Evidence of God.

[attofishpi]

I've talked at length while participating on this forum re my personal experience of God. Well here atheists and theists can pick me apart, am i rational or deluded?

Since i became aware that God exists i have been left grappling with two possible considerations as to the nature of its existence.
1. God is divine.
2. God was created by many - in others words, God is the result of advanced technology projecting reality far more efficiently in relation to the progression of entropy.

Here i am going to extrapolate what i have come to understand about God through over 17 years of experience.
What i have 'sussed' about God.
Je_sus
Je - I sus - suspect - interrogate the concept of God.

Panentheism. God is all existence, all sub-atomic particles and anything beyond that is yet to be discovered. As it stated - i AM the light.
The English language as possibly a final protocol for communication around the globe has embedded logical anomalies that suggest a greater hand at play, beyond natural language etymology.
A few simple examples:
A dog is a man's best friend. Dog reversed = God.
Evil. Reversed Live. From experience of God it is extremely hard to live when it is being evil towards you.
Logic. Log i c (log i see) The log of a tree provides great detail in relation to the past - a log.
Entropy. Reversed - Y PORT NE. Why port any? God has the ability to port your soul into another life - why should it bother if you have relinquished that right of passage, especially where entropy is concerned, perhaps you will be better judged to provide the energy of man in your next life. (666)

God and doctrine
I don't believe its any coincidence that bible is a homophone to buy bull. I don't buy bull - i don't simply accept the bible contents as fact or a factual account of God. It's meant to dwell within the psyche of those intelligent enough to be able to read it, most of us.
It was all simply meant to settle within the collective consciousness of man. For us to have been forewarned that there is another entity beyond man that will hold you to account for your actions.
Fund-a-mental-list. These people are saps. PASTOR - ROT_SAP

Science on the nature of reality
The more you break matter down into constituent parts, the more you are left with what amounts to little more than sub-atomic particles - light. God stated, 'i AM the light.'

My experience of God and its key characteristics that i have concluded based on those experiences:-
1. God is capable of being aware of ALL my thoughts. I believe, as a rational chap this would mean God is also capable of being aware of ALL YOUR thoughts.
2. God is capable of planting thoughts. (this one was a nasty test)
2. God is capable of morphing - changing the structure of matter, and instantaneously.
3. God is both good and evil.
4. Heaven and Hell exist here on Earth for those that are aware of God's existence.

So what IS God?
Over the years the biggest conclusion i can draw on based on current technology is that God is akin to an Artificial Intelligence. In that, it truly is ALL knowing (not all the future). If God is divine, forming its own intelligence, perhaps from the primordial soup of the early universe, then perhaps it has created its own 'technology' akin to AI allowing it to be aware of ALL our actions.
Certainly AI seems contextually apt when considering further anomalies within the English language:- REALITY - REAL - IT - Y? Did we evolve into some sort of AI computeresque projected reality in relation to progression of entropy, or if God is divine did it leave this word trail for someone to permit further comprehension of its existence?
SINAI. The apparent location of where we, man were issued the conditions by which to live our lives in accordance with, by breaking, we are in SIN. SIN - AI

The to scale images below are not only accurate, but surely are so remotely unlikely to co-exist with apt 'name-places' one must certainly rethink the nature of our existence and thus of God.

The evidence on the globe:-









Finally - the Alphabet used in English has perfect symmetry in relation to consonants and vowels, which once again suggest AI - UO - e=energy at the top. More entropy reasoning perhaps, which ultimately must be the reason of God's conditions re sin to us..:-


Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
http://www.androcies.com

[HexHammer]

Joan of Arc is 1 of the most profound evidenses that there's a higher power!

[attofishpi]

So what do you mean by "God", or "a God"?

Panentheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

So what do you mean by god or GODS?

As my OP here states:- I've outlined my two conceptual points of view in relation to such an entities existence, and pointed out 4 key characteristics that i know of its existence from experience.

Any clearer?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Panentheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

So what do you mean by god or GODS?

As my OP here states:- I've outlined my two conceptual points of view in relation to such an entities existence, and pointed out 4 key characteristics that i know of its existence from experience.

Any clearer?

Yes, insane, completely insane.

[Obvious Leo]

Yes, insane, completely insane.

Or, as we say, downunder.

The kangaroos have busted through the fence and are running loose in the top paddock.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yes, insane, completely insane.

Or, as we say, downunder.

The kangaroos have busted through the fence and are running loose in the top paddock.

I see him as having a head full of rabbits, breeding out of control and all with a severe dose of Myxomatosis.

[attofishpi]

Yes, insane, completely insane.

Or, as we say, downunder.

The kangaroos have busted through the fence and are running loose in the top paddock.

I see him as having a head full of rabbits, breeding out of control and all with a severe dose of Myxomatosis.

At least i wouldn't stoop to a super low level of ridiculing someone if i did think they were insane.

Atheists are wrong, simple fact. The imagery presented should be evidence enough for rational atheists to reconsider their position, you coward bum-chums however are simply scared of real debate.

[Obvious Leo]

Don't do it, Hobbes. Just trust me on this.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Or, as we say, downunder.

The kangaroos have busted through the fence and are running loose in the top paddock.

I see him as having a head full of rabbits, breeding out of control and all with a severe dose of Myxomatosis.

At least i wouldn't stoop to a super low level of ridiculing someone if i did think they were insane.

Atheists are wrong, simple fact. The imagery presented should be evidence enough for rational atheists to reconsider their position, you coward bum-chums however are simply scared of real debate.

I don't think you are insane.

There is s difference between being insane and having insane ideas. The former requires respect and help, the latter can only be met with ridicule.

[attofishpi]

As my OP here states:- I've outlined my two conceptual points of view in relation to such an entities existence, and pointed out 4 key characteristics that i know of its existence from experience.

Any clearer?

Yes, insane, completely insane.

I don't think you are insane.

Ok. So what are you exactly attempting to state?

I own you already.

[Obvious Leo]

Don't do it, Hobbes. Just trust me on this.

[Lacewing]

Don't do it, Hobbes. Just trust me on this.

While we're waiting to see if Hobbes flings something at you... I'd like to offer my own response.

I've talked at length while participating on this forum re my personal experience of God. Well here atheists and theists can pick me apart, am i rational or deluded?

As long as we are part of this experience, I suspect we are all deluded. We can be so incredibly creative, in so many ways -- creating whole worlds of belief around ourselves. Seeing different or unconventional meanings in words or continents or anything else of this very physical and condensed human reality -- which, to my logic, means that it's all still very physical and condensed.

Creative? Yes.

Fascinating, meaningful, valuable? Perhaps for one who is in relationship with it.

Ultimately true? Highly unlikely, considering ALL of the "ultimate ideas" that humans throw into the ring.

The questions it inspires me to ask are: How does this viewpoint actually change anything? What does it do for the person who believes it? Does it make them a better person... or does it make this world/experience easier for them to navigate or utilize? Are they able to accept that there is a vast range of other experiences and viewpoints that people are having which are JUST AS VALID? Or must a person believe that they've found the holy grail... and that they have uniquely come upon the answer that applies to it all?

Is it possible that there are no ULTIMATE answers because ANYTHING is possible? Do we have to have a flag pole and a flag to identify ourselves and proclaim victory?

Attofishpi, if it's useful to you to see the dots connect this way, that's all that really matters, isn't it? Any of us can share our ideas with other people, and ask "Can you see this too?" I think it's useful to keep checking on ourselves... to see if we've become too intoxicated with one thing/idea or another, such that we no longer see other things/ideas. We might start superimposing our particular intoxication on everything... and we can easily see those patterns everywhere! That doesn't mean they are there more than anything else is there. You know what I mean?

So, from my perspective, it's not what any thing/idea IS, it's how you use it... and what are you doing with it? All of the human stuff... ideas and definitions and words and images... are just human stuff. Does it improve you and your experience? Or is it mental masturbation? Does it need to be MORE than your OWN experience? Do you still accept the validity of other people's "realities"? I ask myself these same questions... because of course I have my own perspectives that flex and change. Yes, I think they have improved me and my experience throughout the course of my life. There has surely been a lot of mental masturbation involved, but I'm not addicted. It does NOT need to be more than my own experience. I think I accept (more than ever) the validity of other people's realities for them.

I do find it baffling when it seems that there are people who are in such a thick-walled bubble, that they really do think it reflects ALL of reality... and that it defines the limits for ALL! I wonder: How can that remain logical to them, if they really consider a broader view... and why wouldn't they want to consider a broader view? I'm guessing that there are bubbles within bubbles within bubbles... and we can keep our view/limits as confined and controlled as we want... or expand... but it's all deluded to one degree or another.

And most surely, none of us can ever have the ultimate answer for ALL. How can we look at the diversity of humans and think that there is some ultimate answer/meaning for all? That would not seem logical or realistic or flexible or accepting to expect or strive for such a thing. Rather, it would seem to be a product of some sort of ego-driven agenda.

As for your particular perspective/ideas, Attofishpi, they do not resonate with me. For me, personally, they seem a bit manic. But I hope they are serving you well. Pretty much everything about our human experience seems (to me) "made up" by us. And there seems to be no limit to what we can create! Fascinating and terrifying and exhilarating, isn't it?!

[Obvious Leo]

Don't do it, Lacewing. Trust me on this.

[attofishpi]

Don't do it, Lacewing. Trust me on this.

I've read every word of Lacewing's post as i have done in many posts of hers. The fact that it addresses barely one inkling of my OP matters not...for a debate about nothing, but this is a debate regarding the existence of God and i've still not received one intelligent response.

[Obvious Leo]

this is a debate regarding the existence of God and i've still not received one intelligent response.

I wonder why.