112271 (Ken Jones)
You wrote:If you believe my definition of your God is inaccurate, please; show me where I am wrong!
I couldn’t say whether your definition of God is inaccurate since I do not know the full extent of your understanding and because no one has yet accurately defined the Nature of God.
But regarding the possibility of seeing something of God’s nature, there are many clues in scripture and many more in the creation itself, nature and ‘the heavens themselves declare the Glory of God’.
I can however say that I think your definition of God is inadequate. Any definition of a being capable of bringing into being the cosmos, with all it’s harmonious interrelated and interdependent symetries and miraculous mathematical demonstrations of His unimaginable foresight and providence, is bound to be inadequate, including yours.
Has it ever occurred to you or have you never heard that were it not for the fact that the universe is old enough for observers to have evolved on a planet in a rather insignificant sector of the Milky Way Galaxy, (i.e. us), there would, (for irrefutable mathematical reason), probably be no universe to observe. The present state of the universe is mathematically so fine tuned in every detail that it is almost a complete improbability that it should actually be as it is.
For me, that says something has caused it to be just that way. With so much scientific evidence to support it such an assumption is far from being illogical.