“All that is” is vague and opens up the possibility for the very composition that Hart wants to reject, eg human beings are among the category of “all that is,” but it’s false to say that God IS those human beings. God is firing on all metaphysical cylinders as Pat Flynn says, or pure actuality, on DDS, and even in models that deny DDS God is the foundation as Rasmussen says, But I’m just wondering if the “all that is” phrasing might be problematic

David Bent is a balding freak with a nasty attitude.

@@jacksonrelaxin3425 doesn’t make him wrong. Get a grip you

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns who cares. He’s overrated and a poor representative of universalism. All he does is bitch about how he thinks he’s better than everyone else.

@@jacksonrelaxin3425 I agree to a degree. He’s a sassy b-word

It's maybe just your imagination

​@@lucienfournier5399I testify and confirm the same thing this man has said, also describes my experience. Im in the U.S.

Don't listen to Hart,he just lies for an unnecessary and improbable God

@@rationalsceptic7634 Are you an atheist?

bob polo NO!!

bob polo I'm a searching Agnostic ...I can tell jokes in Hebrew and Greek ha

@@rationalsceptic7634 What do you self-identify as?

Flying Monk This for sure.

Robert L Kuhn told me that he plans on interviewing Feser eventually.

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns We meet again, Meow. Hopefully it will happen soon! (I'm impatient too).

You mean the "christian" Feser who defends the death penalty and tells ridiculous conspiracy theories because his daddy-figure lost the election? There are enough of those traditionalists who conflate conservatism with christianity. Someone like Milbank would be much more interesting

@@anahata3478 So, you don't think that Feser is a Christian? Why? Just because you don't like his politics, which follow from classical Natural Law? You'd prefer a weird "Christian socialist" like Milbank instead?

🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) , German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

@@TheWorldTeacher idk why you waste a lot of time just to justify your nonsensical claims but ok xd

@@hakushokuhikari, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️

@@TheWorldTeacher why should I? You're using genetic fallacy on num. 4 which is so wrong.

@@hakushokuhikari, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄 Incidentally, it’s called “Spell-Check”. ✅ Look into it, SILLY Sinful Slave. 👨🏻‍🎓

That would be the essence of the Incarnation it seems to me.

Where is the evidence for this?

Yes, Hart vs Mullins would be awesome. But DBH is way too stubborn

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns DBH would shred Mullins

@@jacobkats3670 I agree. But it’ll never happen. DBH has become such an antisocial j*erk

electrolytes ? 🤪🤪😝😝

There are several differing theories of atonement, but even if we conceded the popular and Reformed penal substitution view (Jesus' death was really him taking on the punishment due to us), all we must do as universalists is expand the scope of the atonement. Those who believe in an eternal hell or annihilation will believe that Jesus' death was only effective in saving some, while those who believe in universal reconciliation will believe that Jesus' death was effective in saving *all*. Next, universalism is not at all contradicted by the great number of denominations that we have. Universalism doesn't mean that there won't be sects or denominations, it simply means everyone will be saved despite this fact. I would also like to point out that despite the large number of denominations, there are certain truths that the vast majority of Christians can agree upon, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant

In the universe everything is simultaneously universal and particular. Fruit is universal and grape is particular. Similarly in man universal and particular is fused. This fusion is made by Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is Universalparticular. Only through him by Spirit a man can be fused. I got this idea from Hegel. Spirit of Christianity and first 20 sections of Philosophy of Right.

COCer here, too. Inspiration to live better, closer to self, others and God, perhaps. That seems like good news. Away from any chains that bind us, deception, lies, sickness of spirit. Wherever that message is found, it is true.

Mary, I am a former believer. So I have no dog in the fight. But I think universal reconciliation still makes a LOT of sense. There is still a debt that needed to be paid; Christ's sacrifice could have done just that. Even if Christ's sacrifice was NOT necessary though, God could have still done it anyway as a mere demonstration of His love.

What does classical theism mean to you?

@@leonardu6094 God is the ultimate reality that sustains everything that exists. God both transcends reality and is immanent to reality. God is simple and has no parts. God is personal but not a person. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, loving, omniscient, etc - everything the Bible says about God. That’s just for starters and I am still learning.

@@gfujigo How can God be personal but not a person? That's incoherent. By personal, i take it to mean, amongst other things, to enter into a personal relationship with other People/persons?

@@leonardu6094 God is the source of all being and all of reality. God is not “a” anything. God sustains all of reality. It is within God that we exist and have our being. So there is no reality apart from God. A person is a created type of being or thing. Therefore God is not a person. God is personal in that he relates to us, loves us, created us, is aware of us, etc. The Bible says that God is love and that he loves us. Ergo he is not a person but is personal. We are used to seeing love, intentionality, etc in human persons. However, God is the source of reality and thus the source of what we see in persons.

@@gfujigo You just talked past my point. Nothing you typed here contradicts God's Person-hood at all. You have to be a person in order to be personal. Maybe you're confusing person-hood with humanness. All those things you listed (love, intentionality etc) are properties only a personal agent can have. Classical theism somehow misses this fundamental point.

An Orthodox whose Orthodoxy can’t be pinned down ... a Protestant who may well be an Apollinarian ... and a hardcore Thomist. I would pay to see that.

Xavier Galindo Why pay to hear three DELUDED religionists, when one can read “FISH” for free? 🤓

OMG! That would be awesome! 😁😁😁😁

@@TheWorldTeacher What's your delusion, pal?

@@lysanderofsparta3708, I am your lord, your god, and your MASTER. Therefore, whenever you send me a message or respond to a comment of mine, it is IMPERATIVE that you address me accordingly. E.g. “How are you, Master?” Is that understood, SLAVE?

I almost just prefer a mystical "it's a mystery that can't be explained; contradictions can be united in God" in the debate between classical theism and theistic personalism.

On the contrary, see Thomas Weinandy's excellent books _Does God Change?,_ and _Does God Suffer?,_ both of which extensively deal with that question.

Nope. That’s Christ’s human nature.

JP has literally said "who knows" and is thus agnostic at best and definitely reduces God to psychology. Jung called God a psychic fact and thus reducing God. He talking about God.

I have just begun to engage in Hart's position. Your summation seems to correspond with my initial impression; that is, I am not sure if his theism can produce a coherent ontology of the incarnate Christ without reducing Jesus to just an epistemological agent. On the other hand, I depict vagely an element in his philosophy which could give way to a pneumatology which can resolve the problem. Just musing, need to read his books. I found his article on Christ and Nothing in First Things quite interesting. Thanks. Happy New Year

Greg Brougham He is an Orthodox Christian, so he believes that Jesus of Nazareth is both 100% God and 100% Man.

J P, He does believe that, he just can’t reconcile it with his metaphysics. But I can tell this is all a WORK IN PROGRESS for DBH.

Xavier Galindo 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) , German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

@@TheWorldTeacher If what you say is true, then you need to relax and stop thinking about it.

What are you talking about? He's devout

@@darkknightsds he’s an arrogant prick. Apparently his writing is good but I wouldn’t know but I can’t listen to him speak for more than a few seconds. The doods in love with himself, and rightly so, who t f else would when he looks like that.

How do you define faith?

@@bobpolo2964 It is the hope and the certainty of an unsubstantiated and often unfalsifiable religious claim. A leap of trust, no matter how small, where a leap is not warranted. This is not the same as properly basic beliefs like belief in our own existence or our ability to reason.

@@daithiocinnsealach3173 Thanks for the definition. Now, how does the Bible define faith?

@@bobpolo2964 The substance of things hoped for. The certainty of things not seen.

@@daithiocinnsealach3173 Do you know the context of that passage?

Jotun Heim He is Christian. He believes God is personal too, he just isn't a theistic personalist like they are.

This goes into the existence of goodness as being. Classical Theism has no problem with all these things. For example, the intellect of a thing is classically defined as a the ability to hold patterns without embodying them (like how we can possess triangularity in our mind without being triangles). God would be able to hold all of the universe's patterns in himself -- we can know this because we have to hold to the notion of the Principal of Proportional Causality -- and thus he has an intellect. The book _Five Proofs for the Existence of God_ by Edward Feser addresses all these aspects of God, and even proves God's existence through the necessity of an intellect outside ourselves. Give it a read. After years of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, I'm really loving Classical Theism, I think it explains everything much better.

The term “person” used when thinking about God is not talking about human people, it’s talking about God’s being as a personal one. Think about what “person means,” Watch the video

DBH does not hold St. Gregory Palamas in high regard. DBH does not believe/accept the Parlamite distinctions. DBH considers the 5th Ecumenical Council to have been false. DBH is not really an Orthodox Theologian.

Where did you get the idea that Keith Ward is a Classical Theist? In this clip, taken from an interview he participated in {kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hMuefcmB2rnLd58.html}, he argues that it's metaphysics is based upon anti-Christian philosophy. He also tries to argue that the idea of God not changing is absurd, based upon scripture, the incarnation, and how the Universe itself changes. To clarify, I think he is mistaken on multiple fronts. What's most clear in my mind, is that the Universe changing doesn't so much as imply or suggest that God changes. Keith Ward probably thinks this is the case due to the *particular type* of Idealism he affirms, which is different from the Neo-Platonism Hart promotes and defends in "The Experience of God." Speaking of which, the idea Classical Theism is based upon anti-Christian philosophy is just false. Most of the early Church Fathers and Apostles were Neo-Platonists, and that is actually how they defended Christian Monotheism against the Paganism of that time. On his point about the incarnation, I completely sympathize with how one might think it entails that God changes, because Jesus undergoes several different types of changes, as he takes on human flesh, being hungry or thirsty, rejoicing and weeping, aging, etc. What some people might propose is that Christ's human nature changes, while Christ's divine nature does not change.

I just realized the clip I gave does not show all of Ward's concerns. Here is the full interview with timestamps. 24:00 is where it gets interesting. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i7iIhL1z28zdfHU.html

I doubt DBH would be very keen on that seeing as he has IIRC called Peterson's work second rate scholarship, and Peterson is a Jungian, which isn't something Dr.Hart is fond of either.

I don’t like DBH (ironic I’m here I know) or JP - but I totally agree that would be a waste of DBH’s time :-P If JP moved beyond Carl Jung, maybe

@@Falcon988 I'm not really sure DBH can compete with Jung. Jung is on another level, Jung's brilliance is astonishing. DBH says all the same things that Jung was saying, I don't see anything dramatically new. I see many parallels. DBH just uses more theological and philosophical jargon. I understand why some theologians may not like Jung. But Jung's psychology isn't reductionistic, Freud was the reductionist. Jung is anti reductionistic.

@@johncart07 You must surely understand that psychology moved on from Jung a very long time ago.aybe you should take the advise your own tag fella.

@@emmashalliker6862 Jung created a whole field of study, you can get degrees in Jungian psychology. You can get a M.A./Ph.D. Jungian Psychology and Archetypal Studies. So the notion that psychology itself just moved on from Jung is completely false. Go to the Jungian institutes in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston and other various locations worldwide and tell them that. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

God is personal because he loves, he cares, he knows, he wills, etc., but he is immutable (can't change) and impassible (can't suffer or be moved by passion/emotion). He never literally gets mad at us, or jealous of fake gods, etc., etc., we're just trying to describe his relationship with us in ways that are relatable and understandable. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." ~Isaiah 55:9

@@JP-sd7di Hahaha, such hogwash.

@@cedrickroy3667 *tips fedora* I'm glad you had something to add to the conversation. Keep up the good work.

@@JP-sd7di It was my absolute pleasure, you deluded layman. Xo

@@cedrickroy3667 Hahaha be careful not to cut yourself with that edge, buddy. Do you care to explain how/why I'm delusional? or is that expecting too much?

If you really are concerned with ultimate truth analyse your presuppositions, the best place to start.

This makes more sense, but changing the fact that the soul is the transpersonal while the essence of God is suprapersonal, transcending the duality of the personal and the impersonal, thus encompassing all dimensions of existence.

For you: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ftiEa9Skna6rgqM.html

I think your confusing Closer to Truth with a Christopher Hitchens post. This kind of fallacy of false analogy, intellectual dishonesty and rhetoric gets limited respect and acknowledgement here. Just trying to help you out and direct you towards your cult of choice. ❤️

Lol

“The ground of all being” “Has nothing to do with the barbaric religious practices of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc” Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral and can only describe what “is” not what “ought” to be. Equally, we could just as easily ask what does “science and rationalism” have to with the barbaric practices of Stalin’s atheism and Hitlers eugenics and hatred of the Abrahamic faiths. No offence intended but isn’t this exactly the whole point of trying to define the logical necessity of (a ground of all being, love, goodness, morals and ethics). The argument that religious thought is nothing more than “barbaric” is founded on misleading information and often intellectually dishonest straw man arguments. It’s no different to the belief that all atheists are dangerous to society because Stalin’s atheistic anti religious policies in Russia led to the deaths of 50 million men, women and children and Hitlers persecution of the church and the Jews also led to millions of deaths. The belief in the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, family, self sacrifice, bravery, meaning and purpose, morals, ethics and values, that is mind and consciousness is clearly more than just a “religious barbaric practice”. Similarly, science and rationalism is not supposed to be cold arrogant and uncaring but an effective tool for measuring and improving the qualitative subjective experience of reality by improving the human condition through breakthroughs in medicine etc, Yung the father of analytical psychology highlights the fact that what we all share is an hierarchy of values wether we are atheists, theists, deists or agnostics. The fact is that what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values serves the function of God for you. The fathers of science and rationalism Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton were theists. The father of quantum mechanics Richard Feynman was an atheist but Einstein and Anthony Flew rejected atheism for a deistic God/the God of Spinoza. It may be a God that you don’t believe in or a God that you can’t name but it is irrelevant. Because the fact is that what ever you think about this concept. existent, ground of all being/God at the the top of your hierarchy of values has very little impact on how your “God” is acting in you. We are all driven by meaning, bio logus, explanation, or what ever term you prefer, that is something to sustain us through loss, bereavement, disappointment, that is someone or something to sustain us through something that we will all face at some point in our lives, tragedy. So why not build bridges and show respect, understanding, compassion and empathy instead of ignorance and intolerance especially during a pandemic. Life is sacred to everyone. ❤️

Why would the image of something perfect have to be perfect? Do you know what 'created in the image of' entails?

That sentence suggests you think God is made in the image of us...

@@sambyassee9132 It goes both ways doesn't it. "We're made in the image of God" so it follows that God would be like us".

@@ingenuity168 keep in mind the understanding that God is the entirety of goodness, love, perfection , wisdom etc, and that we were made to share in and reflect that reality of God. So everything that is good about us is a small reflection of who God is. Everything bad and imperfect about us, then, is a result of our turning away from God.. pretty intuitively logical

@@sambyassee9132 Whatever God is, it's not perfect. We're a perfect reflection of that.

Mathematical proof?

Amos Wollen infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/

@@rationalsceptic7634 That's a bizarre reply. Neither of your links expound or even refer to mathematical proofs at all. The first is shallow refutation of a thought experiment; the second a theist's affirmation of the limits of philosophical argument.

Erich Groat We have no evidence God exists,moreover,the Majority of Ancient Historians,Scientists and Philosophers,have evidence the Bible is not a reliable source of History! We have plenty of evidence of forgery and historisation,lying and redaction to fit a narrative! The Gospels have a mythic form and content only found in Fiction..so this Apologist needs to check his sources before citing God,for how can an immaterial,infinite and acausal Deity create an material, finite and causal one?? The Multiverse might be eternal as our Universe might be...so why God..? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m92PlrGAs87Me30.html When an Apologist finds,God,I will the first to applaud their Nobel Prize

@@rationalsceptic7634 "We" have plenty of evidence that God exists, but it's not much worth discussing if you consider the links you provided to be "mathematical proofs" that he doesn't.

👶 🧠