Question: What did Frued believe about the belief in God?

Answer: god concepts are projections of one's father

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. <hl> Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father . <hl>

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that <hl> god concepts are projections of one's father <hl>.

Sigmund Freud also suggested that <hl> god concepts are projections of one's father <hl> .

question: What did Frued believe about the belief in God?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: How does Pascal Boyer believe that gods and other supernatural beings behave?

Answer: much like people

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people . <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl>. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl> .

question: How does Pascal Boyer believe that gods and other supernatural beings behave?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: Who argues that there are lots of supernatural things in the world?

Answer: Pascal Boyer

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

<hl> Pascal Boyer <hl> argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

question: Who argues that there are lots of supernatural things in the world?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: How do supernatural entities act?

Answer: much like people

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people . <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl>. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl> .

question: How do supernatural entities act?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: Which religion does Boyer equate with a modern soap opera?

Answer: Greek mythology

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. <hl> He cites examples from Greek mythology , which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. <hl> Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from <hl> Greek mythology <hl>, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

He cites examples from <hl> Greek mythology <hl> , which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.

question: Which religion does Boyer equate with a modern soap opera?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: Who believed that gods are just projections of a person's father?

Answer: Sigmund Freud

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. <hl> Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father. <hl>

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. <hl> Sigmund Freud <hl> also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

question: Who believed that gods are just projections of a person's father?, context: Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: What are ways that small social groups can force morality?

Answer: gossip or reputation

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation . <hl> However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as <hl> gossip or reputation <hl>. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as <hl> gossip or reputation <hl> .

question: What are ways that small social groups can force morality?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Who suggested that by including the presence of an omniscient God, selfishness can be controlled and cooperation can be gained?

Answer: Matt Rossano

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist <hl> Matt Rossano <hl> contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

question: Who suggested that by including the presence of an omniscient God, selfishness can be controlled and cooperation can be gained?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: What did Émile Durkheim suggest about the existence of God?

Answer: gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings

<hl> Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings . <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that <hl> gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings <hl>. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that <hl> gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings <hl> .

question: What did Émile Durkheim suggest about the existence of God?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Why would humans have begun to create gods?

Answer: a means of enforcing morality

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality . <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as <hl> a means of enforcing morality <hl>. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as <hl> a means of enforcing morality <hl> .

question: Why would humans have begun to create gods?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Who posited that humans created gods to create morality in social groups?

Answer: Matt Rossano

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist <hl> Matt Rossano <hl> contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

question: Who posited that humans created gods to create morality in social groups?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Omnipresent gods are a way to watch large groups and enforce what?

Answer: morality

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality . <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing <hl> morality <hl>. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing <hl> morality <hl> .

question: Omnipresent gods are a way to watch large groups and enforce what?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Omniprestent gods helped build what?

Answer: more cooperative groups

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. <hl> Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups . <hl>

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building <hl> more cooperative groups <hl>.

Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building <hl> more cooperative groups <hl> .

question: Omniprestent gods helped build what?, context: Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: How did St. Anselm define the existence of God?

Answer: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

<hl> St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" . <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, <hl> "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" <hl>. Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, <hl> "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" <hl> .

question: How did St. Anselm define the existence of God?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: Who said that God is "a substance consisting of infinite attributes"?

Answer: Baruch Spinoza

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher <hl> Baruch Spinoza <hl> would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

question: Who said that God is "a substance consisting of infinite attributes"?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: What did Baruch Spinoza use as proof for the existence of God?

Answer: a variation of the Ontological argument

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. <hl> His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument . <hl>

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was <hl> a variation of the Ontological argument <hl>.

His proof for the existence of God was <hl> a variation of the Ontological argument <hl> .

question: What did Baruch Spinoza use as proof for the existence of God?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: What did Spinoza believe the world was made of?

Answer: one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature . <hl> His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of <hl> one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature <hl>. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of <hl> one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature <hl> .

question: What did Spinoza believe the world was made of?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: Who defined god as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"?

Answer: St. Anselm

St. Anselm 's

<hl> St. Anselm 's <hl> approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

<hl> St. Anselm <hl>'s approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

question: Who defined god as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: Name a famous pantheist?

Answer: Baruch Spinoza

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher <hl> Baruch Spinoza <hl> would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

question: Name a famous pantheist?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: What was Spinoza's concept of God?

Answer: infinite

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite , i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely <hl> infinite <hl>, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely <hl> infinite <hl> , i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."

question: What was Spinoza's concept of God?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: Spinoza believed that the universe was made up of one substance which is?

Answer: God

<hl> St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define <hl> God <hl> as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

question: Spinoza believed that the universe was made up of one substance which is?, context: St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: How does Dawkins interpret evidence for or against the existence of God?

Answer: a lack of evidence for the material existence

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary. <hl>

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as <hl> a lack of evidence for the material existence <hl> of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

question: How does Dawkins interpret evidence for or against the existence of God?, context: Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: What do atheists believe of God?

Answer: an imaginary entity only

<hl> Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only , with no basis in reality. <hl> A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is <hl> an imaginary entity only <hl>, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is <hl> an imaginary entity only <hl> , with no basis in reality.

question: What do atheists believe of God?, context: Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: How long has the thought of the existence of God been carried on?

Answer: trans-generational

a trans-generational manner.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in <hl> a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a <hl> trans-generational <hl> manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

question: How long has the thought of the existence of God been carried on?, context: Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: How does Dawkins interpret his findings on the existence, or not, of God.

Answer: a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary. <hl>

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as <hl> a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God <hl> but extensive evidence to the contrary.

question: How does Dawkins interpret his findings on the existence, or not, of God., context: Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: Who believes God isn't real?

Answer: Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris

<hl> Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris ) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. <hl> A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including <hl> Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris <hl>) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including <hl> Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris <hl> ) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.

question: Who believes God isn't real?, context: Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: What is the Omnipotence paradox?

Answer: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it ? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', <hl> can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it <hl>? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', <hl> can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it <hl> ?

question: What is the Omnipotence paradox?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What is another term for the Omnipotence paradox?

Answer: Paradox of the Stone

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' Paradox of the Stone ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or '<hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl>', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' <hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl> ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

question: What is another term for the Omnipotence paradox?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: Does either outcome of the Paradox of the Stone prove the existence of God?

Answer: God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. <hl> Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God , according to many theological models. <hl> Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, <hl> God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God <hl>, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

Either way, then, <hl> God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God <hl> , according to many theological models.

question: Does either outcome of the Paradox of the Stone prove the existence of God?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What shows God is not omnipotent if he creates a stone that he cannot lift?

Answer: there is something that he cannot do

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do , namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then <hl> there is something that he cannot do <hl>, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then <hl> there is something that he cannot do <hl> , namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

question: What shows God is not omnipotent if he creates a stone that he cannot lift?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What must God be, in order to be a Supreme Being?

Answer: omnipotent

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent . <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not <hl> omnipotent <hl>. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not <hl> omnipotent <hl> .

question: What must God be, in order to be a Supreme Being?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What paradox states that if a god can't create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?

Answer: Paradox of the Stone

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' Paradox of the Stone ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or '<hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl>', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' <hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl> ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

question: What paradox states that if a god can't create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What does the Paradox of the Stone posit?

Answer: he is not omnipotent

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent . <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore <hl> he is not omnipotent <hl>. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore <hl> he is not omnipotent <hl> .

question: What does the Paradox of the Stone posit?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What does it mean if a God is not omnipotent?

Answer: is not God

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. <hl> A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God , according to many theological models. <hl> Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, <hl> is not God <hl>, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

A being that is not omnipotent, though, <hl> is not God <hl> , according to many theological models.

question: What does it mean if a God is not omnipotent?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: Are there any answers to the Pradox of the Stone?

Answer: Several

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. <hl> Several answers to this paradox have been proposed. <hl>

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. <hl> Several <hl> answers to this paradox have been proposed.

question: Are there any answers to the Pradox of the Stone?, context: According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What do religions share across their belief structures?

Answer: similarities arising from their common roots

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots . <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain <hl> similarities arising from their common roots <hl>.

For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain <hl> similarities arising from their common roots <hl> .

question: What do religions share across their belief structures?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What are some religious traditions that are found within differing religions?

Answer: expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature

<hl> Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature . <hl> The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl>. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl> .

question: What are some religious traditions that are found within differing religions?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: Who does Christianity share roots with?

Answer: attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, <hl> attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

question: Who does Christianity share roots with?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: How many Attributes of Mercy are in Judaism?

Answer: Thirteen

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the <hl> Thirteen <hl> Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

question: How many Attributes of Mercy are in Judaism?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What three religions share similar parts?

Answer: God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of <hl> God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

question: What three religions share similar parts?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What three religions share similar beginnings?

Answer: Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in <hl> Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

question: What three religions share similar beginnings?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What attributes do religions all roughly share?

Answer: expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature

<hl> Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature . <hl> The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl>. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl> .

question: What attributes do religions all roughly share?, context: Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: How is sex by God handled in a monotheistic religion?

Answer: God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. <hl> In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually . <hl> Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, <hl> God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually <hl>. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

In most monotheistic religions, <hl> God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually <hl> .

question: How is sex by God handled in a monotheistic religion?, context: The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: How do polytheistic religions view sex by God or gods?

Answer: attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. <hl> Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually . <hl> In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly <hl> attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually <hl>. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

Polytheistic religions commonly <hl> attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually <hl> .

question: How do polytheistic religions view sex by God or gods?, context: The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: What is God's role in the creation of the world?

Answer: begetter

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. <hl> Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse. <hl>

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as <hl> begetter <hl> of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

question: What is God's role in the creation of the world?, context: The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.