View Profile:

Username: YHWH_777

Age ancient of days Height beyond the heavens
Marital Status single Weight hard to say
Education self-taught Eye Color varies
Occupation management, IT, customer service, etc.–I’ve done it all
Hair Length varies
Salary cattle on a thousand hills
with variable tithe interest
Body Type incorporeal
Smoke occasionally, when leading friends by night through wilderness places Race/Ethnicity no
Have Children? yes Drink red wine, especially with broken bread
Children at Home 6,884,547 People would describe your looks as exactly like their own
Want Children? definitely People would describe
your intellect as
omniscient, yet somehow not
understanding what they’ve been through
Denomination no preference Favorite reading letters from friends and children
Church Involvement teaching and worship leader Organizational Habits meticulous
Moods varies: generally benevolent, but will become
angry when people are disrespectful or cruel
Personality Type intense, compassionate
Sense of Humor I enjoy a good joke Any Pets? sheep
Favorite Outdoor Activity walking in the cool of the day Fashion Sense come as you are
Transportation public Favorite Music praise & worship
Travel I’ve pretty much been everywhere
Quirks/Habits? I like the smell of burning fat on a BBQ more than almost anything.
Type of Relationship personal My entire schedule is set in stone, right to the end


Describe a little of your personality and character type:

I’m very strong-willed, personable, and patient. I really agree with the idea that “all you need is love.”

A friend of mine once wrote I am love, because he saw how important this is to me. I will do all that is in my power to reconcile differences with somebody, but once they’ve crossed the line–like for example, stealing from me or slandering me or whatnot–I’ll do all in my power to make certain that they won’t want to do that again: everything short of cutting off the relationship. I’m all about relationship, and I don’t want to lose anyone, ever. I always leave that up to them, but once they’ve cut it off with me, even though it hurts, I’ll respect that boundary.

It breaks my heart that people think they know me when they’ve never even bothered to talk to me–or that they understand everything about me when I’m higher than that. Sure, I’m simple–perfectly simple, some might say–but that can be really complex and difficult to understand if you just assume you know what it is, without ever bothering to get to know the real me.

I believe that sacrifice is the key to relationship. I believe that the more you sacrifice, the more you are able to love, and the more you realize what has been sacrificed for you, the more you will love.

What are your biggest pet peeves?

I hate it when people are disrespectful, disloyal, unkind, dishonest, or manipulative. I really hate it when somebody cheats on me or misrepresents me.

I also hate it that people use my name as some sort of endorsement for whatever they find really important, yet never bother to ask me what I think (or if they do ask, they’re too busy answering for me instead of listening to what I have to say). You know, sometimes I think I’m invisible.

My biggest peeve is when people pretend they are “in” with me, and then go around speaking for me instead of letting me speak for myself. This kind of thing really sparks my wrath, because it makes my family look bad. I hate it when people think I am whatever they want me to be, like I’m some sort of magic mirror that reflects only their self-absorbed fantasies or wishes. I’m not some anamorphous, evolving Being–I just am what I am!

What are some of your personal goals?

To have as many children as possible.


I really do want world peace.

How did your previous relationship end and what positive lessons have you learned which will help you succeed in future relationships?

Oh, this is a hard one! I have so many relationships. But any relationship that has ended has ended because the other chose to, not because I did. I can’t say I’ve learned anything; I’ve really not changed at all.

I will always expect everything. Take it or leave it.


7 thoughts on “View Profile:

  1. I think this was for humor, but it does give a good illustration about the nature and personality of God. I would refer anyone who wants to know what God is like to this post.

  2. Thanks, Gary. It did start with a comment I made to my sister, when I told her that I was going to introduce my philosophy students to God (we’re doing arguments for and against the existence of God), and we both got the idea—“Students? God. God? Students.”

    And then we thought of what might happen if God wrote a personals ad in the paper. Then I thought about all the so-called “Christian Singles” online services—and even though I was cracking up about what God might want in a perfect date—such things never actually got written. Instead, I followed a popular site’s form as a template, and this emerged. I still keep thinking of tweaks, though.

    I was very careful not to misrepresent God. And, after all, I think God does enjoy a good joke and is fully aware of the fact that we all tend to describe him as exactly like we are. And if the OT descriptions are any indication—he really does like the smell of crispy BBQ (as it were).

  3. If your class is going to be looking extensively at matters of God and faith, and if fiction is going to be involved, you might consider using The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It’s a fascinating read and probably the only book out there about Jesuits in space.

  4. Hmm. I guess I’ll have to grab me a copy of that. Sounds interesting.

    But no, we won’t be discussing anything in length. We’re just looking at two kinds of arguments for the existence of God, and two kinds of arguments against the existence of God.

  5. Yeah, it most certainly does. So the arguments for are limited to these:


    1. Things come into existence.
    2. Whatever comes into existence must be caused to come into existence by something other than itself.
    3. There cannot be an infinite series of causes.
    4. Therefore, there must have been a first, uncaused cause.

    …and a variation of it as presented by Descartes in his fifth meditation,

    1. I have an idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly moral being.
    2. There must be at least as much formal reality in a cause as in its effect.
    3. I don’t have (formally, intrinsically) sufficient reality to cause the representative reality of my idea of God.
    4. So there must be a being that actually/formally or intrinsically is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral.

    The second kind of argument is, our old favorite, the ontological, in both its direct (Cartesian) and indirect (Anselmian) forms:


    1. God is understood as a being with all perfections.
    2. Existence is a perfection.
    3. So God has the property of existence.
    4. So God exists.


    1. God is defined as a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
    2. Supposed God exists in thought alone and not in reality.
    3. Existence in thought and reality is greater than existence in thought alone.
    4. We can conceive of God existing in reality.
    5. So if 4 is true, we can (by 2 and 3) conceive of a being greater than God.
    6. So we can conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being (by 1 and 5).
    7. But 6 is a contradiction, logically impossible.
    8. Discharging our assumption (2) that led to the contradiction, we must conclude God exists in thought and reality.

    Arguments against God’s existence will both have to do with evil, actually. The first is a logical problem of evil, the second an evidential problem of evil. (See them as metaphysical and epistemological issues.)


    Defining terms:

    E: “There is evil”
    G: “God [defined as omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly moral being] exists.”

    1. If E, then ~G
    2. E
    3. ~G

    Since this argument has been successfully attacked by Swinburne (among others), we reformulate it thus:

    E*: “There is unjustified evil.”

    1. If E*, then ~G.
    2. E*
    3. ~G

    Finally, the EVIDENTIAL problem of evil:

    1. E
    2. If God is morally perfect, then he would want to create the best possible world (BPW)
    3. If God is omniscient, then he knows what BPW is
    4. If God is omnipotent, then he is able to create BPW
    5. BPW is defined as world with minimal evil and maximal good
    6. There is certainly a possible world with less evil and more good than this one
    7. So God could certainly have created a better world than this one
    8. So I have good reason to conclude that either God isn’t omnipotent, omniscient, or morally perfect
    9. So I have good reason to conclude ~G
    10. So it is irrational to believe G

    The big conclusion of the whole shebang is that none of these arguments are sound. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a philosophical proof for or against the existence of God. And the conclusion I draw in my class is that although we cannot prove or disprove God’s existence (at least, not this way, not yet), it doesn’t show that God does or doesn’t in fact exist. (Arguments give evidence, but not much else.) But it’s a very good exercise in learning how to create careful arguments to justify our beliefs (and I am absolutely convinced we are responsible for what we believe and should practice evaluating and defending—or discarding—our beliefs.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s