You really like to step your foot in it, don't you?? haha
From what I've been learning by Biblical scholars, the Elohim (more than one entity) have been running the show and they are NOT benevolent, but that's who people are calling God and praying to them. The Anunnaki were forced to alter our DNA to shorter our life spans because the god, Enki, did not want us to be as smart as the gods. (I'd personally like to kick his butt.)
Something from the Bible, I feel is a scapegoat, Belief without seeing, have faith. Yeah, those don't work for me.
I have received visions and dreams from the Universal energy. I wouldn't claim they came from the Elohim because my mission would be shot down by malevolent entities.
However, I can't figure out how people still worship a 'god' who allow pedophilia, murders, plandemics to kill the masses, etc.
Your last paragraph what I always say to everyone. God by definition should be unprovable. Why? I believe if we are created then a higher power should be hiding by default. Just look how people cling onto stupid government for 'help'. Just imagine how people would stop living their lives altogether if they would know God exists.
There is a problem with trying to prove [the existence] of God.
We take such things as God to be absolute, something that transcends the world we live in. (At least that is the New Testament notion. Old Testament took God as a superhuman ‘person’ of some sort with personality characteristics. Other theistic religions face similar problems.
Consider for a moment two kinds of truth. On one hand, when you look at the color of the sky, you see its True color—that’s the Truth of the matter. When you say, “The sky is blue,” you assert a statement about a relationship between the actual color of the sky and an invented category of color. For a moment, consider the actual color of the sky as you see it to be “Absolute Truth.” As such, it is something that can be directly known. Consider the statement about the color to be “Relative Truth.” The truth of such statements depends upon agreement with either invented rules for determining truth (e.g., Logic) or upon agreement with certain facts of the matter, or upon agreement with other corroborating statements and contexts. As such, the True color can only be indirectly referred to. It works out like this:
Relative Truth: The truth of representation is meaningful only in relation to context and only in relation to other representations.
Absolute Truth: The truth of awareness is the same as awareness itself, and this cannot be represented or falsified.
So, … I am making some [substitutions] here:
Relative (i.e., contextual or casual) truth applies to statements, but it does not apply to [God]. Relative truth is used to evaluate the truth of statements. Logic can be useful when untangling the complexities of experience, but it is not useful for evaluating absolute truth.
Absolute (universal) truth refers to [God]. Absolute truth encompasses (allows) relative truth, but it is not useful for evaluating the relative truth of statements.
The point is that there can be no relative/contextual proof of any absolute.
By example: Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Proof): Loosely defined, “I can conceive of a being greater than which there is no other. Greater means that it possesses all attributes of being. Existence is an attribute of being (we directly know that in our own being), therefore God, this being, exists.
Modern academics say they can refute Anselm by pointing out that Existence is not a quality; they say we can imagine that this being must possess existence as an attribute, but it is still only imagination; it does not prove that [this] being exists. But, Anselm’s Argument is NOT an argument or proof in any modern sense of that word. It says, “Look at your own sense of being!” Anselm’s statement is like a painting, a figurative arrow pointing at what is absolutely real, something that should be obvious to anyone who notices it.
Our being is identical to this greatest of all possible being and you can discover that in yourself just by turning your attention to the deepest level of your own being. Now, try substituting the words “Reality, Being, and Awareness” for that troubling word, “God.” One characteristic of Absolute Truth is that it is exactly what it appears to be. Relative Truth is never what it appears to be, except that it appears to be only relatively true. Look within.
You really like to step your foot in it, don't you?? haha
From what I've been learning by Biblical scholars, the Elohim (more than one entity) have been running the show and they are NOT benevolent, but that's who people are calling God and praying to them. The Anunnaki were forced to alter our DNA to shorter our life spans because the god, Enki, did not want us to be as smart as the gods. (I'd personally like to kick his butt.)
Something from the Bible, I feel is a scapegoat, Belief without seeing, have faith. Yeah, those don't work for me.
I have received visions and dreams from the Universal energy. I wouldn't claim they came from the Elohim because my mission would be shot down by malevolent entities.
However, I can't figure out how people still worship a 'god' who allow pedophilia, murders, plandemics to kill the masses, etc.
That’s last part is key. You can fear an evil god, but how can you worship or even love it?
Oh, great point, Sotiris!!!
Every proof of a god can just be an alien(or your fellow humans,huh?) masquerading behind advanced technology.
Proof of god lies within your definition of god.
Your last paragraph what I always say to everyone. God by definition should be unprovable. Why? I believe if we are created then a higher power should be hiding by default. Just look how people cling onto stupid government for 'help'. Just imagine how people would stop living their lives altogether if they would know God exists.
This is insightful. But fun that were the case, then there should be no religious at all
There is a problem with trying to prove [the existence] of God.
We take such things as God to be absolute, something that transcends the world we live in. (At least that is the New Testament notion. Old Testament took God as a superhuman ‘person’ of some sort with personality characteristics. Other theistic religions face similar problems.
Consider for a moment two kinds of truth. On one hand, when you look at the color of the sky, you see its True color—that’s the Truth of the matter. When you say, “The sky is blue,” you assert a statement about a relationship between the actual color of the sky and an invented category of color. For a moment, consider the actual color of the sky as you see it to be “Absolute Truth.” As such, it is something that can be directly known. Consider the statement about the color to be “Relative Truth.” The truth of such statements depends upon agreement with either invented rules for determining truth (e.g., Logic) or upon agreement with certain facts of the matter, or upon agreement with other corroborating statements and contexts. As such, the True color can only be indirectly referred to. It works out like this:
Relative Truth: The truth of representation is meaningful only in relation to context and only in relation to other representations.
Absolute Truth: The truth of awareness is the same as awareness itself, and this cannot be represented or falsified.
So, … I am making some [substitutions] here:
Relative (i.e., contextual or casual) truth applies to statements, but it does not apply to [God]. Relative truth is used to evaluate the truth of statements. Logic can be useful when untangling the complexities of experience, but it is not useful for evaluating absolute truth.
Absolute (universal) truth refers to [God]. Absolute truth encompasses (allows) relative truth, but it is not useful for evaluating the relative truth of statements.
The point is that there can be no relative/contextual proof of any absolute.
By example: Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Proof): Loosely defined, “I can conceive of a being greater than which there is no other. Greater means that it possesses all attributes of being. Existence is an attribute of being (we directly know that in our own being), therefore God, this being, exists.
Modern academics say they can refute Anselm by pointing out that Existence is not a quality; they say we can imagine that this being must possess existence as an attribute, but it is still only imagination; it does not prove that [this] being exists. But, Anselm’s Argument is NOT an argument or proof in any modern sense of that word. It says, “Look at your own sense of being!” Anselm’s statement is like a painting, a figurative arrow pointing at what is absolutely real, something that should be obvious to anyone who notices it.
Our being is identical to this greatest of all possible being and you can discover that in yourself just by turning your attention to the deepest level of your own being. Now, try substituting the words “Reality, Being, and Awareness” for that troubling word, “God.” One characteristic of Absolute Truth is that it is exactly what it appears to be. Relative Truth is never what it appears to be, except that it appears to be only relatively true. Look within.
--Reality and Being, Ch 17 - CASUAL TRUTH AND CASUAL CONTEXT, https://archive.org/details/BurntEliot/page/79/mode/1up
--https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/the-18-story-puzzles
Interesting
I thought you may find this clip interesting. Could this be the truth about God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moM5sdbPM54
Very insightful. But we’re overwhelmed with humility in this unfair world. We can’t help but want to know the truth. Is it hubris?
The one thing we know is that we’ll never know