>>If God is not omnipotent and omnipresent, he isn't much of a god.
>
>If God created this world, and then walked away from his little experiment (ie, he is no longer omnipresent), then I'd say he's a pretty cool guy.

How can God not know everything? If not, he'd be just like me, and believe me, I'm no God. To Him it's like breathing. God can't help but know everything.


>
>If he's watching me in the shower... he could definitely pick somebody else to watch for a little while.
>
>
>>>Because I'd like to see where your argument is headed... let's say God is omnipotent and omnipresent.
>>
>>Well... Ok.
>>
>>God being omnipotent and omnipresent, knows everything that has happened and will happen. God never changes, thus truth never changes. To God our life is just a flash. Future has already happened.
>>God is Alpha and the Omega. God has no beginning and no end, he is infinity.
>>
>>Think about this. There is a solid round marble the size of earth. Every 100,000 years a tiny dove comes by and brushes it with its wing until finally after millions and billions of years the marble is worn away. To God the time it took for that earth sized solid marble be worned down to nothing is but a split second. To infinity time doesn't exist. It's always the present.
>>
>>Pretty deep. eh? :)
>
>Yes. But it goes even deeper.
>
>In my paper there is somethign that represents everything that has happened, and everything that will happen. It is called Fundamental Nature, which is why I asked if you are equating God to FN. It makes sense too. In fact when I think of the Jeudo-Christian view of the world with God in Heaven and Man on Earth I find it describes exactly the relationship between Fundamental Nature and nature.


I will read your paper thoroughly tonight when I get the chance and get back to you.



>
>The problem is that, Fundamental Nature doesn't actually exist:
>
>"Fundamental nature is a superset to the system called nature which is all the observations of an observer. That means that fundamental nature isn't actually observed. To clarify a metaphysical point, this means that fundamental nature doesn't actually exist. It will be a tool, a device that we use to describe existence, and it will be used in a very creative way"
>
>Essentially, where the ancients used gods and demons to explain things they didn't understand, I'm doing the same thing, except with different words and I'm explicitly stating that I'm using them as hypotheticals to explain what is real.
>
>This means that even if the hypothetical exists, it doesn't exist.
>
>Now that is deep.