The human to God paradox Riddle.....

A good riddle will do that...................!

....or word salad.

Come back when you have an answer please..........

Problem is, DNA, one of persistent dualism: Either there's a God or there's not; whereas I propose a third approach: There's something, as yet undefined, a perfectly natural phenom which you can call God or not depending on your definition of Her and other personal proclivities

Everyone avoids consideration much less discussion of this possibility probably because dualism has such a hold on us

There is no reason, that I can see, why humans will not be writing in DNA someday, just as what is attributed to being God once did. Sheesh, DNA is now being used to store human binary code, which means that it is proven that the DNA helix, is a hard drive, thus God may have been nothing but a chemical, computer programmer of life. Remember, when the Earth was still cosmic dust, the rest of the Universe, was 8 billion years old, at least.

This confused narrative is not a riddle, nor does it present a paradox...it's not even a story. To be a "paradox" a narrative requires a logical structure, and to be a "riddle" a narrative needs to be a linguistic or conceptual puzzle. Neither of those are present here. It also, certainly, fails to be what it so desperately wants to be, a parable.

DNA Thumbs drive, i think that you don't know the difference between "a riddle" and "confusion". "Confusion" is a state in which knowledge is forever in doubt because all warrants and conditions of said knowledge are denied or intentionally misunderstood, and a "riddle" is a shibboleth, it's a wink and a smile to those with an inkling...and you don't seem to have an inkling. All you have is the pretense of a hope, and one without a sense of humor or logic.

There are genetic researchers, currently working with long ago frozen mammoth remains. The goal, is to recreate a living mammoth, by cloning. Should this succeed, it would be clear that the researchers, had created life, from death, thus they would have exhibited the ability to as said, create life from lifelessness. This is the main description attributed to God, thus if these people are successful, God is proven, to exist in the image of man, and not vice versa. http://www.ibtimes.com/scientists-collect-dna-clone-woolly-mammoth-real-life-jurassic-park-1725980

"Jurassic Park" is still fiction, for now. But scientists hope they will soon be able to clone a 40,000-year-old woolly mammoth, using a specimen uncovered last year.

A South Korean company called SOOAM has taken liquid blood samples from the well-preserved specimen, and will test it for a complete strand of DNA. If the right biological data is found, it could be used to clone the long-extinct animal, which was an eight-foot-tall female. The woolly mammoth, called "Buttercup," was discovered last year in Siberia. It's in remarkably good shape for its age, thanks to being preserved in ice after being killed and partially consumed by predators.

If scientists can collect a full strand of DNA from Buttercup's blood, they could map its specific traits onto existing elephant DNA, much like a frog's genome is used as the backbone for dinosaur DNA in the Steven Spielberg film "Jurassic Park," based on a novel by Michael Crichton.

The process would require that a female elephant be implanted with the fertilized egg, to act as a surrogate for the cloned woolly mammoth. This could kill the elephant, according to a report from Quartz, and scientists might have to make several attempts until one successfully gave birth.

"Jurassic World" is due in theaters next June, and the notion of cloning a long-extinct animal will remain science fiction for quite a while, the scientists say.

"'Bringing back the mammoth either through cloning or genetic engineering would be an extremely long process," Dr. Insung Hwang, a geneticist at SOOAM, told the Daily News. "We're trying hard to make this possible within our generation."

Do you understand the process by which they would do this?

They will remove the DNA from a fertilized egg, probably of an elephant, and insert the DNA of the mammoth. When did they create life?

In this thought experiment, is it still possible that God could have no impact whatsoever regarding determinism? Yes, he would be responsible for starting off the whole chain of everything, but this doesn't remove the possibility of him having nothing to do with it afterwards. He could be like a footballer who kicks a ball into the air and just walks off - the ball still moves without the kicker. It seems to me that the criticisms of the cosmological argument for God's existence are just as applicable here

Precisely my observation Phil as an apodictical existential pantheist. We see Her as a perfectly natural phenom, something that is because it has to be, Her body the Universe and Her thinking all the activity therein

….so the conflict of believer/atheist one of misled dualism, full of paradox and contradiction when in fact either position is perfectly okay depending on one's defs

The one between determinism/freewill might likewise fall in our category, owing to our mental limitations neither approach fulfilling reality

It is likewise possible, that mankind, could take some forms of life to say Mars and get them established, any algae, or bacteria or cave fungus, something simple. Then the Earth gets wiped out, by whatever, this would make mankind the God of Mars and all of it's life, that could revolve into us, and we could never intervene.

God is here now, wherever you are, just find a mirror.