Mustn't God have other experiments also?
553782
Well, actually God ain't supposed to be experimenting and play. God ain't similar to us. In the real context, He is the Most Unique but if you make a research on 20 people telling them about this, I am sure 4/5 of them will dispute in a manner.\nNonetheless, it all depends on the place of those people. Christians are very likely to be in the group.\nNo offense but it is a fact. \n \nIf I may ask, the way you portray God shows that you are not a theist, are you?\n\nIn my opinion, we are the only humans in the whole universe but I am confident there are a lot of other creatures we may not know living in other places.\n\n<0209, 25/23 Rabiul Akhir/May 1427/2006>\n\nBy the way, answerer no. 13, ddead alive's article is very interesting.\n\n<1615, 26/24 Rabiul Akhir/May 1427/2006>
342509
You are assuming that God is limited to what we think of Him.  That is wrong.  God could not do anything that will limit his abilities, including what you ask.\n\nRead this for further clarification:\n\nGod and Omnipotence\nThe paradox of the stone, as presented by Wade Savage:\n1. Either God can create a stone that God cannot lift, or God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift – there are no other possibilities. \n2. If God can create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., lift that stone). \n3. If God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., create that stone). \n4. From the combination of 1, 2 and 3, it follows that there is at least one thing that God cannot do. \n5. If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything. \n6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. \n\nWhat this argument apparently shows is that omnipotence is impossible (or, that the notion of omnipotence is incoherent). Thus, God cannot be omnipotent (as nothing can be).\n\nSuggested solutions to the paradox St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):\nAquinas defines as “absolutely impossible” any thing where the “predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject” (his example: “man is an ***” (in the non-metaphorical sense)). With this in mind:\nWhatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.\n\nThat is, to be omnipotent involves being able to do all things that are possible. For example, it is not considered a limit to my powers that I cannot draw a square circle. That’s impossible, so it’s no failing that I can’t do it – it cannot be done.\n\nBUT: surely I can make a thing that is too heavy for me to lift, so that task is not impossible, so if God can’t do it, that really is a limit to his power.\n\nGeorge Mavrodes (1926-):\nMavrodes responds that although “a stone too heavy for Simon Cushing to lift” is not a contradictory notion, “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is a contradictory notion.\nMavrodes’s argument in full:\n1. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. \n2. If God is not omnipotent, then the fact that he cannot do something (either make or lift the stone) is unsurprising. \n3. If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, there necessarily cannot be a stone that is too heavy for him to lift (otherwise he would not be omnipotent). \n4. If there necessarily cannot be such a stone, then it is an impossibility. \n5. By Aquinas’s reasoning, even an omnipotent being cannot perform impossibilities. \n6. Therefore, by definition, inability to create a stone too heavy for one to lift is no barrier to being omnipotent. (In fact, only non-omnipotent beings can create objects too heavy for themselves to lift.) \n\nBUT: both Aquinas and Mavrodes assume that God cannot do impossible things. Is this right? Descartes, for one, thought not. Descartes believed God could make 2+2=5. Why? Because otherwise you are suggesting that God is bound by the laws of logic. But if God created the laws of logic, why should he be bound by them? Couldn’t he have made them differently?\n\nHarry Frankfurt:\nHowever, if we assume that God can do impossible things, then God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift (which is supposedly impossible). Furthermore, if he can do that, then he can go one stage further and lift that stone (also impossible – but what’s the difference between doing one impossible thing and doing two?) \nBUT: doesn’t that mean that the stone he created was not a stone too heavy for him to lift, and that we’re back to the situation of him being unable to create such a stone? Not according to Frankfurt:\nIf an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he canno
690737
God is not Three...The old testament never mention that
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
224517
God won't be mocked. Even the most faithful who believe in God have not seen him, and just because you can't see him does not mean he doesn't exist. \nYou want proof of his existance but can you prove that he doesn't?\nLook around you, his proof is in all the beauty that you see in his creations. There also are many quiet miracles to behold. I know science would have us all believe that we were developed in a test tube, along with every animal,plant,bug or living thing. That is not the case. Besides the bigger question is WHY? There has to be a purpose for all this madness.
902713
no...if it were possible there wouldn't be these fun debates on yahoo answers..gotta love some of these answers though lol..stuff exists..that means gods exists..nice!..and the ever popular..can you prove he doesn't....burden of proof is on the believer
621691
A supernatural being needs a creator? You are thinking of things in physical, human, terms. Yes, things in our material world MUST have had a beginning. Where did the matter to create our universe come from? How did the first celled animals originate? We know those things had to have a beginning....something had to create/produce them.\nGod exists outside of our physical paradigm. He has always been, and will always be. That is difficult for our finite human logic to grasp, but so is quantum physics. \nGod, the creator of elements and laws, exists outside of time & space...
713917
He didn't discover anything then.   It's still a theory.    \n\nIn contrast, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.   God isn't a circus monkey to do tricks for you on a whim.   Follow the scripture and wrap yourself in the Word of God and miracles and the works of God will unfold before your very eyes every day.   You just have to open your eyes to see them.
896798
I asked this question a little earlier, actually. What I believe is, if God exists, he doesn't know the future. Nobody does, because that knowledge is impossible to have. The future doesn't exist yet, and neither do any "future" actions. Any attempt to predict the future is simply speculation.
560337
None actually, but having no proof on the other side, by grace of the Occam´s razor I would choose the simplest hypothesis: no god.
410381
Sure there can be.   It's all a matter of perspective.   \n\nUltimately, you can keep questioning everything to the point where we couldn't comprehend a diety.   Where did we come from?  God made us.   Where did God come from?  He always was.   \n\nI've always had a problem with..."He always existed."   So, if he always existed...what did he do?   Just sat in the middle of nowhere doing nothing.
454187
most things that scientists have made are duplicates of what God has already created but they have not be able to make LIFE. They cant make "real human" because the source of life is with God.
470268
Well this is certainly the funniest question I've seen\n\nbut assuming GOD as creator, I quess HE could just wave His magic wand and poof! - the room is full of virgins\n\nOf course I don't believe that, but I could be wrong ;)
784211
If things were impossible for God, He wouldn't be God.\n\nNow people will turn a question like this into something that would test God (i.e. the famous "if God can do anything, can He create a rock so big He couldn't move it?").  The answer lies in the fact that while He *can* do anything and *nothing* is impossible with Him, he would not do something that contradicts His very nature and being because He is perfect.
1167496
I find interesting the use of probability to explain god. I mean, they use well known (and limited) data to explain how unlikely (even if possible) it is for life to start as a mere accident. Even though, these people seem to forget to apply the same logic and known data to explain god, if the experiment is a fair experiment, that is, using known data in both experiments, the probability that a being like god actually exists is 0. ZERO probability.
1117486
don't the already exist?
731606
in the Psalms it says a fool says" There is no God"\n\nIf you put all the necessary "ingredients" together to make a single living cell ...ONE, not billions...how long would it take? would it happen at all? to have a creation there must be a Creator.