ehh, I suspect a miscommunication here... did you want my physical description (what I look like is noyb) or my explanation of God's physical description? By your last comment, I suspect you wanted the latter. What I look like is noyb. How or if I decide to tackle the other question has nothing to do with other people.
Its a weird question on several levels, especially considering the numerous times and ways I've attempted to enlighten you with regards to the implicit nature of a creator of the physical universe. A creator of the Universe would necessarily be beyond the limitations of the created Universe, existing a priori and would not be limited by the laws of the created universe. Physics don't apply because they are laws governing the physical temporary creation not the unlimited and eternal creator.
The fact is, most modern belief is that the concept of a Creator is describable in ideal terms (Omniscient, Omnipotent, eternal, absolutely just etc) but not as a physical description which must be essentially limiting. Starts here stops there, made of this not that, bigger than this, smaller than that, capable of certain actions but not others, composed of this stuff but not that etc etc etc.
You may block your self from considering absolutes, philosophy, religion, faith, purpose, principle, the nature of your own existence etc all you want. However, in doing so, you violate the scientific premise you claim backs you up. Maybe you are convinced different disciplines must be contradictory so you have to take an adversarial stance but you are wrong. Science should not be used to explain or prove faith or ideas, whether philosophical or absolute, faith and philosophy should not be used to judge the validity of scientific developments. The disciplines are not contradictory they are overlapping and complimentary. |
