kx000
Valued Senior Member
Which god?
Love God, peace angel, hope angel. They are all good and faithful.
Which god?
Cthulhu's daughter?
God by definition. What goes around comes around God can't exist in lowly shit of sins, he is holy great and royal. If you sin someone is sinning on you. Hurt and get hurt. God is holy and true.
I agree with you on that. But God being the supreme authority, must have total free will. That means he could act evil. But if he were to do so, we'd be fucked beyond measure. So would the rest of reality. God has a moral obligation to be good at all times. On the other hand, if God is incapable of evil, then he would not be all powerful, or could the title "all powerful" mean something else?
Love God, peace angel, hope angel. They are all good and faithful.
"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."
I mean faithful as the sense of good things, and that its good.
my above...was borrowed from, and had to do with voltaire and deism
What if GOD doesn't care if you believe or don't believe, have faith or have none, recognize god or don't?
What if, after creation we are indeed completely separate from "GOD"?
my above...was borrowed from, and had to do with voltaire and deism
What if GOD doesn't care if you believe or don't believe, have faith or have none, recognize god or don't?
What if, after creation we are indeed completely separate from "GOD"?
As has been argued already, equating God with reality offers no new explanation but merely satiates those who wish to believe in God while also appearing to remain scientific about the issue, but without actually providing any science or scientific notion. There is nothing falsifiable about the notion, nothing testable, nothing scientific. Yet it is dressed up in the clothing of science to lend it some sense of legitimacy and rationality.
It may help, as others have argued, to anthropomorphise reality, to use He and His to describe it, but I find it a redundant and ultimately useless concept in trying to understand it. Although it may offer some insight into what and why people believe.
Yes. I prefer to call reality Daffy Duck.
Daffy Duck's cool but he's only reality on a television set. That's as far as he goes.
I consider myself a duckist in that I am aware that Daffy Duck is real but that we are totally cut-off from him in physical reality.
So is a computer.Reality is an information processing system i.e. a Self Configuring Self Processing Language.
If reality is God ...
I farted.
So is a computer.
But what information do you think reality is processing?
And how do you consider it (reality) distinct from that information?
Did that create a new universe?