfections literally both of God and of creatures, it is always
understood that these predicates are true in an infinitely higher sense
of God than of creatures, and that there is no thought of coordinating
or classifying God with creatures. This is technically expressed by
saying that all our knowledge of God is analogical, and that all
predicates applied to God and to creatures are used analogically, not
univocally. I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say
of either, with literal truth, that is a beautiful face. And this is an
example of analogical predication. Beauty is literally and truly
realized both in the portrait and its living original, and retains its
proper meaning as applied to either; there is sufficient likeness or
analogy to justify literal predication but there is not that perfect
likeness or identity between painted and living beauty which univocal
predication would imply. And similarly in the case of God and creatures.
What we contemplate directly is the portrait of Him painted, so to
speak, by Himself on the canvas of the universe and exhibiting in a
finite degree various perfections, which, without losing their proper
meaning for us, are seen to be capable of being realized in an infinite
degree; and our reason compels us to infer that they must be and are so
realized in Him who is their ultimate cause.

Hence we admit, in conclusion, that our knowledge of the Infinite is
inadequate, and necessarily so since our minds are only finite. But this
is very different from the Agnostic contention that the Infinite is
altogether unknowable, and that the statements of Theists regarding the
nature and attributes of God are so many plain contradictions. It is
only by ignoring the well-recognized rules of predication that have just
been explained, and consequently by misunderstanding and misrepresenting
the Theistic position, that Agnostics succeed in giving an air of
superficial plausibility to their own philosophy of blank negation.
Anyone who understands those rules, and has learned to think clearly,
and trusts his own reason and common sense, will find it easy to meet
and refute Agnostic arguments, most of which, in principle, have been
anticipated in what precedes. Only one general observation need be made
here — that the principles to which the Agnostic philosopher must appeal
in his attempt to invalidate religious knowledge would, if consistently
applied, invalidate all human knowledge and lead to universal scepticism
— and it is safe to say that, unless absolute scepticism becomes the
philosophy of mankind, Agnosticism will never supplant religion.

(ii) Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak
of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially a magnified
man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or
hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if
subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or
less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to
prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that
it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever
truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions,
or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is
untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same
reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in
other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of
average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the
metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than
he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a
cunning one a fox.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> this universe.

That's a pretty limited notion of a god. Your 'creator' is bound to, and
subservient to, the flow of time, and required to bow to cause and
effect.

ObSF: 'Puny God!'

Pt

On 11/2/2021 12:49 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>> this universe.
>
> That's a pretty limited notion of a god. Your 'creator' is bound to, and
> subservient to, the flow of time, and required to bow to cause and
> effect.
>
> ObSF: 'Puny God!'
>
> Pt
>

I've heard more intelligent replies from high school dropouts
and give your reply the attention it deserves.

But then you're in this ng, so it's expected

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:25:35 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>
> But then you're in this ng, so it's expected

Then, why are YOU here?

Pt

On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:12:44 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

>
> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, notice how they assert

Leaving Emily Dickinson in the dust, along with the old email address?

On 2021 Nov 02, pete...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<1175f9c3-6a82-479f-8f3d-50cc827af974n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:25:35 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >
> > But then you're in this ng, so it's expected
>
> Then, why are YOU here?
>
> Pt

he’s insane

On 11/3/2021 3:57 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:12:44 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, notice how they assert
>
> Leaving Emily Dickinson in the dust, along with the old email address?
>

"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;"

Emily it appears has known the types
of people that inhabit this ng
all too well...

"A face devoid of love or grace,
A hateful, hard, successful face,
A face with which a stone
Would feel as thoroughly at ease
As were they old acquaintances —
First time together thrown.'

Now that's a proper way to flame someone~

Jonathan

s

On 2021-11-02 10:12 a.m., Jonathan wrote:
>
>
> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
> contact with anything within this universe.

Why not?

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:19:45 AM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-11-02 10:12 a.m., Jonathan wrote:
> >
> >
> > The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> > this universe. And as a result can have no direct
> > contact with anything within this universe.
> Why not?

I'd guess if we accept any ghodz are fictional, religion
is on-topic as fantasy?

--
Kevin R

On 2021 Nov 26, Kevrob wrote
(in article<7cd3acce-8c05-4f73-be50-f8c836c1db5dn@googlegroups.com>):

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:19:45 AM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2021-11-02 10:12 a.m., Jonathan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> > > this universe. And as a result can have no direct
> > > contact with anything within this universe.
> > Why not?
>
> I'd guess if we accept any ghodz are fictional, religion
> is on-topic as fantasy?

Shhh. Crom might hear you.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 2:40:58 PM UTC-5, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2021 Nov 26, Kevrob wrote
> (in article<7cd3acce-8c05-4f73...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:19:45 AM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> > > On 2021-11-02 10:12 a.m., Jonathan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> > > > this universe. And as a result can have no direct
> > > > contact with anything within this universe.
> > > Why not?
> >
> > I'd guess if we accept any ghodz are fictional, religion
> > is on-topic as fantasy?
> Shhh. Crom might hear you.

One never bothers him. It shows weakness.

--
Kevin R

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 12:12:44 -0400, Jonathan
<Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:

>The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>contact with anything within this universe.

Ah!

So you believe that Time existed before the Universe did.

Interesting.

Did Space exist as well?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."