NoMoreFaith

I've recently purchased a new PC where it's primary function will be for gaming and web browsing.

I initially assumed I'd go straight to Windows 8, the new layout doesn't worry me too much, but can't seem to find a clear answer about what I need to purchase on a "blank" pc with no operating system currently on it.

Am I better buying Windows 7 64-bit OEM and upgrading? Or just to stick with Windows 7?

I understand that for many theists the existence of God, is seen to be exempt from scientific inquiry, because it is a metaphysical and spiritual question and beyond human understanding.

If God is exempt from scientific inquiry, then what is the difference between self-authenticating private evidence of God and the illusion of it?

This is not a mockery, I would like the opinions who believe in the purely metaphysical and spiritual idea of God who lives outside of our reality.

I will not be picking an non-theist best answer, I'm after the theological theory.

I have this concept, and I recognise IMMEDIATELY, that it must be faulty. However, I cannot unscramble the philosophical inaccuracy or assumption I have made.

The argument goes as such; God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.

He knows all things, He is present everywhere, and he is all powerful.

If this is the case, then in order to be omnipresent and omniscient, God must be present at all places, and all TIMES. That is to say, exists outside of a temporal timeline.

If, according to the ontological argument, God is an expression of perfection, then any ignorance would mean non-existence.

Now; If these statements are accurate; does this mean that in the very first instant of time, or perhaps even before, God was in every place of existence, and every time, and he is aware of all decisions that are made from beginning to end of the universe, or rather beginning to end of his existence (which if eternal really starts to hurt the brain), in the first instant and microcosm of temporal time in the universe. If not, he is not omniscient or omnipresent surely.

Would this mean that God is therefore impersonal as all things were determined at the instant of Gods existence (again, if eternal, bakes the brain even harder).

I repeat; I recognise this argument must be flawed somehow, I simply would like someone to clarify what the issue is. I'm exploring the ontological argument, and philosophy fascinates me.

I will freely state that I am an atheist, but I am making an honest attempt to understand the theist side of things rather than flatly deny it. These attempts have ended up being on a purely philosophical level and I have trouble with the following concepts.

Unknowable God - How can you have a personal relationship with something that is unknowable, and how can we claim motivations and rules from it. This would indicate knowledge of the unknowable making the concept invalid.

If God is beyond words, then how can we read a book to learn about him, and more so, accept a single book as a truth.

Knowable God - This also confuses me, because the only accounts of being able to know God, come from people, and ancient texts. All of which conflict with each other, which makes the purpose of attempting to know God a next to pointless exercise tainted by human intervention, making attempts to do so via ancient texts highly suspect.

If we refuse to allow science to intrude upon the realm of God, that the concept is beyond our ability to prove, then we must claim God is unknowable rather than unknown.

I have trouble reconciling the idea that God is both Knowable and Unknowable, as I cannot see a philosophical justification for clear contradiction.

Please understand this is a genuine attempt to understand the theistic philosophy a little better, so unless you are both atheist and understand what theists mean by this, please refrain from mockery.

We are looking to buy the kids either a Xbox 360 or PS3 for their christmas this year.

We already has a Wii as this is certainly the most "child friendly" range of all three but our 8 year old is outgrowing some of the much more "kiddy" games.

By child friendly I basically mean not overtly violent.