caedes.
No, I didn't miss your description, I just find it vapid, vacuous and banal.
my description is not so vapid if you can't wrap your head around my simple explanation. you are now officialy resorting to a 'you're so stupid' defense.
You mention "THIS GOD" which one do you mean? You should either take ownership of your statement that the bible god is a god of love or backtrack and say your god and the god of the bible are two different deities.
this comment proves that you are still confused. of course i've been referring to two different interpretations of God.
You seem to be vacillating, is maths considerably trustworthy or eternally trustworthy? There seems to be a gulf between those two positions. As someone who uses maths and science everyday in my work, it is not so much trust in maths or science as the person doing the calculations (i.e fallible humans)
here you are arguing with math again. math is math caedes. mathematics are NEVER wrong. Give me ONE example, just one where math was blatantly off.
The underlying maths and physics that govern our universe are cold hard rules of gravity and orbital mechanics, that work to keep the earth in orbit or plow an asteroid into the earth the next day. Is it that what you think is perfect and infallible
bingo
No, I am asking for a definition of the substance of your god since you seem to dislike the idea I put forward that your god does not have any real effect on the world.
I define God as literally being all that is good and perfect. Good and compassionate actions (for example) DO have a real effect on the world.
You pre-suppose that I believe in the biblical account of Jesus. I have seen Steven Frayne do that on TV, I simply assumed it's a very clever trick not that he really has magic powers. Since the bible was written so long after the event I can happily assume a large amount of chinese whispers have occurred between any real event and the biblical account.
lol, so assuming that chinese whispers are responsible for the impossibility of Jesus walking on water is diametrically opposed to my conclusion?