do we limit god by saying he can't do the impossible?

I don't think we are on the same page and we still do not agree, in my opinion, because you have misinterpreted what I said (ie. limits imposed from without).

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
I don't know what 'God says about himself'. I suppose one might find it in the Christian bible or the Mormon bible or the Catholic bible or in the buddist texts or the hindu texts or the old testament or the new testament or through prayer etc... How do we decide what 'God says about himself' compared to what people have said about God????

I have no idea...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Exactly my point. Many assume they understand what/who God, what His plans are and how they are to be made manifest, and WHY all this suffering, but they never consider what the religious texts say - only the preconceived ideas of humans.

Even you are willing to debate the existance of God without any knowledge of Him whatsoever (in this instance, the Judeo-Christian God). Even if this does not move you to believe (which it won't, if you do not want it to), at least KNOW and UNDERSTAND the concepts to which you are ready to opine/debate.

How can one possibly take your reasoning serious now that it is known your knowledge is so one-sided, at best, since you do not even know about the God to which you are attributing so much contradiction to?

It is one thing to try to reason out in your mind by raising questions about God, it is another to assume that you can understand through your own reasoning , whether supplemented by theodicies (which again, is man-made and NOT texts that are considered to be "inspired by God").

The Bible is very clear on every "premise" that you have so far brought up. The problem is, without actually studying and increasing your knowledge, you will continue to run in circles because you do not/cannot understand where/what/why/how so many have come to a certain faith and trust in God.

God is not limited by power being imposed from without (logic/mathematics) for He is the one who created logic, mathematics, etc. (We, as humans are only discovering this "pure" language, not creating it!).

God does not contradict Himself because He has said He will or will not do something. He is always capable, it just would not be logical nor in keeping with His will to do so(and the promises already made). He is incapable of lying because it is not His will to lie. There are no "outside" influences that are imposed on God's power.

But, see, you would know that, if you knew what the Bible says.

Ps 146:3-4 states: "Do not put your trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; and in that day his thoughts do perish." (let's believe a dead guy's knowledge over an omnipotent being's knowledge)

or

Jer 10:23 which states: "I well know...that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (and mankind is doing such a great job with the world we were given, without God's help - which was our choice, by the way)

Nothing that is happening in the world should come as a surprise to anyone who is well-educated in the Bible, for it is all there.

The problem is with mankind, who wishes to remain blind. If they are unwilling to accept the existence of a higher power, then their choice will be honored by never seeing the existence of God in anything, nor be able to rationalize or come to any conclusions - always stuck in a cycle of debate - just like they have been doing for centuries - in formalities known as "theodicies."

Mat 15:14 - "Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Joh 12:39-43 - "The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: "He has blinded their eyes and he has made their hearts hard, that they should not see with their eyes and get the thought with their hearts and turn around and I should heal them." Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him. All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of God." (italics mine).

Oh, and a favorite of mine:

2Cor 4:3-4 which states: "If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things(satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

I guess what I am trying to say is: there are so many ways that humans can be either blinded or led astray - either by our own will (ego, pride, selfishness, etc.), God's will, or by satan's will, who is really only following our lead and has been able to discern where our beliefs lie by our actions).

If one is still struggling with understanding, then they are most likely looking for answers in the wrong places - most being man-made.

Altered State

> Exactly my point. Many assume they understand what/who God, what His plans are and how they are to be made manifest, and WHY all this suffering, but they never consider what the religious texts say - only the preconceived ideas of humans.

I've read the new and old testaments of the christian bible. I'm extremely limited because I haven't read the catholic books or the mormon books or the buddist texts (actually, I have read a little of those) or the hindu texts (actually, I've read a little of those too) but my point is:

How do we know whether those are 'what God says about himself' compared to what people have said about God?

> Even you are willing to debate the existance of God without any knowledge of Him whatsoever (in this instance, the Judeo-Christian God).

Have you read the Islamic texts to find out about what God says about himself? If you mean to imply that I haven't read the Bible then you are much mistaken.

> How can one possibly take your reasoning serious now that it is known your knowledge is so one-sided, at best, since you do not even know about the God to which you are attributing so much contradiction to?

Please don't jump to conclusions about me.

What do we do in the face of one religious text and another religious text contradicting each other? Do we decide that God's nature is contradictory or do we decide that one of the religious texts (the new testament say) is the *real* word of God and thus we can safely ignore the others?

What do we do in the face of falsehoods in the Bible:

(Leviticus) - Just picking one book here:

1. The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." 11:5-6

2. Bats are birds (they aren't birds they are mammals) 11:13, 19

3. Four-legged fowls are abominations (fowls don't have 4 legs) 11:20

4. Be sure to watch out for those "other flying creeping things which have four feet." 11:23 (insects don't have 4 legs)

What do we do in the face of contradictions in the Bible:

(I don't really need to provide examples - do I?)

Is his nature contradictory or are these religious texts what people have said about God after all?

P1) I know the Bible tells the truth because it was written by God.
______________________________________________________________
C) I know God exists because the Bible tells me God exists

Why could you accept P1 unless you believe in C already? This is called BEGGING THE QUESTION

> God is not limited by power being imposed from without (logic/mathematics) for He is the one who created logic, mathematics, etc. (We, as humans are only discovering this "pure" language, not creating it!).

So you are a Platonist rather than a constructionist about mathematical objects... Mathematicians tend to be Platonists about numbers because they like to reify their objects of study I guess... So you think it is possible for God to break the laws of logic?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I don't know what 'God says about himself'. I suppose one might find it in the Christian bible or the Mormon bible or the Catholic bible or in the buddist texts or the hindu texts or the old testament or the new testament or through prayer etc... How do we decide what 'God says about himself' compared to what people have said about God????

I have no idea...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

So what you are actually trying to say is you have doubts as to whether or not the words of religious texts were written by man or "inspired by God," right?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
If you mean to imply that I haven't read the Bible then you are much mistaken.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Not an implication. Just a misinterpretation because of the way you expressed it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Please don't jump to conclusions about me.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Then you say:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So you are a Platonist rather than a constructionist about mathematical objects...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

THEN DO NOT DO THE SAME TO ME. At least mine was just a misinterpretation because of how you chose to express yourself. Can you say the same about your conclusions about me?

> what you are actually trying to say is you have doubts as to whether or not the words of religious texts were written by man or "inspired by God," right?

they might well all be inspired by God, but they can't all be the literal truth about God on pain of contradiction. When one religious text says 'God is x' and another religious text says 'God is not x' then how do we decide whether God is x or not? How do we decide which religious text is telling us the truth about God? What do we do when we find contradictions within one book or within the old and new testament?

I don't really have trouble with the notion that they might well all be *inspired* by God. But on that interpretation... We can't rely on religious texts to tell us literal truths about either God's nature or the natural world.

>> Even you are willing to debate the existance of God without any knowledge of Him whatsoever (in this instance, the Judeo-Christian God).

>> How can one possibly take your reasoning serious now that it is known your knowledge is so one-sided, at best, since you do not even know about the God to which you are attributing so much contradiction to?

>Please don't jump to conclusions about me.

ie please don't assume that I have 'no knowledge of Him whatsoever' and that my 'knowledge is so one-sided'...

> THEN DO NOT DO THE SAME TO ME. At least mine was just a misinterpretation because of how you chose to express yourself. Can you say the same about your conclusions about me?

?

>>> He is the one who created logic, mathematics, etc. (We, as humans are only discovering this "pure" language, not creating it!).

>>So you are a Platonist rather than a constructionist about mathematical objects... Mathematicians tend to be Platonists about numbers

> THEN DO NOT DO THE SAME TO ME. At least mine was just a misinterpretation because of how you chose to express yourself. Can you say the same about your conclusions about me?

WTF???????

How about looking up constructivism and Platonism and seeing for yourself what view yours sounds like on the basis of what you said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Please let me in on what kind of support we are supposed to be getting from this thread, please????

I guess it is up to the reader to take something if they can and to not bother with the thread if they can't see anything to take from it.

Aren't there any people out there who have a sense of spirituality, maybe some belief in something super-natural but who...

Struggle with the sheer variety of God's on offer and struggle with which of the Gods and which of the religious texts to believe in?

Aren't there any people out there who have a sense of spirituality but who struggle with the notion that God (as most often talked about in western culture) seems to be incoherant?

Aren't there any people out there who would like to consider what kinds of properties a supernatural agent could have in a way that is consistent with science and reason? That quite often involves more than just regurgetating from religious texts...

?

Yes, I'm sure there are!

However, I really hope we can phrase our supportive statements better so they aren't so debative.

Using the words, I think, I believe, I wonder, I've studied and have decided for me... might be the best way to share these concepts. That's my POV. I think the guidelines would back me up



Have you tried PMing or a private chat?

> However, I really hope we can phrase our supportive statements better so they aren't so debative.

Do you feel attacked / put down / accused etc by the thread?
I'm wondering if the lable 'debative' is hauled out when people feel attacked / put down / accused etc by a post...

> Using the words, I think, I believe, I wonder, I've studied and have decided for me... might be the best way to share these concepts. That's my POV. I think the guidelines would back me up

Hmm. Could you give me examples of statements that you find debative? That could help me see what you are saying.

But he can do anything and the impossible is something so.... he can.

But why do you think he can do anything?

________________________________________

I guess you are thinking about the nature of impossibility... In a way that is what this is about, I guess.

Do you know where the philosophical notion of possibility and impossibility came from? (Do you want to?)

It is a formal notion. That is to say it defines operations. I'll attempt to show you in a simple example:

let p = it is hot (the right side doesn't matter we could have picked any proposition. what matters is that p is a stand in variable for any proposition. defining propositions is tricky)
let q = it is wet (ditto)

Now in english we often say things like 'it is hot and it is wet'. I'm interested in the AND boolean operator...
p AND q (in this instance means 'it is hot and it is wet'). This is sometimes written as:
p . q (where . is the symbol for AND)
We can then define a truth table for the operator .

when p is true and q is true then p . q is true
when p is true and q is false then p . q is false
when p is false and q is true then p . q is false
when p is false and q is false then p . q is false

the above definition is usually written as a table, but it is hard.

each line of the above (each row on the truth table) is a possible world. we have considered all the possible worlds (all the logical distributions of truth values for 2 variables). all the relevant possibilities. then we assess the claim p . q at each world and depending on the way the world is (whether p is true or false, whether q is true or false) a truth value for the expression p . q is delivered.

Kripke discovered / invented truth tables... And then philosophers have gone on to consider possible worlds in more depth. possible worlds are OBJECTIVE or mind independent. it is a fact that there are four possible worlds that are relevant to assessing the claim p . q... we can say what the truth conditions are in each possible world (for the statement)...

can god make it that the . operator is defined differently? so it delivers a verdict of 'true' for the expression 'p . q' in a world where p was false and q was false? if . was defined differently, then it would not be the . operator, it would be a DIFFERENT operator, however.

but words words words (or alternatively... formal operations formal operations formal operations)... contradictions are an artifact of language (or formal operations) methinks... while it is correct to say that contradictory states of affairs cannot obtain that doesn't limit God at all I don't think...

though it does show us something of the nature of our formal operations and how we get ourselves into trouble sometimes because of language.

i find it interesting because usually theists say 'we can't comprehend god and of course he can do the impossible'. i think it is more that we haven't comprehended possibility / impossibility to see that it isn't a limit on god that he can't do the impossible.

but i dunno... intuitionist logicians would probably be more sympathetic (they don't think you can do proof by contradiction)

Well he did create everything, so it would be like Bill Gates not being able to make a Windows 2006.

Yeah. I guess... It depends on your theory of numbers...

Plato believed that there was this realm of forms where objects existed in their perfect state. I guess teh realm of forms was meant to be heaven. He thought that in the realm of forms there existed a perfect lion and a perfect tiger and a perfect triangle etc. If you think that abstract objects (like the number 7) actually exist then I guess numbers would have been created by God...

Another way to go would be to say that we can construct things. For example... I define the abstract objects 'Alex's lost sock centre' as being the smallest circumference you can draw that encompasses all the socks I've lost in my life'. If you think that God already made that abstract object then all I'm doing is describing something that already existed. If you think that abstract objects can be defined into existence (and only enjoy existence as a description) then God didn't need to create it...

I knew this guy who was interested in the structure (arrangement) of facts... His favourite kinda questions were questions like this:

When God fixed the facts of physics...
Was there more work to do to then fix the facts about biology...
Or when God fixed the facts of physics...
Then did the facts about biology thereby get fixed for free.

(The question is about whether the facts about physics logically fix the facts about biology or whether the facts about biology are logically independent from the facts about physics).

I guess that God can be the first cause (the ultimate cause) without being the local cause (the proximate cause) of much.

So God might have fixed the mathematical facts by fixing the facts about physics which fixed the facts about us which fixed the facts about our mathematics.

Dunno.

I think Sarah said it all. If God can create Heaven and Earth and the whole universe, the question would then be, what CAN'T He do?? After Creation, there's nothing He can't do.

Well...

Here is a set:

I I I I

The set contains exactly: I I I I members.

Can God make a set with exactly I I I I members contain exactly I I I I I members even though it contains exactly I I I I members? If he adds I to the set then it doesn't contain exactly I I I I members anymore. If he doesn't add I to the set then it doesn't contain exactly I I I I I members.

So...

Can God make a set with exactly I I I I members contain exactly I I I I I members?

It isn't about whether he would WANT to or whether he could be BOTHERED worrying about it, it is about whether it is POSSIBLE for him to do so.

I don't see why on earth we should expect him to be able to do this. I don't see why on earth we should see it as a limit on his power that he can't do this. It is an artifact of language.

Same with this:

CAN god make a rock so big that he can't move it?

There are two possible answers (and only two)

1) Yes he can.

But if he can make the rock then he isn't able to do everything because he can't move the rock.

2) No he can't.

But if he can't make the rock then he isn't able to do everything because he can't make the rock.

So either way: God can't do EVERYTHING.

But the problem is an artifact of language: We can define the impossible and thereby describe things that God can't do...

I could debate you, but this isn't what this forum is for.

No one thinks like God, and some of what is being posted isn't even fully understanding the possibilities within the mind of man...quantum physics and the space time continuum.

If you have a problem with God, then don't post about Him, Post about what you do believe in for spiritual strength. OK? Please?

I believe that if you try to limit God, you aren't limiting Him, you are denying Him. That is cause for a debate,imo, which I won't have.

> some of what is being posted isn't even fully understanding the possibilities within the mind of man...quantum physics and the space time continuum.

?
i'm not sure how they relate

> If you have a problem with God

i don't have a problem with god. i'm trying to get clearer on his nature. hard to do that when people don't accept the rules of rational discourse, however (proof by contradiction). i've been thinking about how those who subscribe to intuitionist logic would respond to these ideas... whether they think it is possible to get clearer on the conception of god by using proof by contradiction... they don't subscribe to proof by contradiction in other arenas so i guess they wouldn't subscribe to it here... that being said, i'm fairly sure they agree that a contradiction cannot be the case... i'm fairly sure it is just reductio arguments that they don't accept (assume the conclusion is false, show how it leads to contradiction then you have probed the conclusion must be true).

> I believe that if you try to limit God, you aren't limiting Him, you are denying Him.

really?
hmm. i guess i'm denying the conception of god where gods nature is contradictory. because... contradictions cannot be the case. i can't accept that sort of god, nope. but like i said a while back philosophers opinions are about half-half with respect to believing in god and not believing in god. i'm fairly sure that philosophers aren't putting aside their reason in order to believe which leads me to believe that their conception of god is a little different from their folk notion... i'm trying to get clearer on this conception of god.

it is hard work to get people on board the exercise of contemplating his nature when people don't accept that contradictions cannot be the case, however.

i don't understand why the rock situation isn't a proof...

i understand that there are limits to reason. but that is because of our finite cognitive capacities of limited attention and the like. it isn't that we can't perfectly conceive of some things it is more that we can't perfectly conceive of everything. as things take up more cognitive resources we are likely to fall into error.

as i've said: i don't see how saying that god isn't contradictory (and couldn't be contradictory if he tried) is a LIMIT.

but people seem to have set up reason on the one side and god on the other so that you have to choose between them.

there is a difference between saying that god is far more rational than we

and saying that god is irrational / contradictory

believing in the latter would be... irrational. in the literal sense of the term (not a judgement, an observation)

see... a VALID argument is an argument where it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time. That is to say... IF the argument is VALID and the premises are all true then the conclusion MUST BE TRUE. Alternatively, on all possible worlds where the premises are true the conclusion must be true. If an argument is valid and you want to deny the conclusion then you must show one of the premises to be false.

It doesn't matter how many OTHER premises you add. Hence, whether an argument is valid or not isn't dependent on our finite cognitive capacity.

E.g.,

P1) It is raining and it is wet
________________________________
C) It is raining

The proof is like this:

P . Q
therefore P

Now we have four possible worlds (possible assignments of truth values):

P = T, Q = T
P = T, Q = F
P = F, Q = T
P = F, Q = F

In order for the first premiss to be true we are considering a world where P and Q are both T. That means line one is relevant (and the other lines are not). You will notice that in that world (that line of the truth table) P is T. That means that in any possible world where the premiss is true the conclusion is true as well and thus the argument is valid.

Lets add something to the argument

P1) It is raining and it is wet
P2) Frogs are purple
________________________________
C) It is raining

Now we are going to need more lines to symbolise this:
P . Q
R
___________
P

P = T; Q = T; R = T
P = T; Q = T; R = F
P = T; Q = F; R = T
P = T; Q = F; R = F
P = F; Q = T; R = T
P = F; Q = T; R = F
P = F; Q = F; R = T
P = F; Q = F; R = F

Are all the possible worlds (all the possible combinations of truth values for three variables P, Q, and R). The relevant worlds where the premises are true are the worlds where P, Q, and R are true. That is the first line of the truth table again. Note that on that world the conclusion is true again. Hence the argument is still valid. But we know that R is false. That means that the second line of the truth table is relevant. Notice that adding a falsehood to the premises of a valid argument does not affect its validity. The conclusion is true on that world too. Hence it doesn't matter if our cognitive capacity means that there are factors that we haven't considered. If we have deductive proof (proof by contradiction, for example) then extra information is irrelevant. That is an interesting feature of deductive reasoning (it doesn't apply to inductive reasoning, however).

How does proof by contradiction work? Try to make the argument invalid. The only way you can do this is to assign contradictory truth values to the variables. For example... 'Sure god can make a rock so big he can't move it, though of course he can move it because he can do anything, though of course he can't move it because he can do anything etc etc).

Why are people so determined that God can do contradictory stuff? Because the bible says God can do anything? The bible says bats are birds (they aren't they are mammals)... The bible says insects have four legs (they have 6)... I don't see what is wrong with the 'greatest possible being' conception. I thought people would have seen this as an interesting fact about Gods nature.

I don't even really see what is to argue about...

People will be saying 2+2=5 in a minute... Or that it is all a matter of opinion or personal preference or something...

Do people really think their GOd wants them to abandon reason?

Sorry I'm not clearer :-(

See... In classical logic (of the above variety) truth values are binary. Every proposition (assertorial statement in a language where logic and mathematics and computer languages count as languages too) is either T or F and not neither or both.

There are some problems with two valued logics however.

This has led to the development of a number of other logics...

See... In classical logic if something is not false then it logically follows that it is true. If something is not true then it logically follows that it is false.

There is a nifty little rule that some people find amusing.

not P means that P is false
not not P means that P is true (because there are two values a pair of negations cancel each other out)
not not not P means that P is true (because once the pair cancel each other out there is one left)
So the general rule is that if there is an even number of negations P is true whereas if there is an odd number of negations P is false.

So I am not not not not not not not sad means that I am not sad lol.

Anyway... Back to classical logic being two valued. In the face of some problems with two valued logic some people have proposed alternative logical systems with more than two truth values. E.g., there is a system with TRUE, FALSE, and NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE. This is meant to deal with statements such as 'the present king of France is bald'. In a two valued logic we want to say that it is false that the present king of france is bald but that seems to logically entail that it is true that the present king of france is not bald (in two valued logic) but the problem is that there isn't a present king of france. So one can say that the statement is NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE.

In this logical system not not P doesn't logically entail P becaue not not P could mean P or could mean IT IS NEITHER TRUE NOT FALSE that p.

One could say that it is neither true nor false that god could make a rock so big that god can't move it.

But if it is neither true nor false it would still follow that there is something that god can't do (ie can't make true).

But still... Thats okay, I think...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
But if he can make the rock then he isn't able to do everything because he can't move the rock.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

But He can! He keeps the stars and planets in place 24/7!!

IMO, you're getting hung up on trivia that doesn't matter one way or the other. If I were you, I'd make God a more personal God.

Again, IMO, it's very possible that these "doubts" of yours are just a way to keep an argument alive. It's not going to go anywhere. Either your heart is open to God's existance and His omnipotence or it's not.

"For we walk by FAITH and not by sight."

Sky wrote: </font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

I believe that God operates by His own laws of quantum physics/quantum mechanics. It isn't that he CAN'T, imo, it's that He WON'T.


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

This is what I think too. The laws are God's laws, and God is God because he keeps those laws in perfect order. The same goes for laws concerning good and evil. Sure, God could violate His own laws if he chose, but if He did, then He would cease to be God, and He doesn't cease to be God, therefore he is not going to break his own laws.

This is why we needed a redeemer. The law fixed a price on sin, and the price is more than we are capable of paying ourselves. God could not break His law and continue to be God. That would be a terrible thing. No imperfect being can be in the direct presence of God without being destroyed. But He didn't want His children to be lost forever either, so he provided a way for the law to be kept and the price to be paid. He sent His son, who could pay that price, because we couldn't, and He loved us. He wanted us to be able to return to Him. We couldn't be perfect on our own, but with help, if we accept it, we can be made perfect. We can't imagine or comprehend the magnitude of this gift.

May I share with you the words to a song? I'll mention that Kolob is the name of the star that we (LDS) believe is near to where God lives.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
If You Could Hie to Kolob

If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity,
Find out the generation where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning, where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers, "No man has found 'pure space,'
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place."

The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.
There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that this song gets at some of the questions that have been asked in this thread. Still, I don't think that debating these things will get anyone anything. We each have to find our own truth and understanding. The only way is to go to the source, learn about Him, and ask Him what is true and whether He is limited, and whether it matters.

Rap

Nice song. Don't know nothing about "Kolob". I guess I don't really want to either. No offence...I guess that just isn't important to me right now as I "exist" on this rock. God is made known to me by his spirit in me. If he wants to share more with me...he will in eternity. I agree totally though...as I metioned a few strings ago...if you seek God philisophically...you may never get to know him in this "reality". Rather...you will endlessly spin in circles...not knowing and ending farther from the truth.
I don't wish to "debate" about God...I wish to be with God.
In this I base my faith.
Take care...peace.
m.b.

and a good point, Sky.

Fabulous point, Sarah! You win!!

all things are possible to him who believes
noone comes to the Father except through Jesus
blessed are those who have not seen yet believe
it is appointed to man once to die &amp; then the judgement