Ujl, it's a shame that this is what most of the "theologists" resort to when challenged with logical thinking. I say most, because there have been few very articulate debators from the theology community and whether they are right or wrong, they present convincing arguments. You, on the other hand, seem to belong to the other group of literal disciple. They learn few things from books, from their masters and memorize the set. They then go on debating about a topic, but use the same phrase and logic they are taught. Any diversion on the logic and they fall apart and start saying that the other person doesn't understand and need to be enlightened.

I posed multiple questions to you, you answered none. You kept on asking me the same question which I answered and now you say I don't understand it and might take 12 years to understand. Again, is your definition of God that complicated that you cannot make a commoner like me understand?

I am not arguing here for argument's sake. I wanted to respect your logics and opinions, but you are giving up too fast.

You were onto something with your law #2: effects are cause in itself. This uses your spherical (probably meant spiral) logic that you speak of, with no end and no beginning. I am okay with this definition, but the issue I have is that this model works perfectly in the absence of the "God" object as well. Go ahead give it a thought. Don't take the easy route that most so called theologists take that the other person is not as "sharp" and enlightened to understand as you are.