Omnipresence is impossible

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Kicking your ass for that lack of space after the comma & even attempting to imply I am clueless about (much less care about) whether or not to use an Oxford comma, and if it even applies in this situation.

Pushing my buttons on purpose? Real mature.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

I’m not pushing your buttons at all….It’s you who was the fool, not me.I fear God.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I never even called you a fool.

Crazy mofo.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

I know you didn’t because I’m not the fool…you are.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Actually, I’m not a fool, I’m rubber, and you’re glue. I’m not talking to you anymore, because even though I’m not bouncing from this thread, I’m bouncing off of you.

mic stick

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

You are a fool Ichthus because you are a theist who is going to jump over the fence into the sheepfold with your good works rather than leaving your good works behind and going though the gate in accordance with God’s will, as clearly instructed in the bible.

Matthew 7:21-23 applies directly to believers in God who have accepted false teachings Ichthus…

You are meant to be a true believer in God so why are you still believing in an atheistic Santa science that falsely claims that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out when they don’t?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@gib

This discussion about immanence–not everywhere but not nowhere–seems to offer some room to futureone. I wonder if he (she?) would accept immanence instead of omnipresence. Omnipresence, especially the way futureone seems to understand it, means everywhere. But if immanence means not everywhere (and not nowhere), there would seem to be room for compromise.

And I wonder if there’s a word for “always with you”. It’s like God is with you wherever you go, like your shadow. But that doesn’t mean He is everywhere simultaneous, just like your shadow is not everywhere simultaneously. Nevertheless, no matter where you are in the universe, God is there. Would futureone accept that?

@futureone the space one is Omnispatiality, the time one is Omnitemporality, and together they are Omnipresence. Don’t let gib mess up the situation or conversation.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Belinda

Emotions are physical processes . We give emotions names eg fear, jealousy, anger, joy, pleasure, mania, depression. The physical processes we call ‘emotions’ immediately affect us.

Other physical processes such as digestion, respiration, and metabolism affect us indirectly and may or may not cause affect.

If it is “affect“ in both cases, how is one direct, and the other indirect? And why do you think we have zero influence in the matter? We can change a situation by reframing/reinterpreting it, for one, each frame or interpretation of which will have its own associated behavior possibilities from which we can choose.

We can go to a buffet and pig the frick out. We haven’t done that, but we can.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@gib

What about it? Information flows, it changes. It’s not supposed to stay in the moment.

The sequins are not sequential, gib.

@gib

A “personal” God to me is a God that can be thought of as a person. I don’t think God is a person. This was my point about not anthropomorphizing God. God is a being that we cannot comprehend. He is conscious, but his consciousness consists of experiences that are far beyond our ability to imagine. This God does not experience thought, emotions, sensations, or anything human beings are familiar with–except in one very narrow sense–in the sense that we experience these things, and since we are a part of God, so does God.

So… call God superpersonal, then. Dork.

@gib

But maybe you know something I don’t.

Are you saying you don’t know that an all hating god is not worthy of the title God? In my estimation, your god is just another alien…like us (we are from outer space because where do you think the Earth is?).

[Belinda]

Emotions are physiological processes ——activities of endocrine glands. Emotions don’t become feelings until they have been interpreted by the cognitive brain.

For an illustration, wild untrained animals react to emotions with either approach /attraction or fight/flight. As a contrast socialised humans react to emotions according to various inhibitions and learned responses, such as guilt, pride, vanity, remorse, addiction, disappointment, pleasure-seeking, self satisfaction, will to greed, will to duty, will to pleasure, and so forth.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

You have it jumbled up on purpose like a puzzle you want me to fix.

You are too stinkin adorable!!!

[Belinda]

@Ichthus77

change a situation by reframing/reinterpreting it, for one, each frame or interpretation of which will have its own associated behavior possibilities from which we can choose.

Ichthus, we can indeed “change a situation by reframing/reinterpreting it, for one, each frame or interpretation of which will have its own associated behavior possibilities from which we can choose.”(Ichthus) That is the rationale of cognitive behavioural therapy.

Where does God come into all this? I like the idea of immanent God. As we well know people have different ideas of good and evil—-so immanent God is the working- out of those ideas among peoples. Sages such as Jesus, Confucius, Socrates, Buddha, show us how to live in the world of uncertainty. Those sages are like compasses for sailors on a stormy ocean ..

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

We are all made in the image of God, but Jesus —unlike the others you mentioned— is not just the image, but the fullness.

God is not just “coming in” (with consent) — he is already always (every knee bows).

Bowing is hell/suffering for those who don’t want to be.

Those who do… count it all joy. Because “The Lord is near to those who are crushed in spirit and saves the brokenhearted” (Ps. 34:18).

[gib]

Ichthus77 wrote:

So… call God superpersonal, then. Dork.

Ok, He’s “superpersonal”. What does that change?

Ichthus77 wrote:

Are you saying you don’t know that an all hating god is not worthy of the title God? ← Yes. → In my estimation, your god is just another alien…like us (we are from outer space because where do you think the Earth is?).

Worthy? Are you thinking of the label “God” as a title? Like King, or His Honor, or Mr. President, or The Anointed One? I’m thinking of it as the word we use for a type of being. You know, an objective fact. I’m not sure if being all-loving is a requirement for being a God. Don’t many religions feature evil gods? What about Hades?

Thinking of my God as an alien is actually an improvement. Yes, the universe, especially its experiences, are very alien to us. Yet we are still part of the universe, part of this God. We’re more like cells in the living organism that is God. Like futureone’s cells of the body, we can die agonizing deaths without the whole organism even knowing.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@gib

Ok, He’s “superpersonal”. What does that change?

How is God worthy of the title if they are not love? And I don’t mean the kind of love that is from a lack.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@gib

Don’t many religions feature evil gods? What about Hades?

Note the little g. And if humans worship such gods, they’re gonna get what they worship.

[gib]

Ichthus77 wrote:

How is God worthy of the title if they are not love?

So you do think of it as a title.

Well, idunno, Ichy. You seem to be the one deciding what’s worthy of the title of “God” and what isn’t. As I said, I only mean to use the term to denote the universe as a conscious being. That’s it. I have no frickin clue whether it’s “worthy” of the title God, at least according to your criteria.

Ichthus77 wrote:

Note the little g.

Right, God is a title to you.

How 'bout this. We use “god” when we’re talking about polytheism, and we use “God” when we’re talking about monotheism. My theory is monotheistic (there’s only one universe, one existence, and beyond it, nothing exists). Therefore, we can make a special case for me: The title “God” stands!

Ichthus77 wrote:

And if humans worship such gods, they’re gonna get what they worship.

Worship??? Who said anything about worshipping? I wouldn’t quite say I “worship” the universe (as a conscious being)–marvel in it, maybe, draw inspiration from it, maybe–but worship?

And keep in mind, I did say that my God may be all-loving after all. I just don’t claim to know that. So if you’re reassuring me that God loves all His children, I don’t think I’m in that much trouble. I shouldn’t worry about it, and neither should you.

But c’mon Ichy, as reasonable as you are, even you must understand that the proposition that God is all-loving can be difficult to grasp by many. Remember what I said in my quote: this is not the Christian God. This is the God of floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes, of death, disease, and suffering. Faced with that reality, can you blame people for doubting God’s infinite love for His children?

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

This is a God who made things perfect and after humankind messed things up took on flesh and died for the sins of the whole world even though he was sinless.Does that sound like an evil God? You are confusing the devil god with the God who created the devil god. A devil god who chose to rebel.

God has defeated the devil god for his own glory.

You are either for God or you are against him.

God wins…God always wins because he is perfect.

The devil god thought he could take on God and win and look what happened to him.He was totally crushed/defeated.He couldn’t get Jesus to sin even once whilst Jesus was taking the full punishment for all our sins.

The price for our sins has been paid in full on the cross of calvary…why do you think Jesus said “it is finished”?

John19:28-30

Salvation is a free gift from God.

Death came into the world through one man and the grace of God came into the world through one man…Romans 5:12-21

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@gib

So you do think of it as a title.

If you want to think of it as a title, and you wanna make sure the persons who hold it are qualified, then you’re talking about a particular type of being.

Why you wanna be nitpicky?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

How are we going to know love “no matter what“ (unconditional) if there is no what (conditions)? (Don’t confuse this with the condition of consent. God loves us no matter what, whether we consent or not, but he will not force his love on an unconsenting person without it being considered hell.)

Count it (the what that shows no partiality—@futureone) all joy.