Kallog, I agree with what I think you are you implying: Whether or not a question is rhetorical depends on two things. I depends on the intention of the one who posed the question in the first place and on the perception of the one who heard it. I heard your questions as rhetorical. And I think, so did Bill S.

For example, were I to ask a poster--who will remain unnamed smile : Who taught you how to write, to ask questions and to carry on a civilized dialogue? it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I asked the question in the spirit of having a civilized dialogue. I would mean it as a dart, even a dagger--the kind of undiplomatic comment which stops communication.

However, I could apologize (that is, explain) and say what my intentions are, which I assume you did when you wrote:

Quote:
The only consistent thing I've picked up about GOD is that it isn't a physical object or non-physical being, but that it is composed of everything in the universe, and some more beyond.

With only that to go on, GOD is indistinguishable from "everything". So coming back to my earlier suggestion. How about just drop the confusing name and call it "nature"?

I really do hope for some idea as to why GOD isn't the same as nature. But if you find you can't do that, then you really should be thinking a bit more critically whether the idea has any merit at all.

Maybe the traditional Gods with their excess baggage do actually serve a useful purpose. Maybe you're stripped off the good parts as well as the bad and just left a dead core.
So, thanks for your explanation. With the caveat that I make no claim that I have all the answers, or that my answers are the final word, I will accept your explanation and proceed to answer what you call "hard" questions as best I can.

With this in mind, take note of my response to the comments by Ellis.

Last edited by Revlgking; 06/11/11 04:40 PM. Reason: Always a good idea!
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org