I Am That I Am

I Am That I Am

Talk about God

*Non-Denominational discussion regarding God, God's attributes and tangible connection to material reality.

Try to avoid Esotericism plox

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I've been interested the the more I develop a relationship with God the more confused I become on my path.

Why is it that the more I take steps the foggier it gets?

Does anyone else have this problem?

God is everywhere and all powerful and unchanging. Only one thing in the universe matches that description. God IS the laws of reality itself.
As for the moral lessons of the Bible and every other religion for that matter, it's the result of the best minds of the time coming up with the very best set of rules they can come up with to propogate the species in accordance with said laws of reality.
Don't be a faggot. Why? Because you can't have kids if you're a faggot and it tends to lead to sexual degeneracy, promiscuity, disease, etc.
Don't eat shrimp. Why? Because people can be allergic and desert jews have no way of combating an allergic reaction.

If you go by the classical Aristotelian/Scholastic understanding of God as the source of all being, that which does not have any unrealised potentiality, it follows that God has certain characteristics like being unchanging, eternal, infinite, all-good, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

1. *God* is a symbolic word used to express our apprehension *and* our relationship to Objective Reality

2. The anthropomorphic representations of God are highly symbolic and do not reflect God's absolute existence, merely God's aspect as personified by Human Beings.
I think we can only comprehend an abstract conception of God. To be able to fully comprehend God, one would need the ability to apprehend *Everything* in it's entirety, including that which we are not physically equipped to perceive. Not being able to percieve a thing prevents a *Full* knowledge. Perhaps the 'fog' you mention is the point at which your perception becomes reduced. Finally, and probably for this reason as much as any other complicated exposition, you have pin-pointed why *Faith* is necessary.

notice that the levitical priest is wearing red, white, and blue

these have always been the colors of our nation, the nation of God's chosen people

nowhere do you see a 6 sided star

How can you 'describe the attributes of god'

(you forgot to mention that you're NOW not talking about A god, and are talking about a Monothesic god, and I'm not sure how you justify why, as if one is 'possible', what limits us to one?)

How can you 'describe the attributes of god' .... and not be talking about primitive wish fulfillment?

I mean if you take the attributes ascribed to any monotheistic god (which religions never manage to agree upon, much less find ANY evidence in support of),
can you defend how they're NOT wish fulfillment?

God is probably the universe itself, all that is and is probably not an entity in of itself and you know.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

>implying that RW&B are not primary flag colors for everywhere other than curry-desert-bongo-land

okay-desu.

Okay, if I'm understanding you, and you do sound -extremely- self contradictory there,
YOU are saying you BELIEVE in something you don't even understand.

Thats kind of incoherent, to an outsider.

>Faith
but faith has not been demonstrated to be a pathway to truth.
I COULD have faith that you huff monkey dust.
Is that a reliable thing to have faith in?
Faith CAN NEVER reliably lead you to truth, as you're proposing using faith, but if I used faith to get to a DIFFERENT conclusion to you, I'd then be obstinate to evidence to the contrary.
Does that describe YOUR position?

How would you show the truth of your position, if it was true? How could we test it to know if you were wrong?

it's because you didn't have the guts to stab your family to death even you heard god telling you to do it over and over again

you call yourself religious when you won't even listen to the voices in your head? fucking fairweather normie faggot

really? How does it follow?
Please, tell me.

How does it not follow that they have all the NEGATIVE attributes by the same measure?
All Evil. All consuming. All hate.

I see no evidence for either.

I posit that you're just making up a magical genie that grants wishes, and choosing to hold to it because it feels good.

Read Job breh.

And it says that spiderman lives in new york.
It says in the Vaghitas that Krishna is the source of all.

You don't care about the Vaghitas, so why would anyone care about the book that I KNOW is factually incorrect in a number of areas and features talking snakes and donkeys.

>God IS the laws of reality itself

I agree with this but I want to know as much as I can about *our* relationship to reality as it impacts on us as beings confined within the spectrum of perception available to us. Certainly I think it's entirely likely that much of what was written in the Bible reflects the conditions of living in the period it was written. Eating shrimp for example is demonstrably fine so long as caution is taken to remove contamination, similarly Pork can be rendered suitable for consumption. The reason they are regarded as unfit for consumption *now* is because they are regarded as *ritually* unclean. And if we take the abstract concept of Reality as most authentic, perhaps it is appropriate that this takes precedence over mere nutritional suitability.

But rituals are also symbolic. What could the ritual abstinence of eating particular foods be symbolic of?

Thats correct--just as God promised to Abraham, he would become the father of many nations

The children of Sarah divided into many nations, almost exclusively using the same 3 colors for their flag

Even the tent of worship in the desert during the Exodus, was adorned in red, white and blue.

This guy gets it.

The New Testament is a rather radical text that no denomination even attempts to live up to.

no you don't

you don't even have the information that you THINK is a discrepancy

I don't think you want to hold that position because it makes it all arbitrary.

I mean we're really just discussing fashion choices now, and thats pretty camp.

it is precisely the opposite of being arbitrary

it is yet another of innumerable pieces of evidence that the caucasian people are the true tribes of Israel, and that the jews are satanic imposters

You're right, Snakes and Donkeys talk, and God cheats at wrestling, my mistake.

Everything that's forbidden or encouraged serves one of two purposes.
The health of the group. Marriage, don't steal, don't kill people, etc. That's simple
The other is the spreading of the idealogy that will keep them alive. Preach to people, don't marry people from other religions, no idols, no tattoos.
A great way to create and maintain a culture is to determine how people will look and what they will eat.

I thought we were discussing God? What kind of piss-poor God couldn't turn inanimate objects into living things? Making dogs recite poetry would be baby stuff

Holy fuck, how plebbit can you be? Go read Aristotle's Metaphysics you faggot, and then read Avicenna's commentary on the metaphysics, and then read Thomas Aquinas, and then maybe you'll realize that The All is not believed in because of a single religious book, but because of rational arguments and first principles.

Here is a presentation of the classical Aristotelian argument for God:

youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

As for possessing negative attributes, we need to think back to the theory of Forms as originially developed by the Greeks. Think of the Form of "a man." In your head, you develop an abstract universalised idea of the things that are common to all men, and at the same time the picture is not of any one particular man. Now consider a specific case: if a man is missing a leg (the Form of Man has two legs), is he still a man? Of course he is, though he is an imperfect man since he is missing a quality that is exhibited in the Form of Man. Thus we can see that an imperfection is a lack of a good quality (missing a leg) rather than a state of its own. Similarly, something evil is lacking virtue. Something all-consuming is selfish, thus lacking humility. Something all hate wishes evil upon everyone, thus exhibiting a lack of charity.

Since God has no potentiality (God cannot have the potential to gain something), and since all the negative attributes are simply a lack of good attributes, God must be all-good.

Tribes of Israel?
AGAIN with the desert cult worship?

WOULD YOU HAVE ME BELIEVE that an omnipotent being is SO INCOMPETENT as to be cheifly concerned with a dirty patch of sand in the crux between India, Europe and Russia?

No, thats a very human concern, and an omnipotent being wouldn't need human agents to make things happen.

If they did, they would have no difficulty making their presence known, and it wouldn't be a subject of debate.


I would drop the topic here, but you used evidence, and I dont think you know what that word means.

SOMETHING ONLY COUNTS AS EVIDENCE IF I CAN"T USE IT AS SUPPORT FOR A COMPETING CONCLUSION,
such as "The flag of France is RW&B therefore OP is a faggot"
It really IS arbitrary, because theres nothing STRONGER OR WEAKER connecting my argument, by comparison to yours.

It really really is arbitrary, except for the concession I will make, which is that various religions have favored colors for their heraldry, which are completely human engineered things, which makes them un-useful for either of us proving our point.

no one has ever heard of 'the all' except some goofball who has overpaid for his education

God is the one who chooses who approaches him or perceives him

Romans 9:11
11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

Thats not an argument.

I believe in God primarily because the alternative is nihilism and dispair.
>correction, I already have nihilism and dispair but at least God adds a little sugar coating, if not much else.
IMO there is absolutely no good to reject the possibility of God, whenever you know what the alternative will do to your mental health. I don’t believe any atheists are actually not seriously depressed.

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN FAGGOT.
Seriously, you're making an argument for how Maui BEAT UP THE FUCKING SUN here, in so many words, and

NEWS FLASH I DON'T BELIEVE MAUI BEAT UP THE SUN FOR THE SAME DAMN REASONS.

You can't be sincere, please tell me you're not sincere. You actually believe in talking donkeys and snakes?

Can I attempt to describe attributes of God which I am able to deduce from a correct conception of God?

There was a time when I didn't believe in God, to use a form of words that people can relate to. When I came to a point in my life where I realised I wasn't properly apprehending this *our* reality, I had to rethink everything. Nothing made sense and like Descarte I distilled everything that could not be relied on to be authentic till I was left with only that which could be unquestionably, undeniably authentic.

In this way I arrived at a conception of God that made sense and was perceptible, albeit abstract but entirely reasonable. So in the end I was left with the unmistakable conclusion that the *ONLY* entirely and absolutely authentic thing to exist within my spectrum of perception and understanding, which cannot be corrupted or subject to misapprehension is God as Source for *ALL* perception.

The reason I believe I am not subjectively interpreting a concept of God is because I am not at the centre of my analysis. I exist and because I exist, my perspective is relevent. My perspective is my Purpose, it is my Identity, I am *a* perspective and this perspective is *my* Perspective. My perspective is an Aspect of God's perspective, and it informs God.

I believe this is our Purpose and why it is most gravely upon us to be our *Selves*, and why it is most important to the powers that wish to destroy, that we are distracted from being our *Selves*.

No ones answered my initial question.

IF you think a god is possible, and I have not for a second conceded that it is, why stop at one?

Mathew 7:
> 7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Just ask God homie.

Yes, God is *Everything*, with matter being merely an aspect which we are able to perceive and even manipulate.

Okay.

>WOULD YOU HAVE ME BELIEVE that an omnipotent being is SO INCOMPETENT as to be cheifly concerned with a dirty patch of sand in the crux between India, Europe and Russia?

If said omnipotent being explicitly wanted the people living there to come into existence (God wanted all humans to exist), is it really so hard to imagine that God cares about them?

>SOMETHING ONLY COUNTS AS EVIDENCE IF I CAN"T USE IT AS SUPPORT FOR A COMPETING CONCLUSION,

This is called scientism. It's a misuse of the scientific method beyond its intended applications. For example, the specific statement I am replying to cannot be proven using the scientific method, it's just taken as a given with no backing proof. A hypothesis that cannot be tested and that has no evidence for it. That's why it's scientism, not science.

The million dollar question:

Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test: Have you ever lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said,
“Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart,
and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell.
But God is not willing that any should perish. Sinners broke God’s Law and Jesus paid their fine.
This means that God can legally dismiss their case:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will give you eternal life as a free gift.
Then read the Bible daily and obey it. God will never fail you.

Or to rephrase it, All Greedy is not a negative attribute, thats subjective.
All consuming is a power. You think you refuted my argument, but I don't find it compelling, and what I'm struggling with is why you do.

What basis can you have to claim god has X Y or Z? You can't prove any of what you're talking about, which makes you essentially dishonest, as you're attempting to speak with authority on a topic that you have no supporting evidence towards.

I believe, because I've studied enough to notice the nearly impossible level of consistency between authors that lived thousands of years apart.

A good place to first notice this consistency is numerics.

I'm not referring to the Satanic, Jewish numerology that counts up letters, but the flawless consistency with which numbers are used in the Bible. For example, the number 6 is always used when speaking of men in general. 5 is always used when speaking of divine grace. Nearly every small number has an unchanging meaning.

Did you literally not even read the post that you just replied to? As I said, God possesses NO potentiality. If there were two separate gods, there would have to be something that differentiated them. Therefore, one would have to possess a quality not possessed by the other, and the one that did not possess this quality would have the potential to gain it, thus making the being lacking this quality NOT God. Therefore there can only be one God.

There would be no point in multiple omnipotent beings. As God isn’t one he’s not a number at all. He’s in everything and nothing. Like the color black which is the absence of color. The human mind can’t comprehend.

OT god

>Destroyer of nations
>(((Nation wreckers)))
>Floods the nations and confuses languages
>Imports refugees and pressures adoption of (((obscure languages)))
>Hates gentiles
>Considers goyim beasts
>Recognizes only one god
>Imposes religious monopoly for (((centralized control)))

You're projecting your own feelings onto the alternative. Why do YOU feel Nihilism and dispair? The god you're talking about is evidently not true (because evidence can be measured and tested for accuracy) and you feel nihilism and dispair, but I feel none of those things.

If you need a reason to reject the possibility of god, then I would posit that you need a reason to posit that a god is possible.

If a god IS possible, why is a 2nd god not possible? If a 2nd god not possible, why not infinite gods?

The conclusion this leads to in question begging, is that gods are man-made, and not the other way around.

Do you reject the idea that MAUI BEAT UP THE SUN?


Here in NZ we give very few fucks about the Jews.

Bless you leaf user. Feser is GOAT

I'm sorry that you took the effort to write that out, because to me its kind of gibberish.

furthermore, the common sentiment that many ancient gods were sublimated into a single all powerful god makes no sense

there's nothing about natural events or physical objects to suggest that they have different deities overseeing them

but if you already believed in a God for some reason, then the idea that already existed could be mentally divided into smaller categories

this isn't politics

its allowed because the cultural and religious solidarity of jews and other people has obvious political consequences

And yet you have no justification in saying 'god possesses X attribute'. You really don't.
You think you've proved your point, but the argument is no stronger than 'france has red white and blue therefore OP is a fag'.
It sounds consistent to you, but it doesn't follow the consequent.
You're saying
1. A
2. B
3. Therefore H.

H has no connection to A, and you haven't demonstrated A.

Look, I can make assertions about A as well, but it doesn't make the argument coherent.

>YOU are saying you BELIEVE in something you don't even understand.

I really don't want to split hairs but I don't claim to understand God, however, I can understand a concept of God that can be shown to be coherent. In this way it is possible to then have faith in God.

For me, Faith is a consequence of accepting the bitterest of truth that suffering and Death are a necessary component of existing in this material reality which *needs* to renew itself cyclically. In this way I am able to recognise my part in the cycle, *and* my absolute necessity to God's plan. And of course your's. I want to know your Truth, it is like a synapses connection in the great scheme and it illuminates each who succcessfully communicate it.

This is how a true and coherent community emerges which has integrity and can endure, as and why Religious traditions endure. They stand the test of time.

Well no, the framework I'm working out of is based out of Greek and Scholastic philosophy and is too long to fully develop in a Sup Forums thread. I gave a link to the argument for God based on change, which is one of the better classical ones, and is part of this tradition.

To attempt to put it in more scientific terms (again extremely oversimplified), think of potential and kinetic energy (I use kinetic here as a stand-in for any non-potential energy, i.e. kinetic, electrical, nuclear, etc). Potential energy can only become kinetic if something with kinetic energy acts upon it, like if a cup on a table is pushed off the table and falls to the ground. Then the human that pushed the cup had to transform food energy into kinetic energy to push the glass, the sun provided nuclear energy to grow the food, etc. If you expand this analysis to a meta-analysis of everything, it follows logically that there must be something that is purely actual with no potential. This is God.

Once you have this, the attributes I've argued for in my other posts logically follow.

>million dollar question
Right cunt, here is your billion dollar answer
>will you go to heaven?
No
>(You) are a personality. Personality (ego) is a construct. (You) were not born with the personality you have now. (You) developed it over time, as a response and reaction to external stimuli AKA the environment, culture, family, friends, peer pressure you found yourself surrounded by. The personality (ego) is therefore a product of the material world. Like ALL material things, it does not last forever. The personality dies with the body.
This is what pisses me off with so called (((Christians))), fed on a diet of Jewish pop culture and kike evangelical preachers$$$. The Bible only talks about an eternal soul, not a fucking ego trip to float in a cloud. The soul has no mind or personality, it’s supposed to be the intrinsic essence of your being. But again (You) don’t go to heaven.
Futher more imagine if (You) did go to heaven. Imagine all the people you lived went there too. Because this is the current popular concept of heaven. Now imagine the shit storm heaven would be, full of fucking people, with fucking opinions and annoying personalities. It would be no different to earth. Therefore the pop culture version of heaven is absolute bullshit.

Theres no point in ONE omnipotent being, so theres no point in multiple omnipotent beings either.

How can you justify what you wrote?
I AGREE with your point, but I apply consistently.

Theres no 'point' to god, the Universe doesn't need a genie to exist, it exists.

True, I also agree with the idea that polytheism is degenerated monotheism.

As I've said, it comes from a long tradition and I presented an intro video on it, and you aren't actually pointing out the logical issues that are in my posts, you're just saying that something doesn't make sense to you.

Since you seem to have no interest in learning anything on your own, you'll have to point out the things that you have trouble with in my posts

I'm sorry that it makes no sense to you, because there is what amounts to evidence
(and I use that word with caution) that

a) the story of Moses was lifted from the tale of Hamarabe

b) That the story of Jesus was lifted from the tales of Dyionysius, Krishna and aspects of the Egyption mythos


this supports the conclusion that jesus is an amalgam of other hero gods, in specific

and that various deitys were amalgamated into single deitys, in part for cultural reasons, and in part for political advantage.

I mean no disrespect here, but you could and should research this more.

I'd recommend the book 'The Hero with 1000 faces' or 'Myths from Ancient Egypt' for two good places to start.

God IS. That's where we stumble. He always was, is, and always will be.

We were not, are, and hope to be. We are not equipped to understand what I Am That I Am fully means. We are not just not eternal, we are also subject to entropy, the bondage of sin.

We will not know unless we are told because we are incapable of arriving at a correct answer on our own. We are a small part of the problem, not the larger outside force.

The Bible has been more than proven in many ways. If you are to ignorant to investigate the matter, you will find out the hard way.

Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God & messiah of the Jews, died for your sin, was buried, and rose again as prophesied. Believe that and you are good. Don't and you will bear the burden of your sins for eternity.

>Show me the man who doesn’t dispair of life and I’ll show you a lying kiwi.
You post on Sup Forums for fuck sake, you are clearly in a deeper pit than most people. I admitted it though.

Not really wanting to engage with a discussion that fractures or distorts the singularity of God, colors as with everything held sacred in a Religious Tradition are symbolic of something. The guy wanting to equate these colors with a means to seperate thé nature of God is mistaken. Religions are a means to apprehending anothers meaning in relation to the whole of creation.

I don't know how a concept of god could be coherent and still adequately describe a being that we could call a god.

How is ANY god, like, lets make a hypothetical LITTLE one, for the benefit of occams razor, coherent?

If you can make the 'little god' concept coherent, I may be able to see how you could get to a bigger one.

I mean, do you think the Superpowers of Maui the Sunbeater is a coherent concept?

And yet god is not.

See, I can make assertions too. What now?

> jesus christ blah blah elements of the >Dyionysius myth

Yeah, and Maui BEAT UP THE FUCKING SUN.
WHAT WAS YOUR POINT SUPPOSED TO BE?

MAUI > JESUS

Beating up sun > Getting owned by romans

>Jesus was lifted from the tales of Dyionysius, Krishna and aspects of the Egyption mythos
>occams razor

So many cliches from the 20th century

>why stop at one

As we've developed and our perception and understanding has evolved we haven't stopped at one, we have concluded at one when we recognised that every other aspect we first thought to be a God were only aspects of the Whole.

Would you agree that everything is connected? If you would, would you then concede that *Everything* totals to a singularity?

I would argue that, whilst you sound more reasonable than some, and perhaps we could co-exist,

religions are evidently man-made things with no basis in rationality or fact.

>lets talk about something that isn't real as if it was real
>19 original posters
You can't make this shit up
So pathetic

Shitposting on Sup Forums shortly before burning in hell.

Good plan. I'm sure you won't regret that one 30 seconds after you realize it's too late.

ANSWER MY MAUI QUESTION FAGGOT AND STOP DODGING DIRECT QUESTIONS YOU MASSIVE QUEER

Your scientism isn't based in rationality or fact, but religion is. In one of my posts that you ignored for being too challenging to you, you ignored this part:

>SOMETHING ONLY COUNTS AS EVIDENCE IF I CAN"T USE IT AS SUPPORT FOR A COMPETING CONCLUSION,

This is called scientism. It's a misuse of the scientific method beyond its intended applications. For example, the specific statement I am replying to cannot be proven using the scientific method, it's just taken as a given with no backing proof. A hypothesis that cannot be tested and that has no evidence for it. That's why it's scientism, not science.

>“Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I'd like to have asked Jesus to explain this further. Our feelings are independent of our will. We can control them or not act on them but we can't stop them. When I look at a woman and find her attractive and desirable it's not my mind that thinks that, it's my senses that feel it.

How can I be condemned for this?

nah, forget it, I retract the question.

IN CONCLUSION

BEATING UP THE SUN > GETTING OWNED BY ROMANS

THEREFORE

JESUS = WUSS
MAUI = SUNBEATER

THEREFORE
MAUI WINS.

I don't worship a god, but if I did, Maui is way more baddass than Jesus.

I'm done here, NZ out.

If that's what the level you're at, it makes me think I wasted my time on you by actually typing all that other stuff out since you're clearly just a basic-bitch atheist who can't think too deeply. I bet you're a former Evangelical.

>Doesn't believe in God, the author and source of ALL being

>Can't be bothered to concentrate so as to understand a considered answer to his own question

smdh

Yeah, I think the stupid Abo is just too pumped up on petrol so he just came here to shitpost r/atheism memes from 2008

This is nice. How do you inculcate the person, specifically the person you're addressing, into this chain of causality?

>scientism
pussy, I didn't bring up science.
Its just inconvenient for you that religion loses every battle to science.

Evolution happens, the world is round, heaven is not in the sky, the earth rotates the sun, and there is no god.

Game over.

>>SOMETHING ONLY COUNTS AS >>EVIDENCE IF I CAN"T USE IT AS >>SUPPORT FOR A COMPETING >>CONCLUSION,
>This is called scientism.

No it isn't!
Jesus fuck, are you wrong about literally EVERYTHING?

Even I know that scientism is elevating 'trust' in science to dogmatically religious levels.

THIS IS NOT RELATED TO EVIDENCE.

Whether you admit it or not, if you can use it to SUPPORT TWO COMPETING CONCLUSIONS,
THEN ITS NOT FUCKING EVIDENCE....

SHIT you are SO goddamn STUPID.

Get fucking educated Canada, everyone expects a variety of positions from America, some consistency from poland, but YOU are just making your country look STUPID.

You bought up scientism, and you don't even know what it means.

Incidentally, I reject the validity of 'scientism', as I have no faith, nor any use for it, and have no need to place 'faith' in science.

Evidence on the other hand, either supports only ONE conclusion, or ITS NOT FUCKING EVIDENCE, IS IT?!

Goddamn. You're so stupid I can't even.

>Gods not real
Literally correct, you win.
>Reality as we perceive it is physical reality.
I don’t think many people talk to a physical God on the phone. Also...
>The physical God mentioned in the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve, may or may not have existed. Obviously nobody knows for sure because it’s a highly unreliable book full of STORIES.
However if a physical God did exist, the story of Adam and Eve states he made us in his image. Suggesting the physical God was human or atleast humanoid. The story states a rib was taken from Adam to make Eve. Unfortunately for atheists this sounds suspiciously like cloning.
IMO this creator God sounds highly plausible especially as we still have not found the so called missing link.
>The question then arises, who created the physical God?
Well perhaps on his planet they have a book explaining that one too.
The other God, the one most people think about and pray to, is not physical. So not provable by any known physical method of testing.
>because God is not physical duh

I believe our current concept of Soul has been distorted over time. I think our Soul was a tangible thing in past times. I think a Soul was and is our Sense of Identity, something we are able to feel and *know* is present within us. It binds us to reality and is the lense through which we perceive reality. When it is coherent and consistent through a community we become a community with shared values. In this way, as Christianty and other Religious Traditions have enabled communities, we thrive and prosper.

This raises the question...
Why is God an Ape?

If humans are successful and manage to create an artificial intelligence that can surpass the smartest human, then we will have created a being far more advanced and more knowledgeable and powerful than ourselves.
>apes creating God.

>We are not equipped to understand what I Am That I

I can't agree with this. In fact I know what that means. It's not esoteric or a code. It's a simple phrase that perfectly describes God as we, in this manifestation, ought to relate to God. What obscures it's meaning is the limits within which we are able to communicate.

Thus, God is [him]Self, without obfuscation, distraction or deceit.

God is obviously not gendered but because we can only perceive half of what IS, we are confined to these terms. What's especially interesting to me is that this definition is absolutely why God, as a manifestation of *Man's* grasp of the Divine, is the essential paradigm for Masculinity and the Patriarchy.

In essence, Masculinity and Masculine Virtues, as symbolised by God, are what defines a Man and a *Human Being*, distinct from our animal nature.

>god is physics
>no god
>bible basics
>maui
The absolute state of non-denominational god threads

>still in thread
>not currently studying scripture
who are you?

You seem trapped within concepts of God as illustrated by discrete Religious Traditions. Religious Traditions emerge from ethnic groups and are limited by the technology of their time, the means of communication, language, cultural values and norms. It's perfectly reasonable to shake all these concepts in a box and say, "LOOK, THEY CAN"T ALL BE TRUE!"

It seems to me that perspective you are trapped behind is one of secure subjectivity. It enables you to feel safe. The truth is any subjective sense of security is an illusion. This world is a totality of the potential of Evil as well as Good, to exist without a full apprehension of this is live within a dream, to live not exactly disconnected from God, but certainly in state of refusal of acknowledging God.

It's perfectly reasonable for young people to not be *able* to apprehend God, they are blissfully ignorant of a Real grasp of something, they, you, me and everyone is going to die.

You, are going to die.

i think its all bullshit and there’s a entirely different answer to our universe than god. i have no problem IF christianity was totally true but it smella like BS all over the place

It can be complicated, it really depends on how a person acts and what they do since we have agency. I'd love for you to clarify what you mean specifically by your question and for us to discuss this further, but I have to go to bed now, unfortunately. If you want to read up on the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church (which is what I've been defending all thread) on this, you can check out Ed Feser's The Last Superstition for a good intro to it.

You said:

>SOMETHING ONLY COUNTS AS EVIDENCE IF I CAN USE IT AS SUPPORT FOR A COMPETING CONCLUSION

Scientism is:

>To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

yup, there it is,'depends on the person'.

It's curious how someone can believe themselves to be open minded when it's so painfully obvious that they aren't and soaked in fear.

>you can't comprehend my skygad
maybe that's because we only have room for our village and a soap opera of gods and rituals.. not another incomprehensible jewish scheme?