[QUOTE=retina;390790]I can only assume she was hiding from davar55.[/QUOTE]

[B][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=4]SNORK![/SIZE][/FONT][/B] :smile:

[QUOTE=retina;390790]I can only assume she was hiding from davar55.[/QUOTE]

Wherever I go or have gone?

[QUOTE=davar55;390818]Wherever I go or have gone?[/QUOTE]Did you go into Retina's spare bedroom?

[QUOTE=retina;390790]I can only assume she was hiding from davar55.[/QUOTE]

I think we've overlooked one key element.

First we assume Davar55 is a man.

Then God turns out to be a woman?


:huh2:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390894]I think we've overlooked one key element.

First we assume Davar55 is a man.

Then God turns out to be a woman?


:huh2:[/QUOTE]There is nothing wrong with considering god a woman. As this thread has discussed, much about god, hypothetical or otherwise, is disputable or possibly moot. It is reasonable for an open mind to consider the fiercer gender; and also is a small nod toward those who consider god as a force of nature or as Gaea seeing her as a female or a mother may be suitable.

In the early CompuServe network days, MORF was frequently asked to inquire if someone was male or female. These postmodern days we often leave it to people describes themselves at their own volition and often address a handle as he, even if we don't know. It often is simply the the speaker does not want to get hung up in nits of language but would rather get on with a conversation.

Doubtless this is understood and thus these gender assignments likely do not deepen the mystery, or reveal a hidden truth about why a good would choose to hide.

[QUOTE=only_human;390904]These postmodern days we often leave it to people describes themselves at their own volition ...[/QUOTE]Except for places like the deplorable facebook and many of the "free" mail services which ask up front and won't continue until one chooses an option.[QUOTE=only_human;390904]... reveal a hidden truth about why a go[b]o[/b]d would choose to hide.[/QUOTE]An extra 'o'?

[QUOTE=retina;390905]Except for places like the deplorable facebook and many of the "free" mail services which ask up front and won't continue until one chooses an option.An extra 'o'?[/QUOTE]
That is changing. Already G+ allows a user to decline to state gender or alternatively to comment in more detail.

As for the extra 'o', as you can see from the edit explanation "DYAC" (Damn You AutoCorrect), I had a stuggle with my tablet, particularly its interest in changing a swipe of "god" to "good "when "god" is in lower case. No wordplay was intended [I]this[/I] time.

[QUOTE=only_human;390788]What was god hiding from?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=retina;390790]I can only assume she was hiding from davar55.[/QUOTE]

If there were a god, she would have to be a woman. Unfortunately, there isn't.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390894]I think we've overlooked one key element.
First we assume Davar55 is a man. [/QUOTE] (Assume away.) [quote]
Then God turns out to be a woman?
[/quote]The "god may be hiding" issue is moot and arbitrary - saying something doesn't make it true
or even possible. Perhaps a proof of the finitude of the primes is hidden somewhere on Pluto,
contradicting Euclid - you can't even suspect this, since it is impossible. Why? Because the
claim is arbitrary, i.e. based on zero evidence. Same with God, she doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=davar55;390947]Perhaps a proof of the finitude of the primes is hidden somewhere on Pluto,[/QUOTE]Perhaps she left it there and was looking under every minion's bed to find it.

[QUOTE=only_human;390955]Perhaps she left it there and was looking under every minion's bed to find it.[/QUOTE]

(Perhaps, of course.)

[QUOTE=davar55;390947]...
Perhaps a proof of the finitude of the primes is hidden somewhere on Pluto, contradicting Euclid - you can't even suspect this, since it is impossible. Why? Because the claim is arbitrary, i.e. based on zero evidence.
...[/QUOTE]This is obviously a false analogy : it has been proven that the there are infinitely many primes. This means that a proof of the contrary cannot exist.

In the case of whatever mythological entity most of the time one cannot prove its in-existence*. F.I. the FSM or flying spaghetti monster cannot be disproved, there are no proofs of its existence, but one cannot prove its in-existence.

Knowing in-existence cannot be disproved does not make one an agnostic. In my opinion an agnostic is willing to apprehend a possibility of existence, even if it is remote. An atheist, on the other hand, is reasonably sure of in-existence : "since I cannot prove in-existence, there is a possibility the entity exists, but the chances of that are negligible, therefore I act as if in-existence where a fact." And to restate the obvious, the number of supernatural entities invented by mankind is so huge that the atheist's position is reinforced, most of those entities are mutually exclusive (in the mind of the believers).

I would conclude by saying that only theists believe they can prove the in-existence of supernatural entities, i.e. al those not part of their own faith ;-)

Jacob

* The exceptions are entities that allegedly have proprieties that are obviously false, f.i. "there is ghost that destroyed every building in London to rubble in August this year." Perhaps not the best example but I do not want to put more energy in this : I do believe : in laziness.