Proof for God's Non-Existence

[Quahom1]

Welllll,

Since I started this thread I suppose I should have set up parameters.

"GOD" is simply a concept/being/force that is responsible for creating everything.

I was not implying my personal concept of God, hence I did not use a particular name, just a descriptor or universally understood "title".

Second, I should have titled it "Evidence for God's Non-Existence" as opposed to "proof for God's Non-Existence".

Third, I did not expect to witness "slam dancing" especially from the superiorly civilized members that we enjoy at CR.

I would like to see this "exercise" continue, however not at the expense of alienating ourselves from eachother (over tribal deity images, or the lack of).

Please consider.

v/r

Q

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom

Second, I should have titled it "Evidence for God's Non-Existence" as opposed to "proof for God's Non-Existence".

Good call, Q.

Originally Posted by Quahom

Third, I did not expect to witness "slam dancing" especially from the superiorly civilized members that we enjoy at CR.

What is 'slam dancing'?

Hmmm evidence for the non-existence of gods. All of them (gods)?

I would only submit the absence of evidence for the positive.

Some people also believe evil to be evidence for the non-existence of the god in the bible. Something to think about.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

What is 'slam dancing'?

"Slam dancing" is when people go to opposite ends of a room, and then run at eachother, leap into the air, and SLAM eachother in the chest, all to the sound of "music" (for lack of a better term), so loud it ruptures one's ear drums.

This form of dancing can also cause teeth to fly from the mouth, groins to be severly bruised and extremities to be fractured, not to mention ruptured lungs, spleens, lacerated livers and thorasic displacement of other internal organs...

v/r

Q

[earl]

hey Q, i do not personally consider the words which flew through here "slamming;" but rather "juiciness," gets the imaginative juices going; it is but "in-spir-ation," (triggers some inflow of the "spirit" shall we say?) So, please let's keep the flow re this going for the many added angles it provides on such an " in-spir-ational" & "en-thusiasitc, ("entheos"iastic) subject. so, if it's on my sake, don't worry about it. Love it and God bless, Earl

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by earl

hey Q, i do not personally consider the words which flew through here "slamming;" but rather "juiciness," gets the imaginative juices going; it is but "in-spir-ation," (triggers some inflow of the "spirit" shall we say?) So, please let's keep the flow re this going for the many added angles it provides on such an " in-spir-ational" & "en-thusiasitc, ("entheos"iastic) subject. so, if it's on my sake, don't worry about it. Love it and God bless, Earl

Good Evening Earl,

Others begged to differ on certain posts. So we erred on the side of caution. Moderators have no intention (as of now) to can this thread, but we had to emphasise where this thread is, and what CR is about.

For a moment there I was regretting even creating this thread. It was not meant to "piss anyone off" (forgive the sailor in me). But it did.

As long as majority wants it to stay and majority can maintain composure, we'll have this topic around for folk to dive into...

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Welllll,

Since I started this thread I suppose I should have set up parameters.

"GOD" is simply a concept/being/force that is responsible for creating everything.

I was not implying my personal concept of God, hence I did not use a particular name, just a descriptor or universally understood "title".

Second, I should have titled it "Evidence for God's Non-Existence" as opposed to "proof for God's Non-Existence".

Third, I did not expect to witness "slam dancing" especially from the superiorly civilized members that we enjoy at CR.

I would like to see this "exercise" continue, however not at the expense of alienating ourselves from eachother (over tribal deity images, or the lack of).

Please consider.

Thanks Q. Appreciate the intervention. I guess I would have two question just to narrow it down a little more. Should this concept/being/force be considered an agent in our human sense? That is, would it need to be a conscious being molding the universe, the way a potter molds a vase? Or could it also be a concept/being/force that is not self-conscious in the way we understand it. Also, would this concept/being/God be purely immanent, or both immanent and transcendent? I'm not trying to annoy, but I think this might help you get some focussed responses. To summarize my two questions:

1. Does this God need to be a conscious being in our ordinary understanding of the word?
2. Does this God need to be transcendent as well as immanent, both beyond the world and in the world?

Thanks again for the narrowing down of the question.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Thanks Q. Appreciate the intervention. I guess I would have two question just to narrow it down a little more. Should this concept/being/force be considered an agent in our human sense? That is, would it need to be a conscious being molding the universe, the way a potter molds a vase? Or could it also be a concept/being/force that is not self-conscious in the way we understand it. Also, would this concept/being/God be purely immanent, or both immanent and transcendent? I'm not trying to annoy, but I think this might help you get some focussed responses. To summarize my two questions:

1. Does this God need to be a conscious being in our ordinary understanding of the word?
2. Does this God need to be transcendent as well as immanent, both beyond the world and in the world?

Thanks again for the narrowing down of the question.

You're welcome.

Now I can not answer your questions, because that would put parameters around the issue. (I just wanted everyone to stop gearing up for a religious battle).

God is a concept/being/force...

Or is there something else?

Working with that, can you show evidence, that God does not exist? (yes I am still holding on to my original question, and nor will I provide exclusions to the rule)

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to all!

What a lively thread! I must technically agree with the point that proving a negative is not really possible. However, I also understand the frustration behind the intent that began the thread. That frustration has made itself very evident in certain posts.

While following over the weekend, I thought of a couple of things to stir the pot. Of course, this question may be better in the thread about proving God, but since the discussion has grown elsewhere there my question would seem out of place, so I will bring it here.

It seems to me those who believe in "God" do so from personal experience and upbringing (indoctrination). Those who don't likewise do so from personal experience and indoctrination. So everyone's perspective is relative, and subject to our rather limited views of a vast unknowable.

My question revolves around the point that God is not because God cannot be seen, measured or quantified. So, my question is this: "Can love be proved?" A logical extension is "Can morality be proved?" Neither love nor morality can be seen or quantitatively measured, yet we know they exist. And neither love nor morality can be shown definitively to be evolutionary strictly out of biological components. Yet, I would hazard a guess that even a person who adamantly believes God does not exist, would have to acknowledge that both love and morality do exist. So where did love and morality come from?

Originally Posted by Devadatta

1. Does this God need to be a conscious being in our ordinary understanding of the word?

In my opinion, no. At least, not in the sense traditionally described.

2. Does this God need to be transcendent as well as immanent, both beyond the world and in the world?

Either/or, neither/both. All of the above. I do not require understanding of how God operates in order to understand that God does operate. Whether or not God "hears" my every word, "sees" my every move, or not, makes no difference. Whether God has lesser beings, "Guardian angels" so to speak, to carry out the light work, is irrelevent. Whether God is or can be spirit or physical, matter or energy, or not, is irrelevent. Whether or not God can intervene or manipulate the Grand Design God built is irrelevent. That any or all of these things can seem to be in play at given moments in the course of any one of our lives is what is relevent. Quantifiable and objective? Obviously not. Experiential and doctrinal. Indeed. And all relative to who we are, what we are capable of seeing and understanding, and in terms that are meaningful to each of us as individuals.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You're welcome.

Now I can not answer your questions, because that would put parameters around the issue. (I just wanted everyone to stop gearing up for a religious battle).

God is a concept/being/force...

Or is there something else?

Working with that, can you show evidence, that God does not exist? (yes I am still holding on to my original question, and nor will I provide exclusions to the rule)

Hi Q. I’m okay with this. But while we’re sticking to principles, I’ll stick with mine and restate my belief that properly speaking the burden of evidence has to be from the other side. However, in recognition of this new & relaxed environment, and in the spirit of diversion let’s soldier on – although maybe the real question is why some of us have a incurable weakness for these things.

From what you’ve set out I’m going with the assumption that we’re not dealing with any culture-bound definition of God. I’m also going to assume that you’re proposing a God that is both in the world and beyond it, and is conscious in some sense we can understand. In other words, this God has a personality at least partially accessible to our thought. As well, I’m going to proceed without the support of any scripture, theist, buddhist, or of any other kind. My only support will be what we in general see of the universe, from our little corner.

In fact, if this exercise is to make any sense at all – and it still may not – I think we have to propose a personal God of this kind.

So personality being the key notion, that’s what the evidence needs to speak to. What constitutes evidence of personality, as we understand it? Another huge question with lots of answers. I’m tossing out four, for the purposes of this discussion:

Evidence for the existence of God as personality:
1. An articulated form. Any notion of personality in the ordinary sense (I would argue) must be paired with a kind of body. God of course can also be beyond this form, but as with any other personality, some form would be necessary to God as personality.
2. A divine signature. One would expect such a mighty work as creation to leave traces of its maker, if that maker also has a personality. Every great artist leaves a signature.
3. A single biographical arc, or story line.
4. A single integrated, unitary personality.

So, with these definitions in mind, here are evidences against the existence of God as personality:
1. The universe is formless. Whether you go with big bang or steady state, or delve into the deep structures of matter/energy, the universe does not exhibit any articulated form or body that can be remotely paired with what we think of as “personality”. Of course, the universe exhibits regularities, causes, conditions, etc., but none of these answer to the requirement of a form appropriate to an idea of personality.
2. The universe is signless. Now, you may object that I’m being sly, and that both this and the previous statement are not assertions of positive evidence; in fact, they are positive assertions of what simple observation tells us: the universe has no set form, and no sign of personality in our human sense. (This touches of course on the argument from design; but let’s remember that we’re talking specifically about a God with personality. The universe may be fantastically complex and replete with extraordinary organizations of matter & energy. That can suggest many ideas, theories & feelings. A personality in the human sense I would argue is not one.)
3. The universe, as evidenced in Earthly affairs, has innumerable story lines. Leaving aside the arc of history of all the other species of life on Earth, human & pre-human history reveals innumerable stories and innumerable revelations incapable of being fit into any definite story line. Or, again, we can write a story line, but it would be one so broad and inclusive that it could no longer be seen as the work of a unified personality, or Divine Will, as is it’s sometimes called.
4. By the evidence of human culture, God has innumerable personalities. Comparative religion, comparative mythology, history of ideas all can show commonalities in ideas of God, but no unified personality in any meaningful sense. That is, different notions of God may include values like “compassion”, but still differ widely as personalities, just as you and I may agree on the importance of compassion while being widely different personalities. The existence of these innumerable personalities is for me evidence that we may all be experiencing the same ultimate reality but that the personalities we create for it are our own.

That’s my 4 cents. But I would like to remind everyone that here I’m only providing evidence against the idea of God as personality. This has nothing to do with God in the larger sense – which you may find peeking around the corners of my definition.

Bye bye.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Either/or, neither/both. All of the above. I do not require understanding of how God operates in order to understand that God does operate. Whether or not God "hears" my every word, "sees" my every move, or not, makes no difference. Whether God has lesser beings, "Guardian angels" so to speak, to carry out the light work, is irrelevent. Whether God is or can be spirit or physical, matter or energy, or not, is irrelevent. Whether or not God can intervene or manipulate the Grand Design God built is irrelevent. That any or all of these things can seem to be in play at given moments in the course of any one of our lives is what is relevent. Quantifiable and objective? Obviously not. Experiential and doctrinal. Indeed. And all relative to who we are, what we are capable of seeing and understanding, and in terms that are meaningful to each of us as individuals.

Hey Juantoo3. (I just got the pun, shows you how slow I am!) You're right these observatons would have been more to the point on the other thread, which I agree got derailed. On the other hand, I appreciate your comments, and I'm very sympathetic to your open view of things.

As for my two questions, they weren't meant to be addressed directly, but only posed to Q to perhaps narrow the ground of the discussion.

But again thanks for your comments.

Cheers.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Some people also believe evil to be evidence for the non-existence of the god in the bible.

Perhaps from people who have not read the Bible. Otherwise they would understand that evil is but one more part of the overall creation.

Besides, does not the term "evil" require a kind of "faith" from atheists? If there were no God, there would be no "evil," nor would there be "good." Every act, even the most unconscionable, would be acceptable. Without humanity's concepts of good and evil, morality, all is fair. Murder, war, theft, greed, etc..., all would be just another day at the office. There would be nothing we construe as child molestation, terrorism, ecological disaster, or any of a litany of heinous crimes against humanity.

Now, I realize most atheists posit that they can be moral without God. Very well, but I would suggest that is only a requirement for social acceptance. In other words, atheists are only moral because the law requires them to be, and are no more moral than required of them. I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to realize the logical conclusion, that if law were done away and morality would no longer be required, that without some "God" concept, people would become immoral animals.

So, perhaps "God" is a construct of the human mind. If so, then it is a construct that has taken us far beyond being merely animals.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Devadatta!

Thank you for your kind words.

1. The universe is formless.

While I can agree with you on a personal level that God does not have a personality per se that can be begged for intervention, which would seem to me to circumvent the purpose of the Grand Design, I also know from personal experience that God answers prayer. How God does this is obviously out of the scope of my understanding, I don't think I would comprehend rationally and fully even if I were capable of seeing. And prayer is not always answered in the way we personally desire our prayer to be answered, yet prayer when answered it is for our betterment.

I could add that "the universe exhibits regularities, causes, conditions, etc., but none of these answer to the requirement of a form appropriate to an idea of personality", also can describe "personality." That is, a perfect form created descibes a perfect personality. Now, the catch is in what exactly composes "perfect," the human description does not necessarily coincide with God's description. As in: "why would a perfect God create an imperfect world?" To which I have to answer: "what makes you think God has created an imperfect world?" and "whose definition of perfect are we using here?" In other words, while your argument makes sense to you from your perspective, it does not make sense to me from mine. This argument against is in reality moot.

2. The universe is signless.

Since the previous argument is moot in that it does not really describe or not whether God has personality, the argument that the universe is signless is debatable as well. Could it not be rather that we are not generally able to read the signs? "The universe has no set form, and no sign of personality in our human sense." contradicts the statement that "the universe exhibits regularities, causes, conditions, etc." The universe does indeed have a set form, in that gravity and light and matter and energy all operate within a preset scale of parameters. So, from my perspective, the universe is not "formless." Besides, we have yet to see outside the bounds of our universe, we cannot say with any certainty just what our universe looks like. But what we can see holds to certain parameters and conditions. The universal laws are immutable and unchanging, and cannot be rewritten to suit our fancies of a given moment.

3. The universe, as evidenced in Earthly affairs, has innumerable story lines.

I would suggest here: "Human & pre-human history reveals innumerable stories and innumerable revelations incapable of being fit into any definite story line. Or, again, we can write a story line, but it would be one so broad and inclusive that it could no longer be seen as the work of a unified personality," that diversity is not evidence of non-existence of common source. Again, I will here posit individual relative perspective. Even in looking to a couple of ficticious primitive societies, one sea-based and the other woodland-based, both cultures looking to describe the same phenomena would use terminology that makes sense and meaning to themselves without direct regard for the others. The one may ascribe certain issues to the sea, while the other may ascribe those very same issues to the animals and plants of the forest. A buffalo has little to no meaning to a culture based on the sea, just as Poseidon has little to no meaning to a culture based on hunting/gathering in the forest.

4. By the evidence of human culture, God has innumerable personalities.

That God seems to display different personalities across innumerable cultures still does not negate the existence of God. Again, these diverse personalities are reflections of different cultures attempting to explain the same phenomena. What I find fascinating is that so many cultures attempted to define the phenomena, effectively all of them. All saw the same things. I would be much more inclined to agree with you if only a select and minor representative sample even made the attempt to begin with. But the anthropological evidence states otherwise, in that "religion" is attributed to even the most early socieites we have discovered. (I will qualify this by saying that I mean the uncovering of "settlements," not necessarily isolated individuals) Whenever a contextual setting has been uncovered, there has been reason to believe religion comprised some component of each culture. In short, even in the earliest time we can fairly definitively say humans had what we term culture, there was acknowledgement of something greater than the individuals that comprised that culture.

So again, diversity is not proof of non-existence of a common source, particularly when there is a great similarity in the what is being described even if not in the how it is described.

If there were nothing to describe, why did any of them even bother to begin with?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If there were nothing to describe, why did any of them even bother to begin with?

Hi again. I appreciate your thoughtful & interesting comments, many of which I wouldn't quibble with, some of which I might only situate a little differently.

But in terms of our dialogue, I think you perhaps misunderstand my aims. As I tried to make clear, I'm presenting evidence against the idea of a personal God, not against the idea of God in the largest sense. I carefully pointed out that the various ideas about the personality of God do point to a common reality or experience, whatever words we prefer to us. So yes, there is very much something to describe.

(Also, keep in mind that this thread is only about presenting evidence, not proving anything.)

Again, all I'm questioning here is whether God can have a personality in the ordinary sense of the word. All the evidence I presented is keyed to that: that is the whole focus; it goes no farther.

For example, this is not evidence against your experience of prayer, or even the reality of prayer; it's only evidence against the common notions of what we mean by a "personal" God in relation to prayer.

That God may work in "mysterious ways" as you suggest is precisely the point; these are not the ways of a personality as we understand the term. Now you may qualify "personality" in some way, with adjectives like perfect, divine, etc., but that only points to the gulf between.

I think what we've come to is precisely that gulf between the human on the one hand, and the divine, the absolute or God on the other. To bridge that gulf has been a perennial preoccupation, so I don't think we'll solve it here. But in a simple way it comes down to a distinction between two paths:

1. The theistic, metaphysical, absolutist path which creates articulated steps between, and includes theories of emanation, incarnation, the personhod of God, Divine Will, the trinity of Christianity, the ten sefirot of the Kabbalah, - but the variety is endless.
2. The non-theistic, anti-metaphysical, pluralist path which is experienial, relying on direct approaches between the individual and the absolute, and which is represented by various types of yoga, Buddhism, Santana Dharma (Hinduism) at its core, and by the mystical strands of all traditions.

I more than lean toward Door #2, which is why I've presented the kind of evidence I have, but I don't oppose Door #1 as a path for others, and in fact in the all over scheme these are complementary realities, always implicated one with the other and never appearing in a pure form. (And again, my evidence is presented against a literal belief in the personality of God, not against the deployment of the idea within a spiritual tradition.)

Cheers.

[earl]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Devadatta!

Thank you for your kind words.


While I can agree with you on a personal level that God does not have a personality per se that can be begged for intervention, which would seem to me to circumvent the purpose of the Grand Design, I also know from personal experience that God answers prayer. How God does this is obviously out of the scope of my understanding, I don't think I would comprehend rationally and fully even if I were capable of seeing. And prayer is not always answered in the way we personally desire our prayer to be answered, yet prayer when answered it is for our betterment.

I could add that "the universe exhibits regularities, causes, conditions, etc., but none of these answer to the requirement of a form appropriate to an idea of personality", also can describe "personality." That is, a perfect form created descibes a perfect personality. Now, the catch is in what exactly composes "perfect," the human description does not necessarily coincide with God's description. As in: "why would a perfect God create an imperfect world?" To which I have to answer: "what makes you think God has created an imperfect world?" and "whose definition of perfect are we using here?" In other words, while your argument makes sense to you from your perspective, it does not make sense to me from mine. This argument against is in reality moot.


Since the previous argument is moot in that it does not really describe or not whether God has personality, the argument that the universe is signless is debatable as well. Could it not be rather that we are not generally able to read the signs? "The universe has no set form, and no sign of personality in our human sense." contradicts the statement that "the universe exhibits regularities, causes, conditions, etc." The universe does indeed have a set form, in that gravity and light and matter and energy all operate within a preset scale of parameters. So, from my perspective, the universe is not "formless." Besides, we have yet to see outside the bounds of our universe, we cannot say with any certainty just what our universe looks like. But what we can see holds to certain parameters and conditions. The universal laws are immutable and unchanging, and cannot be rewritten to suit our fancies of a given moment.


I would suggest here: "Human & pre-human history reveals innumerable stories and innumerable revelations incapable of being fit into any definite story line. Or, again, we can write a story line, but it would be one so broad and inclusive that it could no longer be seen as the work of a unified personality," that diversity is not evidence of non-existence of common source. Again, I will here posit individual relative perspective. Even in looking to a couple of ficticious primitive societies, one sea-based and the other woodland-based, both cultures looking to describe the same phenomena would use terminology that makes sense and meaning to themselves without direct regard for the others. The one may ascribe certain issues to the sea, while the other may ascribe those very same issues to the animals and plants of the forest. A buffalo has little to no meaning to a culture based on the sea, just as Poseidon has little to no meaning to a culture based on hunting/gathering in the forest.


That God seems to display different personalities across innumerable cultures still does not negate the existence of God. Again, these diverse personalities are reflections of different cultures attempting to explain the same phenomena. What I find fascinating is that so many cultures attempted to define the phenomena, effectively all of them. All saw the same things. I would be much more inclined to agree with you if only a select and minor representative sample even made the attempt to begin with. But the anthropological evidence states otherwise, in that "religion" is attributed to even the most early socieites we have discovered. (I will qualify this by saying that I mean the uncovering of "settlements," not necessarily isolated individuals) Whenever a contextual setting has been uncovered, there has been reason to believe religion comprised some component of each culture. In short, even in the earliest time we can fairly definitively say humans had what we term culture, there was acknowledgement of something greater than the individuals that comprised that culture.

So again, diversity is not proof of non-existence of a common source, particularly when there is a great similarity in the what is being described even if not in the how it is described.

If there were nothing to describe, why did any of them even bother to begin with?

Very interesting thoughts, juantoo. While I tend to agree with you that "all prayers are answered," as you point out, the only way we might realize they were is if we can suspend our "self"-ish wants, open our eyes & mind & see what's happened and how it fits the bigger, broader picture. I will rely on Vajradhara to correct what may be a misstatement by me, but as I understand traditional Buddhist philosophy, their chief disputation that there is a "creator God," relates to how so many of us define "God-" as an entity that pulls the strings from above or that "creates" as a doll maker has shaped a piece of wood into its current form. My heretical take on both the "buddhist" and theistic notions of "God" leads me to believe those camps may be simply different sides of the same coin. Buddhists tend to think of an enlightened individual as one who has overcome any notions of self and in so doing allows every action to be "right" for oneself and others simutaneously in that moment. One is by being in that flow then in a way serving some innate force that serves to bring forth what is innately right in all beings. One can only do that in Buddhism by moving beyond our "small-minded self" to contact, enact that force, which Buddhism sees as who we fundamentally "are." As I've said before in this thread; to me that suggests a "sentient design/intent" whether 1 chooses to find a "designer." Similarly, in theistic religions, one can only theoretically contact and enact "God's" will by setting aside ego-bound concerns and perceptions to enlarge the heart/mind. When we manage that it does seem in those moments what we do for another we truly have done for ourselves in the bigger scheme of things. I use the term "openness" dimension of a religion-when we have moved into that open heart-mind space where the flow works for some larger purpose no matter how momentarily inconvenient for our "ego." What is this seemingly "intelligent design?" Call it Buddha Mind, call it God, call it Joe-doesn't matter. But you're right juantoo that best we can tell going back to prehistoric culture of earliest known vintage, humanity has always been reaching out to, looking for, and/or honoring that "something." Whatever you want to call it, we honor ourselves and the bigger whole best whenever we can find that heart-mind space. Take care, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards again, Devadatta!

BTW, I am really enjoying the discourse between you and Vaj on the other thread, one more reason I chose to post here rather than there, so as not to disrupt that conversation.

But in terms of our dialogue, I think you perhaps misunderstand my aims. As I tried to make clear, I'm presenting evidence against the idea of a personal God, not against the idea of God in the largest sense. I carefully pointed out that the various ideas about the personality of God do point to a common reality or experience, whatever words we prefer to us. So yes, there is very much something to describe.

I think I understand, you are supposing that God, as in "Big Beard" or "Big Tits" in the sky (thanks, bb!), does not exist. And to that I have agreed. God, in my mind, is masculine and feminine, neither and both. Truly paradox. And I have no problem understanding "Him" in that context. And I stand by my earlier statements, in that your arguments against a "personality" are actually moot and do not serve the purpose of either evidence or proof. Is it not possible we do not understand how to read the signs? I know I do not know. Are you telling me you do, and don't see them? I mean, proving a negative is admittedly difficult. But even then the "evidence" should at least be consistent with the argument. What I see, and have for years in the discussion, is circumstantial on both sides. Because "science" cannot "see" God, does not mean God does not exist. As to whether or not God has a personality, in the traditional sense, I cannot say, because I have not had the direct pleasure of His company. My little pea-brained self stands in awe of His presence. To dare ascribe something as meaningless as personality to something so "awe-full" and "awe-inspiring" is truly beyond what I dare. Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't. All I know, in what scanty little I understand within my little pea-brain, is that it doesn't matter. What does matter, is that He IS.

Thank you for your posts. You have been a great sport through all of this discussion.