If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

[Bob Blaylock]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

God is not the author of confusion. That's the domain of the Devil.

Now read the OP again, and try to discern whether it is more likely to be of God, or of the Devil.

 

[ding]

Who knows what is possible when consciousness evolves beyond our present limitations. Do you?

In the meantime would you settle for a metamorphosis instead? Or maybe a resurrection?

Truly, you wear whataboutism like a jackass.

I don't think I look that much like you. It's like you don't even evolution.

 

[schmidlap]

God is not the author of confusion. That's the domain of the Devil.

Now read the OP again, and try to discern whether it is more likely to be of God, or of the Devil.

Gods are far beyond the human capacity to understand and define. Hubris in that regard may be considered demonic by some.

Devils, gremlins, goblins, etc. may be more comprehensible, but I haven't paid much attention to them.

 

[schmidlap]

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. Such that mind has always existed: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued his creation with His attributes.

Man's capacity to conceive of infinite perfection while acknowledging man's incapacity to ever understand or attain it is wonderfully human.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~ ROBERT BROWNING

I’m not so sure that mankind has conceived infinite perfection within the gods they invented and attributed with human emotions. Religionists assert the various human assigned attributes of their gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- they assert their gods represent “perfection” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied. That immediately defuses claim that the gods are in some way eternally perfect. I would suggest that christian religionists might better try to make the case that because one of their gods cannot experience sin and such “human experience”, “he” needed to do it by proxy through mankind [though why any gods need to satisfy this need also fatally flaws that argument, in my opinion].

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.

Attributing to a god characteristics that are perfected human traits results in an altar ego.

 

[ding]

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. Such that mind has always existed: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued his creation with His attributes.

Man's capacity to conceive of infinite perfection while acknowledging man's incapacity to ever understand or attain it is wonderfully human.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~ ROBERT BROWNING

I’m not so sure that mankind has conceived infinite perfection within the gods they invented and attributed with human emotions. Religionists assert the various human assigned attributes of their gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- they assert their gods represent “perfection” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied. That immediately defuses claim that the gods are in some way eternally perfect. I would suggest that christian religionists might better try to make the case that because one of their gods cannot experience sin and such “human experience”, “he” needed to do it by proxy through mankind [though why any gods need to satisfy this need also fatally flaws that argument, in my opinion].

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.

Attributing to a god characteristics that are perfected human traits results in an altar ego.

No offense, but that's some silly logic. So you are telling me that if my perception of God is correct that God would disappear?

 

[BreezeWood]

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. Such that mind has always existed: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued his creation with His attributes.

Man's capacity to conceive of infinite perfection while acknowledging man's incapacity to ever understand or attain it is wonderfully human.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~ ROBERT BROWNING

I’m not so sure that mankind has conceived infinite perfection within the gods they invented and attributed with human emotions. Religionists assert the various human assigned attributes of their gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- they assert their gods represent “perfection” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied. That immediately defuses claim that the gods are in some way eternally perfect. I would suggest that christian religionists might better try to make the case that because one of their gods cannot experience sin and such “human experience”, “he” needed to do it by proxy through mankind [though why any gods need to satisfy this need also fatally flaws that argument, in my opinion].

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.

Attributing to a god characteristics that are perfected human traits results in an altar ego.

.

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.

.
tell all shiplap - is everything you know what you have read. some remember youth when vision alone was all that defined an observation.

god's are not all defined through scripture, indeed - those most often "cease to be god". not so the ultimate goal for spiritual admission to the Everlasting. and purity.
.
.

Who knows what is possible when consciousness evolves beyond our present limitations. Do you?

In the meantime would you settle for a metamorphosis instead? Or maybe a resurrection?

.
metamorphosis is the observable evidence of the metaphysical forces in shaping physiological changes through its spiritual content -
.

.
that guides the evolutionary changes that have occurred since the beginning of life on planet Earth.

demonstrated by the land creature's spiritual content that transforms their physiology from one being into another.

 

[Donald H]

If they are happy to fall back to the position that their bible(s) can't be interpreted to be literal, then they do no harm with their silly interpretations.

 

[ding]

If they are happy to fall back to the position that their bible(s) can't be interpreted to be literal, then they do no harm with their silly interpretations.

As opposed to the harm militant atheists can do?

Like I told you before... The Bible is a collection of books written by many different men over a very long period of time. The men who wrote it came from all different walks of life and had different backgrounds. It was written with several different literary styles. So within each book and sometimes within each chapter of each book, to gain the proper discernment one would need to identify which literary style was being employed. And as always a proper context of the times is needed for proper discernment.

So, was it meant to be read literal? Not the passages that were written allegorically or poetically or prophetically. But the passages that were historical accounts without allegorical narratives or the legal passages, sure.

But if you need to simplify it to "their bible(s) can't be interpreted to be literal" because you can't properly state reality either because you are too lazy, too ignorant or both, then rock on, bro.

 

[buttercup]

Someone might've already said this, I didn't read the whole thread... We obviously can't know EVERYTHING about God, but we can know SOME things. So God is not entirely unknowable. Come to think of it, I might've started a thread on this topic at one time. *goes to look*

Yeah, here it is: Can God be known?

 

[schmidlap]

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.

.tell all shiplap - is everything you know what you have read. some remember youth when vision alone was all that defined an observation.

Creation, concerning which you are temporarily imbued a degree of awareness, has a grandeur deserving of your awe, pilgrim, but that is distinct from, and possibly antithetical to, the gods one finds in books.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gods are far beyond the human capacity to understand and define.

All the evidence points to humans creating gods willy nilly, both for good and bad human purposes. Since there aren't really any gods, just as there aren't really any Santa Clauses or Easter Bunnies, there's really nothing further "to understand and define." Fear of death is quite understandable. Mortality persists for all plants and animals. Best to quickly get over it and focus upon doing things more useful than effectively just wishing it weren't so all your life. Don't be stupid.

 

[schmidlap]

All the evidence points to humans creating gods willy nilly, both for good and bad human purposes. Since there aren't really any gods, just as there aren't really any Santa Clauses or Easter Bunnies, there's really nothing further "to understand and define." Fear of death is quite understandable. Mortality persists for all plants and animals. Best to quickly get over it and focus upon doing things more useful than effectively just wishing it weren't so all your life. Don't be stupid.

I don't impose existence or non-existence upon any of the gods.

Oddly, some who are most insistent in advocating for a favorite god are zealous non-believers, denying the existence of the preponderance of them.

 

[schmidlap]

... So you are telling me that if my perception of God is correct that God would disappear?

Human understanding is finite. Gods are, by definition, infinite. I accept that disparity.

Whether any god disappears when subjected to limited human understanding is a matter for the gods, and I would not presume to dictate to them what they must do.

 

[Meriweather]

Creation, concerning which you are temporarily imbued a degree of awareness, has a grandeur deserving of your awe, pilgrim, but that is distinct from, and possibly antithetical to, the gods one finds in books.

Being awed by creation is a first step. Becoming aware that we, too, (while not being God) are capable of creating. The questions then become What can we create? How shall we create it? The foremost creation for us is our life. How to build our life is what leads many of us to God, for He is present to help. It also leads many to the decision that they want to build their life with no help from God--to see what they can do on their own.

 

[BreezeWood]

Gods are far beyond the human capacity to understand and define.

All the evidence points to humans creating gods willy nilly, both for good and bad human purposes. Since there aren't really any gods, just as there aren't really any Santa Clauses or Easter Bunnies, there's really nothing further "to understand and define." Fear of death is quite understandable. Mortality persists for all plants and animals. Best to quickly get over it and focus upon doing things more useful than effectively just wishing it weren't so all your life. Don't be stupid.

.

Since there aren't really any gods, just as there aren't really any Santa Clauses or Easter Bunnies, there's really nothing further "to understand and define.

.
the former is not a reason for your latter conclusion, grumble - in fact is disingenuous to the extreme though not necessary for pursuit if so inclined.

and the former though definable is surly as the thread imposes an exercise of dexterity than physical content. the metaphysical forces responsible for life that may be the ultimate goal for its physiological product as being the work in progress in the creation of the said god yet to be accomplished in physical form.

those not pure need not apply, for the return trip. for the physical creation of the almighty in proxy for eternal existence for those who do pursue the interest.

 

[schmidlap]

Creation, concerning which you are temporarily imbued a degree of awareness, has a grandeur deserving of your awe, pilgrim, but that is distinct from, and possibly antithetical to, the gods one finds in books.

Being awed by creation is a first step. Becoming aware that we, too, (while not being God) are capable of creating. The questions then become What can we create? How shall we create it? The foremost creation for us is our life. How to build our life is what leads many of us to God, for He is present to help. It also leads many to the decision that they want to build their life with no help from God--to see what they can do on their own.

People are free to chose one, all, on none of the gods as best serves the person's agenda.

 

[ding]

Creation, concerning which you are temporarily imbued a degree of awareness, has a grandeur deserving of your awe, pilgrim, but that is distinct from, and possibly antithetical to, the gods one finds in books.

Being awed by creation is a first step. Becoming aware that we, too, (while not being God) are capable of creating. The questions then become What can we create? How shall we create it? The foremost creation for us is our life. How to build our life is what leads many of us to God, for He is present to help. It also leads many to the decision that they want to build their life with no help from God--to see what they can do on their own.

People are free to chose one, all, on none of the gods as best serves the person's agenda.

Sure and regardless of what they choose - even if they choose none - they will still either be moving towards God, away from God or static in their walk. And God will be pruning them just the same.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't impose existence or non-existence upon any of the gods.

You do so right here by unnecessarily using the definite article,.. saying "upon any of the gods" instead of simply "upon gods." Don't be stupid.

 

[Meriweather]

People are free to chose one, all, on none of the gods as best serves the person's agenda.

Like a multiple choice test? Isn't the goal/purpose selecting what is true?

 

[ding]

... So you are telling me that if my perception of God is correct that God would disappear?

Human understanding is finite. Gods are, by definition, infinite. I accept that disparity.

Whether any god disappears when subjected to limited human understanding is a matter for the gods, and I would not presume to dictate to them what they must do.

And we can conceptualize and even perceive infinity. A circle is a good example as it has no beginning and has no end.

You say that that is a matter for the "gods" but in your prior post you made an absolute statement that God would cease being God if I were able to define God. Right? So aren't you the one limiting God?

Any god that is definable by humans is thereby limited and, thus, ceases to be a god.