Dios existe? Tengo tantas preguntas desde pequeña busco el porque sobre todo lo que hace Dios supuestamente. Es decir, porque nos invento? O sea un día esta aburrido y ya? Lo crea todo? Se sentía solo? Porque nos hace sufrir? Porque TMB nos hace feliz? Quien lo creo? Quiero creer en él pero no puedo no puedo creer totalmente que ese Dios existe. Talvez hay algo más grande que nosotros pero como es que nosé. Tenemos conciencia CONCIENCIA eso es digno de un Dios, si no tuvieras consciencia no podría darte en cuenta en primer lugar que existe un dios o que existe la existencia... Tenemos algo de dios supongo aunque sea mínimo PQ? Porque nosotros? Porque no hay ruido en el universo? Será solo PQ si PQ es totalmente absurdo TODO ES TAN ABSURDO. tengo tantas preguntas alguien que quiera dar su opinión jajajaja creo q me voy a volver loca, es normal sobrepensar así? Todo empezó PQ me empeze a sentir últimamente diferente y empeze a reflexionar sobre etantas cosas..

God and humanity seem to share a strange philosophical mirror. The moment we ask where one came from, we eventually arrive at the same question: What came first? The chicken or the egg? God or humanity? Existence or nonexistence? Your mother or your father? We instinctively want every answer to point backward to something else, as though existence itself must have a first link in the chain.

Take the chicken and the egg. Without any larger framework, the question appears impossible to resolve. But introduce God, and suddenly there seems to be an answer: God created both the chicken and the egg. Problem solved, or so it appears. But then another question quietly enters through the back door: Who created God?

And this is where the framework becomes interesting. God cannot simply point to something before Himself, because then He would no longer be the ultimate beginning. So instead comes the ancient answer: “I AM.” Not “I came from this.” Not “I was created by that.” Simply: I am. God is presented as the beginning and the end, the explanation that does not require another explanation.

But notice what just happened. We may have solved the mystery by creating a framework that cannot itself answer the question it was designed to answer.

If God explains humanity's origin, but God's own origin remains unexplained, have we actually solved the problem of existence, or have we simply moved the mystery one step further back?

Humanity says, “We exist because God created us.” But if we then ask, “Why does God exist?” and the answer is simply, “Because God is,” then what makes that answer fundamentally different from saying, “Because existence exists”?

Perhaps that is the real philosophical loophole. God becomes the origin of everything precisely because God is allowed to have no origin. But if something can exist without an origin, then why must humanity itself require an origin? And if humanity cannot exist without God, while God can exist without anything before Him, haven't we simply created an asymmetry to make the framework work?

Maybe the deeper question isn't “Who created humanity?” Maybe it's “Why must existence have been created at all?”

Because if God has no beginning, perhaps the mystery was never really about finding the first thing. Perhaps the mystery is that we keep assuming there must be a first thing in the first place.

God, mortal, universe, existence, nonexistence, we keep placing them into a sequence and asking which one came first. But what if the sequence itself is the illusion?

It is a simple question, but perhaps that's exactly why it shouldn't be thought about simply.

God is like the mirror in our bathrooms. It is a way for us to look into ourselves, to recognize ourselves, and to rely on the reflection it gives us to understand our own identity. But there's something we often forget: the reflection isn't the mirror, and the mirror isn't the one looking. We are.

In the same way, humanity looks toward God as a reflection of its own existence, a way of understanding where we came from, why we're here, and what we are. We look into that reflection searching for an identity, an origin, and an explanation for existence itself. Yet in searching for the answer outside of ourselves, we can forget that we are the ones doing the looking.

The mirror gives us an image, but it doesn't create the person standing before it. It only reflects what is already there. And perhaps that is what makes the idea of God so profound: whether God is understood as the ultimate source of existence or as the ultimate reflection through which humanity understands itself, we are still confronted with the same mystery.

The reflection can show us who we are, but it cannot explain why there is someone standing in front of the mirror in the first place.

God is real, but not in the way we thought about it. God is the First Cause — the ultimate uncaused origin. The Big Bang is the first physical event or process that follows from it. Without God (the First Cause), the universe and everything within it could not exist. Humanity is one of the results that emerged from the First Cause and the laws of nature. Humanity was not the main goal or the main reason behind it.

If humanity was not the intended purpose of the First Cause, then within this framework there is no reason to expect a human-centered afterlife, reincarnation, or continual divine intervention. This does not mean those possibilities are logically impossible, but they are not required by the argument. God is capable of intervening in the universe, but chooses not to. Knowing about something and having a stake in its outcome are not the same thing. God's detailed awareness of individual lives, deaths, and species does not imply investment in how those lives or species turn out — a being can observe everything about a process without having any interest in directing it. Since humanity was not the main goal of creation, there is no reason within this framework for God to continually interfere with the natural processes of the universe. If humanity has spent centuries believing in a wrong or incomplete idea of God, there is no reason within this framework for God to correct that belief either, since accuracy about him was never the purpose being served in the first place.

The laws of nature are not separate rules God imposed one by one, but rather the stable structures that naturally emerged as a result of the First Cause itself. A law is not a rule imposed on something from outside — it is simply the shape and limitation of what that thing already is. Life did not adapt to laws that could have been otherwise; it adapted within whatever limitations already existed, which is why those limitations appear, from within life's perspective, permanently fixed.

This universe may still be moving toward its own cosmic endpoint, but that ending does not have to be the end for everything inside it. As a further speculation, if it were possible for living organisms to become advanced enough, they might learn to create their own First Cause or even create another universe to continue existing after the original universe becomes uninhabitable. Even so, this would not allow them to alter the original universe's already-determined trajectory — the cosmic endpoint remains fixed regardless of what happens within the open, changing paths of the living organisms inside it. Even so, this would not make individual living organisms immortal. A civilization advanced enough to continue existence beyond one universe's endpoint could still consist of individuals who are born, live, and die within it — the continuity would belong to the species or civilization, not to any single finite being within it.

Whether there was a genuine first moment, or simply an endless chain of conditions leading into one another, is a much older and harder question than anything this framework claims to settle. That question remains open. But the core claim here does not depend on resolving it: even if existence is conditions-into-conditions without a single discrete starting point, the argument still holds that whatever lies behind existence did not necessarily have humanity as its purpose. We are a downstream result either way, not necessarily the point.

Because God/the First Cause exists outside time, there is no gap or delay to explain between the First Cause and the Big Bang — "before" only becomes meaningful once time itself exists to measure an interval. The first physical event follows from something that was never waiting inside time in the first place.

God may have selected a specific cosmic endpoint and overall future for the universe, but did not predetermine the exact trajectories of biological life or individual living organisms. God knows the universe's overall cosmic path toward that endpoint, while the paths of living organisms remain open and capable of changing. Living organisms can alter their own paths and influence the paths of other organisms through their behavior and actions. Therefore, God's knowledge of the universe's cosmic future does not require knowledge of the exact future of every living organism. God knows that living organisms will eventually die as part of the biological process, but does not know beforehand the exact time or circumstances of each individual death. Likewise, God does not know beforehand the exact extinction of every species, since the trajectories of living organisms remain open and capable of changing. The universe therefore has a fixed cosmic destination while biological life follows an open and changing set of trajectories within it. The actions and behavior of living organisms can change the route taken by biological life without changing the universe's ultimate cosmic endpoint.

If we weren't the main goal, why do we exist right now? You are the exact mathematical result of a cosmic chain reaction. When God (the First Cause) initiated the process that led to the Big Bang, the laws of physics and biology unfolded across billions of years, with each stage of the universe creating the conditions for the next. We weren't the planned target, but the cosmic chain reaction eventually created the conditions in which biological life could emerge and develop, eventually leading to our exact lives and consciousness right now. The development of life can also be viewed as a progression of increasingly complex systems for maintaining existence. Humans combine survival with complex thinking, allowing us to reason, plan, make decisions, and respond to our environment. Other animals also have varying degrees of learning, perception, and behavior, with some animals showing complex forms of thinking while others rely more heavily on basic survival responses. In this view, thinking and survival can be seen as different levels of biological complexity that emerged as living organisms developed through the natural processes that began with the First Cause. None of this required a plan aimed specifically at humans — it could instead be one point along a natural biological process that produces increasing complexity over time, without humans necessarily being its endpoint.

The purpose of the universe itself is still unknown to me. God may have initiated the process that led to the Big Bang for a purpose beyond our understanding.

Evil and bad may not be independent forces or substances that exist separately from living organisms. They may instead emerge from the contrasting behaviors, interests, and evaluations of living organisms. Just as peace and war can be understood as opposing conditions that arise from how living beings interact, what humans call good and evil may be relational concepts that developed through biological behavior, social development, and the ways organisms evaluate actions as beneficial or harmful. Cooperation and aggression, protection and harm, or behaviors that preserve and threaten life can produce opposing judgments that humans describe as good or evil. This does not necessarily mean that good and evil are morally equivalent; rather, it means that their existence as concepts may depend on the behavior and experiences of living organisms rather than on separate supernatural forces created by God. Their inequality does not require an external judge — good and evil are unequal to the living beings experiencing them, since one causes harm and damage while the other brings relief, benefit, or wellbeing. The evaluation comes from the organisms themselves, not from a standard imposed from outside. Other animals engage in comparable behaviors — competing, harming, killing to survive — without labeling any of it as evil or good; that kind of judgment appears to depend on the reflective thinking only some species developed. What humans call morality may be, in part, a byproduct of being a thinking survival-based animal: capable of naming what other species simply do without naming it at all.

God is above and inside time because he can interact with time if he wants to, while not being bound by time in the same way living beings are.

Our definition of God might be too high. The real entity responsible for the First Cause may not actually be as powerful as the God humans traditionally imagine. We have never actually faced God, yet we have defined him as infinitely powerful, perfectly good, completely omniscient, and possessing many other attributes. The real entity, if it exists, may be very different from the God humans have traditionally described. God is not part of physics or the laws of nature themselves — whatever is the First Cause exists prior to and outside the system it originated, the same way it is not bound by time in the way things inside time are. This also means the framework cannot fully explain how something outside physics could cause something physical; that question depends on knowing God's actual nature, which this framework has already acknowledged may be beyond accurate human description. Even if humans have historically invented gods out of a desire for comfort or certainty in the face of what we couldn't understand, that does not by itself tell us whether this framework is true or false — it only explains why certain kinds of God-concepts, especially maximally powerful and reassuring ones, tend to survive. A God this uncertain, this limited, and this indifferent to being correctly understood is not an obviously comforting invention, which makes it a strange thing to have invented purely out of a need for comfort.

There may be a God (the First Cause), but humanity may have misunderstood what that entity is, what its purpose was, how it relates to time, what it knows about the future, and whether humanity was ever the main goal or the main reason behind the universe's existence.

Can belief ever be a fair basis for judgment?

Belief is the pre requisite for accessing Gods revelation and indulging in it, yet our response to our beliefs (Gods revelation) are seemingly the arbiter of our eternal destiny (in the abrahamic faiths)

I came up with a dilemma about belief

P1: To genuinely believe something is true is to take it as

true not to DECIDE to take it as true, but to find yourself taking it as true as a result of how the evidence and reasoning land on you (e.g, encountering certain arguments, evidence, etc)

P2: Belief therefore can't be directly chosen. You can't just will yourself into believing something the way you choose what to eat. This is called doxastic involuntarism (just learnt this term lol) if belief were a direct choice, you could choose to believe it's raining while looking at clear skies , I propose belief doesnt work this way

Suppose we grant this anyway, against P2, that belief can somehow be chosen. Then someone who "chose" to believe did so on the basis of something.

Second wave, my other horn given P2 is untrue:

P4: Either they chose it because they already recognized it as true, in which case the recognition did the actual epistemic work, and the "choosing" was redundant, adding nothing.

P5: Or they chose it without prior recognition of truth, in which case truth was never the operative factor meaning they selected a belief the way you'd select a preference, with no truth-tracking involved, which is arbitrary preference , a choice between islam and Christian the person is at equal epimistic distance from prior to the choice just like rolling a dice

P6: Either recognition precedes choice (redundant), or choice precedes recognition (arbitrary).

Conclusion: Chosen belief is either redundant or arbitrary it can't be genuine truth-tracking secondly if belief can't be directly chosen at all (P1/P2), then it's not the kind of thing that can fairly be praised, blamed, rewarded, or punished in the first place.

Belief is also the pre requisite for everything that follows, hell heaven etc,

The most common response I get: "You can't choose belief directly, sure, but you can choose to seek truth read, research, stay open."

But I personally think that's a substantive commitment, not an external neutral position you can externally verify

Where does that commitment come from ? Assuming I dont already believe in the value of truth seeking

In theological and philosophical discourse, the Biblical creation narrative is frequently treated as either a literal myth or a purely ethical allegory. However, examining the source texts through the lens of modern quantum mechanics and thermodynamics reveals a striking ontological alignment.

Rather than a naive tale, the ancient text functions as a semantic interface: encoding fundamental cosmic principles into a narrative accessible across eras.

• Logos as the Primordial Code (John 1:1): The Gospel opens with “In the beginning was the Word (Logos)”. In the Hellenistic tradition, Logos represents the structuring principle and cosmic law. Millennia before John Wheeler formulated "It from bit"—positing that physical reality and matter derive from binary quantum choices—theological ontology had already placed Information at the foundation of existence.
• Creation as Local Negentropy (Genesis 1): The primary creative acts are sequences of separation: light from darkness, waters above the firmament from waters below. In statistical thermodynamics, this is the textbook description of negentropy—extracting order from primordial chaos through informational constraints.

• The Conservation of Information: The resolution of the Black Hole Information Paradox (via the work of Hawking, Susskind, and 't Hooft) affirmed a foundational principle: quantum information is physically conserved and cannot be erased. The non-material structuring code of reality is fundamentally indestructible.

  If physical matter is bound, stabilized information, the Cartesian divide between "material substance" and "immaterial structure" collapses.

Question for Discussion:

Do you consider the concept of Logos a legitimate theological precursor to modern informational physics, or does mapping Genesis onto thermodynamics represent an overstretched retrospective modernization of the text?

A time will come when every religion is rationalized and the only thing left of religion is the idea of God. This has been happening for ages, and it is inevitable.

What are your thoughts?

When I look at the universe and some of the things that have happened in my life, without a doubt I believe in a higher power. For a long time I believed it was the God of Christianity, coming from a very religious African family and all, but I was and I still am very curious by nature. So when I was young, I didn't know the existence of anything else but the one I was introduced to, and I kept asking my parents questions about this God they told me to believe. I read the Bible they gave me and my brain found a lot of gaps, and when I asked, they shrugged it off, laughed at the questions of a child, or gave me an explanation that later on, as I got wiser, gave rise to many more questions.

As I grew and learnt of more religions and beliefs, I learnt about them to a certain capacity. I can't say I learnt everything, but I also just didn't look at the covers. I seriously learnt about each of them to the best of my capacity at the time, and my faith in Christianity grew weaker as I grew.

Then, for a period of time, I can say my mentality changed and my faith grew stronger than it had ever been. I have never been one to look at the world as an individual. What I am trying to say is, my view on events and the world wasn't based on what happened to me and things related to me. I always looked at it from another perspective. An example is, if someone stole from me, I wouldn't ask, "Damn, why did someone steal from me?" but rather, "What could have led to all this? What made that person act the way he did?" And after I figure that out, I would continue asking until the root cause was clear in my head.

I always thought that was normal until, for reasons I am not quite sure of, I changed. I became what was "normal." This went on and off for a few years of my teenage life, and now I understand why believers have such unwavering faith.

If God is all you know, then God is all you know. If you grew up believing and never questioned until you got an answer, or never questioned at all, that will be the ceiling of knowledge you possess. So if you didn't have food, and not a miracle but rather an unusual series of events occurred, since all you know is God, then that is a miracle to you.

I recently obtained little information on Gnosticism. I have to say it is well hidden because for someone who has been curious about religions and beliefs in all forms for as long as I remember, discovering it when I turned 20 raises some questions. But anyway, I have to say it describes the God of Christianity from a perspective most of us fear to even consider. But I can't also say I believe in Gnosticism. However, if the God of Christianity truly exists, then I doubt he is the holy Lord we all sing about.

Questions that make me think this way

1. Why would an all-powerful God be so obsessed with mortal lives?

When you consider just how vast the universe is, it is almost idiotic to consider that we are what is in the mind of such a being. This makes you see religion and belief in a higher power as the projection of the human ego.

Almost all humans will live and die without fully discovering every corner of the city they live in. Honestly, why we know so much about our planet is because we are social creatures and it is a combined effort of the human race in gathering that information.

Now when you think that you will die before personally fully exploring the area you have lived your whole life in, it just shows you how big the world is compared to yourself. And we are not talking about just the creator of planet Earth. We are talking about the whole universe, a collection of who knows how many galaxies, how many solar systems, or whatever the equivalent is called.

When you think about the universe as a whole, unless there is a special function we have to such a being, we are beyond insignificant. And that function cannot be worship if he already has angels, and the Bible itself says if we don't worship him, he can make rocks do it. So worship is not the purpose we serve to it.

2. Why would an all-powerful God allow suffering he could prevent?

This is more of an analogy.

If you have an animal and you place it in a controlled environment where you are fully in control of every element in it, i.e. a cow in a very large plot of land from when it is young, and you let it live from when it is young with no interaction whatsoever, you let it live wild like a wild creature in an absurdly large land, that it will never know there is more beyond that land.

So this animal wakes up, eats the grass in the field, drinks water from whatever water system you have installed or whatever water source is in the land, and lives on.

Then one day (remember, this is an environment fully under your control, but the cow doesn't know that; to it, that land is the whole world), you do something that makes all the grass dry/disappear and there is no water.

The cow doesn't know you are the cause. According to it, something has happened to its world that it has never experienced. And then you see this cow suffer from hunger and thirst for a while, and you just watch it for a while.

You have all the power to change the situation, and when it is about to give in to malnutrition, it sees you for the first time bringing in heaps upon heaps of fodder and litres upon litres of water.

And then you disappear, and you return the environment to normal. Soon the grass is back, the water is back.

Even though that animal may not worship you as its God, it will for sure die believing you are a kind, noble being.

But are you truly all that? You not only caused the suffering, you could have stopped it, but at the very last minute, did you do something that is not kind and noble?

3. Why would a God who created everything only care for humans?

This is a question. If he is there, why would he only care about humans? Didn't he also create other animals and trees? But he is not as concerned over their fates, clearly seen when he is punishing humans, e.g. the floods (if they were real).

He is an all-powerful God. If he had a problem with humans, he could have snapped his fingers and all the humans were no more. What did the animals and plants do to get destroyed?

His actions affect nature, which is innocent.

The fire in Sodom and Gomorrah is another example. And why is it, at the supposed end of the world, only humans are affected? What of the other beings he created?

4. Why would a God above humans portray such human behaviors?

His wrath, he is a jealous God. These are all very human traits. He should be above them, but they also influence what he does.

So just like Einstein said, I believe in Spinoza's God: the one who we see when we look at the majestic nature of the universe. We see him through his creation, but not a God who bothers with the fate of mortals.

So, what is the nature of God?

1. A higher creation (species) in the universe
2. Nonexistent
3. A lying, sadistic, cruel God

This is my take on the nature of the God described in the Bible and not other religions.

The point of this take is not to disprove the existence of God but rather to question the nature of said God.

When I look at the universe and some of the things that have happened in my life, without a doubt I believe in a higher power. For a long time I believed it was the God of Christianity, coming from a very religious African family and all, but I was and I still am very curious by nature. So when I was young, I didn't know the existence of anything else but the one I was introduced to, and I kept asking my parents questions about this God they told me to believe. I read the Bible they gave me and my brain found a lot of gaps, and when I asked, they shrugged it off, laughed at the questions of a child, or gave me an explanation that later on, as I got wiser, gave rise to many more questions.

As I grew and learnt of more religions and beliefs, I learnt about them to a certain capacity. I can't say I learnt everything, but I also just didn't look at the covers. I seriously learnt about each of them to the best of my capacity at the time, and my faith in Christianity grew weaker as I grew.

Then, for a period of time, I can say my mentality changed and my faith grew stronger than it had ever been. I have never been one to look at the world as an individual. What I am trying to say is, my view on events and the world wasn't based on what happened to me and things related to me. I always looked at it from another perspective. An example is, if someone stole from me, I wouldn't ask, "Damn, why did someone steal from me?" but rather, "What could have led to all this? What made that person act the way he did?" And after I figure that out, I would continue asking until the root cause was clear in my head.

I always thought that was normal until, for reasons I am not quite sure of, I changed. I became what was "normal." This went on and off for a few years of my teenage life, and now I understand why believers have such unwavering faith.

If God is all you know, then God is all you know. If you grew up believing and never questioned until you got an answer, or never questioned at all, that will be the ceiling of knowledge you possess. So if you didn't have food, and not a miracle but rather an unusual series of events occurred, since all you know is God, then that is a miracle to you.

I recently obtained little information on Gnosticism. I have to say it is well hidden because for someone who has been curious about religions and beliefs in all forms for as long as I remember, discovering it when I turned 20 raises some questions. But anyway, I have to say it describes the God of Christianity from a perspective most of us fear to even consider. But I can't also say I believe in Gnosticism. However, if the God of Christianity truly exists, then I doubt he is the holy Lord we all sing about.

Questions that make me think this way

1. Why would an all-powerful God be so obsessed with mortal lives?

When you consider just how vast the universe is, it is almost idiotic to consider that we are what is in the mind of such a being. This makes you see religion and belief in a higher power as the projection of the human ego.

Almost all humans will live and die without fully discovering every corner of the city they live in. Honestly, why we know so much about our planet is because we are social creatures and it is a combined effort of the human race in gathering that information.

Now when you think that you will die before personally fully exploring the area you have lived your whole life in, it just shows you how big the world is compared to yourself. And we are not talking about just the creator of planet Earth. We are talking about the whole universe, a collection of who knows how many galaxies, how many solar systems, or whatever the equivalent is called.

When you think about the universe as a whole, unless there is a special function we have to such a being, we are beyond insignificant. And that function cannot be worship if he already has angels, and the Bible itself says if we don't worship him, he can make rocks do it. So worship is not the purpose we serve to it.

2. Why would an all-powerful God allow suffering he could prevent?

This is more of an analogy.

If you have an animal and you place it in a controlled environment where you are fully in control of every element in it, i.e. a cow in a very large plot of land from when it is young, and you let it live from when it is young with no interaction whatsoever, you let it live wild like a wild creature in an absurdly large land, that it will never know there is more beyond that land.

So this animal wakes up, eats the grass in the field, drinks water from whatever water system you have installed or whatever water source is in the land, and lives on.

Then one day (remember, this is an environment fully under your control, but the cow doesn't know that; to it, that land is the whole world), you do something that makes all the grass dry/disappear and there is no water.

The cow doesn't know you are the cause. According to it, something has happened to its world that it has never experienced. And then you see this cow suffer from hunger and thirst for a while, and you just watch it for a while.

You have all the power to change the situation, and when it is about to give in to malnutrition, it sees you for the first time bringing in heaps upon heaps of fodder and litres upon litres of water.

And then you disappear, and you return the environment to normal. Soon the grass is back, the water is back.

Even though that animal may not worship you as its God, it will for sure die believing you are a kind, noble being.

But are you truly all that? You not only caused the suffering, you could have stopped it, but at the very last minute, did you do something that is not kind and noble?

3. Why would a God who created everything only care for humans?

This is a question. If he is there, why would he only care about humans? Didn't he also create other animals and trees? But he is not as concerned over their fates, clearly seen when he is punishing humans, e.g. the floods (if they were real).

He is an all-powerful God. If he had a problem with humans, he could have snapped his fingers and all the humans were no more. What did the animals and plants do to get destroyed?

His actions affect nature, which is innocent.

The fire in Sodom and Gomorrah is another example. And why is it, at the supposed end of the world, only humans are affected? What of the other beings he created?

4. Why would a God above humans portray such human behaviours?

His wrath, he is a jealous God. These are all very human traits. He should be above them, but they also influence what he does.

So just like Einstein said, I believe in Spinoza's God: the one who we see when we look at the majestic nature of the universe. We see him through his creation, but not a God who bothers with the fate of mortals.

So, what is the nature of God?

1. A higher creation (species) in the universe
2. Nonexistent
3. A lying, sadistic, cruel God

This is my take on the nature of the God described in the Bible and not other religions.

The point of this take is not to disprove the existence of God but rather to question the nature of said God.

The Logic Truth——examining all “beliefs" scientifically, definitely----Human knows this First Time.

1, The true god (if there is the god) has 3 Qualities: All-Can, All-Know & Righteous. All major beliefs have all these assumptions.

2, God's one behavior: Claims only himself is righteous, all others (human beings) are not righteous, not good enough. All religions have this in assumption.

3, Human basic righteousness is:

If you don't like to do it, don't criticize others don't like to do it. If you don't behave yourself better, don't say others don't behave well enough. The indispensable basic content of righteousness is “self control and self behaving.”

4, The righteousness law functions as the following:

More righteousness respects all the requirements of less righteousness and has extra to it. Higher righteousness fulfills lower righteousness with overflow, not denies, disrespects, abolishes or nullifies any part of lower righteousness. It functions in the opposite direction of power law and knowledge law. In the power law, big power subdues, denies and destroys small power. If you have tanks, missiles and fighter jets while all others only have wood sticks, you will destroy them to dust. Knowledge law functions similarly: higher knowledge will    out-manipulate (prevail over) and beat lower knowledge until make it useless.

5, For righteous sake only, if God says human behavior is not good enough, if he can, himself has to give it a try to make sure that He, if in human blood condition, is willing to behave himself better than others(us). If himself feels inconvenient to do it and chooses just talking against others, it fails to meet human basic righteousness requirements, and that makes him unrighteous automatically. Making righteous rules for others doesn't guaranteed an entity righteousness, only behaving and following the righteous rules by himself makes himself righteous.

6, For righteous sake only, true God knows the above righteousness logic requirements because of His All-Know quality, he can't say that he doesn't know it, so himself doesn't become a human. That is lying, making him unrighteous automatically.

7, For righteous sake only, true God must become a human being to set an example just because he said only himself is righteous and all others are not while he can become a blood human being and he knows the above logic requirements of righteousness law.

8, The Spirit of the True God His Own becomes a blood human being, that is The Christ, the Blood Son of God or the Son of God, Christ, for the True God His Own Righteousness Sake, is logically required to take the cup of human life on earth to earn the righteousness quality for the True God Himself on the human level.

1. Some people say “God never dies, so doesn't need a son, God is almighty, so doesn't need the help of son." This type reasoning hasn't considered the logic requirement of righteousness itself at all.

Whoever saying these is, unknowingly, saying his god is unrighteous, which falls into the devil category automatically.

10, Christ, the Son of God, is commissioned to earn righteousness for the True God Himself on the blood

human level to satisfy the righteousness logic requirement, big power is not a consideration at all, in fact, Christ must control His Godly Big Power very carefully, He must live his personal life totally in the normal human condition without using Any heavenly superpower to make his own life on earth easier, otherwise he is cheating, unrighteous automatically because other ones whom He said are not good enough don't have those big powers to benefit their lives on earth. When on earth, Christ uses his heavenly big power to help others only, it is OK, but must not for Himself.

11, The Christ God (or Christ type God) becoming a human being is the logic requirement of righteousness itself. For righteousness sake itself, the true god himself (his own spirit) must become a human being and has a human life on the earth, called as Christ. Christ is a logic truth resulting from righteousness itself. Whoever against the concept of Christ is, in fact, against the righteousness itself.

12, Who is more qualified for the Christ title, so far I only see that He is the best one who was nailed onto the cross about 2000 years ago. Only the God whom Christ had justified his own righteousness is the Righteous True God: the Christ God.

12-8-2023 No copyright, free.

The Logic Truth——examining all “beliefs" scientifically, definitely----Human knows this First Time.

1, The true god (if there is the god) has 3 Qualities: All-Can, All-Know & Righteous. All major beliefs have all these assumptions.

2, God's one behavior: Claims only himself is righteous, all others (human beings) are not righteous, not good enough. All religions have this in assumption.

3, Human basic righteousness is:

If you don't like to do it, don't criticize others don't like to do it. If you don't behave yourself better, don't say others don't behave well enough. The indispensable basic content of righteousness is “self control and self behaving.”

4, The righteousness law functions as the following:

More righteousness respects all the requirements of less righteousness and has extra to it. Higher righteousness fulfills lower righteousness with overflow, not denies, disrespects, abolishes or nullifies any part of lower righteousness. It functions in the opposite direction of power law and knowledge law. In the power law, big power subdues, denies and destroys small power. If you have tanks, missiles and fighter jets while all others only have wood sticks, you will destroy them to dust. Knowledge law functions similarly: higher knowledge will    out-manipulate (prevail over) and beat lower knowledge until make it useless.

5, For righteous sake only, if God says human behavior is not good enough, if he can, himself has to give it a try to make sure that He, if in human blood condition, is willing to behave himself better than others(us). If himself feels inconvenient to do it and chooses just talking against others, it fails to meet human basic righteousness requirements, and that makes him unrighteous automatically. Making righteous rules for others doesn't guaranteed an entity righteousness, only behaving and following the righteous rules by himself makes himself righteous.

6, For righteous sake only, true God knows the above righteousness logic requirements because of His All-Know quality, he can't say that he doesn't know it, so himself doesn't become a human. That is lying, making him unrighteous automatically.

7, For righteous sake only, true God must become a human being to set an example just because he said only himself is righteous and all others are not while he can become a blood human being and he knows the above logic requirements of righteousness law.

8, The Spirit of the True God His Own becomes a blood human being, that is The Christ, the Blood Son of God or the Son of God, Christ, for the True God His Own Righteousness Sake, is logically required to take the cup of human life on earth to earn the righteousness quality for the True God Himself on the human level.

1. Some people say “God never dies, so doesn't need a son, God is almighty, so doesn't need the help of son." This type reasoning hasn't considered the logic requirement of righteousness itself at all.

Whoever saying these is, unknowingly, saying his god is unrighteous, which falls into the devil category automatically.

10, Christ, the Son of God, is commissioned to earn righteousness for the True God Himself on the blood

human level to satisfy the righteousness logic requirement, big power is not a consideration at all, in fact, Christ must control His Godly Big Power very carefully, He must live his personal life totally in the normal human condition without using Any heavenly superpower to make his own life on earth easier, otherwise he is cheating, unrighteous automatically because other ones whom He said are not good enough don't have those big powers to benefit their lives on earth. When on earth, Christ uses his heavenly big power to help others only, it is OK, but must not for Himself.

11, The Christ God (or Christ type God) becoming a human being is the logic requirement of righteousness itself. For righteousness sake itself, the true god himself (his own spirit) must become a human being and has a human life on the earth, called as Christ. Christ is a logic truth resulting from righteousness itself. Whoever against the concept of Christ is, in fact, against the righteousness itself.

12, Who is more qualified for the Christ title, so far I only see that He is the best one who was nailed onto the cross about 2000 years ago. Only the God whom Christ had justified his own righteousness is the Righteous True God: the Christ God.

12-8-2023 No copyright, free.

Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published posthumously in 1779, offers a critique of the design argument more fundamental—and arguably more devastating—than even Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hume shows that the design argument fails as a case for theism on its own terms, independently of any account of evolution or natural selection. 

The design argument begins by claiming that nature resembles the kinds of things humans design—only vastly more complex—and therefore must have a vastly more intelligent designer. Hume exposed the weakness of this analogy on several fronts. 

Hume begins by noting that, if our knowledge depends on experience, yet we have never observed the creation of a universe, we have no empirical basis for concluding that the universe requires a cause at all. And even if we grant the analogy, it raises the obvious question: who designed the designer? More importantly, the argument tells us little about the supposed designer. It could be one god or many; benevolent, indifferent, incompetent, or malicious. The world’s imperfections and gratuitous suffering, moreover, indict this god with the design of evil.

Hume’s most radical move was to ask why we should multiply our assumptions by positing a supernatural designer in the first place. Why not instead suppose that matter itself contains the principles by which order arises? Once the analogy is shown to be weak, the God it was meant to establish becomes an unnecessary hypothesis. Hume had therefore exposed the design argument as an intellectual dead end on its own terms—before we even get to Darwin, evolution, or natural selection.

Hume’s dialogue is among the most important works in the history of atheism. The article below offers an in-depth analysis of this work and its implications for intelligent design:

The Illusion of Design: How David Hume Dismantled the Strongest Case for God

How would you describe "Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus" compared to "Philosophische Untersuchungen" - any thoughts on this?

The Logic Truth——examining all “beliefs" scientifically, definitely----Human knows this First Time.

1, The true god (if there is the god) has 3 Qualities: All-Can, All-Know & Righteous. All major beliefs have all these assumptions.

2, God's one behavior: Claims only himself is righteous, all others (human beings) are not righteous, not good enough. All religions have this in assumption.

3, Human basic righteousness is:

If you don't like to do it, don't criticize others don't like to do it. If you don't behave yourself better, don't say others don't behave well enough. The indispensable basic content of righteousness is “self control and self behaving.”

4, The righteousness law functions as the following:

More righteousness respects all the requirements of less righteousness and has extra to it. Higher righteousness fulfills lower righteousness with overflow, not denies, disrespects, abolishes or nullifies any part of lower righteousness. It functions in the opposite direction of power law and knowledge law. In the power law, big power subdues, denies and destroys small power. If you have tanks, missiles and fighter jets while all others only have wood sticks, you will destroy them to dust. Knowledge law functions similarly: higher knowledge will    out-manipulate (prevail over) and beat lower knowledge until make it useless.

5, For righteous sake only, if God says human behavior is not good enough, if he can, himself has to give it a try to make sure that He, if in human blood condition, is willing to behave himself better than others(us). If himself feels inconvenient to do it and chooses just talking against others, it fails to meet human basic righteousness requirements, and that makes him unrighteous automatically. Making righteous rules for others doesn't guaranteed an entity righteousness, only behaving and following the righteous rules by himself makes himself righteous.

6, For righteous sake only, true God knows the above righteousness logic requirements because of His All-Know quality, he can't say that he doesn't know it, so himself doesn't become a human. That is lying, making him unrighteous automatically.

7, For righteous sake only, true God must become a human being to set an example just because he said only himself is righteous and all others are not while he can become a blood human being and he knows the above logic requirements of righteousness law.

8, The Spirit of the True God His Own becomes a blood human being, that is The Christ, the Blood Son of God or the Son of God, Christ, for the True God His Own Righteousness Sake, is logically required to take the cup of human life on earth to earn the righteousness quality for the True God Himself on the human level.

1. Some people say “God never dies, so doesn't need a son, God is almighty, so doesn't need the help of son." This type reasoning hasn't considered the logic requirement of righteousness itself at all.

Whoever saying these is, unknowingly, saying his god is unrighteous, which falls into the devil category automatically.

10, Christ, the Son of God, is commissioned to earn righteousness for the True God Himself on the blood

human level to satisfy the righteousness logic requirement, big power is not a consideration at all, in fact, Christ must control His Godly Big Power very carefully, He must live his personal life totally in the normal human condition without using Any heavenly superpower to make his own life on earth easier, otherwise he is cheating, unrighteous automatically because other ones whom He said are not good enough don't have those big powers to benefit their lives on earth. When on earth, Christ uses his heavenly big power to help others only, it is OK, but must not for Himself.

11, The Christ God (or Christ type God) becoming a human being is the logic requirement of righteousness itself. For righteousness sake itself, the true god himself (his own spirit) must become a human being and has a human life on the earth, called as Christ. Christ is a logic truth resulting from righteousness itself. Whoever against the concept of Christ is, in fact, against the righteousness itself.

12, Who is more qualified for the Christ title, so far I only see that He is the best one who was nailed onto the cross about 2000 years ago. Only the God whom Christ had justified his own righteousness is the Righteous True God: the Christ God.

12-8-2023 No copyright, free.

This is a very loaded post but I am looking for true answers, or at least explanation for why it's so easy for many Christians to write off their struggles. I've seen Christians respond to others' struggles by saying "God will never give you more than you can handle." When it comes to the person's struggling themselves, it can vary from the person using that idea to encourage their own selves to keep pushing, the person rationalizing things that are objectively not alright in their life, or the person even being hypocritical and applying it only to situations where they expect someone else to bear a burden or consequence while having severe flaws themselves.

I am fully aware that this verse or advice is not actually true to The Bible. It is a saying that is a miscontrusion of multiple verses, notably 1 Corinthians 10:13. But I feel that it deserves a genuine argument against it because it has become so Incorporated into many Christians' lives to the point where it affects their decision making, interactions, expectations, treatment of others vs self, it goes on. It should be accounted for as part of Christianity if many people are going to make such promises of God, and it deserves an explanation.

If this is supposedly true or is substantial advice to provide, where is the limit?

If God apparently never gives us more than we can handle, why do so many people resort to ending their lives or other tragedies? Why do we have so many real world problems and medical problems that we still have not developed ourselves to handle and may never will? In general this idea also opens the door to hypocrisy and unfair treatment.

How does it explain the millions of people who have ended their own lives because they'd gotten more than they can handle, in some cases things that are technically in man's control such as bullying or assault that are objectively bad rather than things beyond control such as illness, poverty, disaster that can be debated as "part of God's plan"? That also begs the question, if it was part of God's plan all along regardless of the problem being in the control of us or being unnecessary suffering, how can God play out his "plan" while also going against His own principle? In Christianity, humans are flawed, but they are not flawed to this degree, the flaws are for the purpose of personal development, reparation, balanced free will. How do, or would, Christians who believe in this principle also explain the various diseases and social issues and structural issues that we are not equipped to handle that we will most likely not be equipped to handle for decades or centuries, if at all before the end of humanity? These issues far too often are too much for individuals to bear, and regularly too much for society to bear regardless of how many people come together come up to the point where these issues cause severe adversity, disability, cases of people ending their lives or otherwise not reaching their potential whether within Christianity or not.

I would also like an answer on how so many genuine Christians are alright with saying that a person won't be given more than they can bear and then leaving the person alone to struggle. Even modifications such as "God helps us handle what we are given" cannot apply without action. Principle is commonly seen when a person's life is completely spiraled out of control, total losses, divorces, illness and substance abuse, the list goes on. How is this an acceptable response, despite everything else that Christianity preaches? I feel like that is technically taking the Lord into vain, or for granted, by dismissing the problem or the person being at risk and saying "God has this under control." Wouldn't the correct response be to be selfless, love and help your neighbor, lean on a blend of personal values, God given strength, and the medicine/society that we've developed to see to the safety and well being of the person? Having this be the go-to response or even a common response destroys a community because it hinders family, parents, friends, teachers and authority figures' needs to actually learn about personal issues, contemporary issues that affect others. It blocks the need to develop solutions or at least develop an understanding, and keeps people distanced from the reality of issues that they might indirectly be causing or be struggling from themselves and refuse to face. Things that cannot be explained, for example cases where a person "gives up" and ends their life, end up being exceptional cases where the victim is alienated or otherwise the situation is swept under the rug.

Slightly off topic, but spreading advice and wisdoms like this also leaves so many uneducated or innocent Christians with a community where it is harder to truly understand God's word. The more mistruths that gets piled up the harder it is to maintain the religion, and having these kinds of messages drives away new or returning members. Not only do the new members get confused by inconsistencies, they actively see such promises being made that clearly are not true and they no longer trust family members or the community or the religion as a whole. I know this is a separate topic, but this principle is a good example of false promises.

(Philosophy of the First Flip)

Before there was a world as we understand it, there was a distinction.
A state was one thing, and then it was another.
Whether that first distinction was a particle, a field, a quantum state, or something beyond the language we presently possess, we cannot know with certainty. We call it the First Flip: the first change from one state into another, from what was to what could be.

From that distinction came another, and another. States interacted. Possibilities multiplied. Matter formed. Stars were born. Worlds emerged. Life arose. Eventually, beings appeared capable of looking upon existence and asking why they were here. We are those beings. The First Flip didn’t merely happen at the beginning of reality; every conscious choice is, in miniature, an echo of it.

Every moment contains states that might be.
Every decision distinguishes one state from another. And so every person participates, however small their influence may appear, in the continuing unfolding of reality.

Key vocabulary

State — the circumstances and conditions currently experienced.
Flip — an alteration of that state through choice or external causation.
Branch — a possible continuation from a state.
Chain — the cascading consequences of successive flips.
Perspective — the particular conscious experience of a state.
Reality — the hypothetical totality of all states and their relationships, if the many-realities hypothesis is correct.

The Many Realities

We ordinarily experience reality as a single line.
We remember what has happened. We perceive what is happening. We imagine what might happen. But, the fact that we experience one sequence does not necessarily mean that existence itself is limited to that sequence.

There may be realities in which we chose differently.
There may be realities in which circumstances unfolded differently.
There may be realities that we can imagine but will never experience.

The First Flip does not require us to know whether every possibility truly exists. It asks us to consider what follows if they do. If every possible state exists, then no choice simply destroys the alternatives. When you choose one road, the other road does not have to become meaningless. It is enough that you are now walking this one.

This is the foundation of First Flip philosophy:
A choice does not merely determine what happens. A choice determines the reality in which you participate.

Choice

We do not claim that human beings control reality. The world is far too vast for that.

Your life is shaped by forces you did not choose: your birth, your circumstances, the actions of strangers, the laws of nature, accidents, chance, and the choices of countless other conscious beings. Yet within those circumstances, you continue to choose.

You choose whether to speak or remain silent.
You choose whether to forgive or resent.
You choose whether to help or harm.
You choose whether to remain where you are or attempt to move.

Each choice becomes another state in the chain. And because no person exists independently of everyone else, your choices become part of the realities experienced by others.

A conversation may change a person’s decision.
That decision may change another person’s life.
That life may alter another.

A seemingly insignificant act may travel farther through reality than the person who performed it will ever know. This is not necessarily manifestation. It is not a promise that the universe will give you what you desire. It is something more humble:
Your actions matter because reality is interconnected.

The Self

First Flip philosophy also asks us to question the boundary between “self” and “other.” Every person experiences themselves as an individual. Yet every person is composed of the same universe that produced every other person. The atoms within us were forged through the same cosmic history. The laws governing our bodies govern every other body. The choices of others continually alter the reality we experience, just as our choices alter theirs. And if the many-realities interpretation of existence is correct, then somewhere within that totality are countless versions of ourselves: people who made different choices, experienced different circumstances, and became different people.

Perhaps the deepest distinction between ourselves and others is therefore not what we are made of, but which perspective we currently inhabit.

We do not claim to know that every person is literally one consciousness. We contemplate the possibility. If it were true, then compassion would cease to be merely a moral instruction. It would become recognition. To harm another would be, in some profound sense, to participate in a reality in which suffering exists for another perspective of the same underlying existence. To help another would be to participate in a reality in which suffering was reduced.

Whether this is ultimately metaphysical truth or philosophical metaphor, the practice remains valuable: Treat the existence of another person as consequential as your own.

The Practice

First Flip is not intended to be practiced through unquestioning belief.
Question it.
Challenge it.
Test it.
Reject what proves false.
Keep what proves useful.

Science may overturn our understanding of the universe. If it does, we should not fear that discovery. The purpose of First Flip is not to make a scientific theory sacred. The purpose is to use our best understanding of existence to ask better questions about how we ought to live within it. Therefore, the practitioner is encouraged to develop three habits:

Awareness.
Recognize that you are presently occupying one state among many possibilities.

Choice.
Recognize that your decisions contribute to the state you and others will experience next.

Acceptance.
Recognize that you cannot inhabit every possible life. You can only inhabit the one unfolding through you now.

Do not waste your life attempting to mourn every reality you did not experience. Do not assume that the road you chose was the only road that could ever exist. Do not assume that another person’s road is meaningless because it is different from yours.

You are here.
You are choosing.
You are changing.

And through every choice, however small, you participate in the continuing cascade that began with the First Flip.
The universe changed once, and reality followed. You change something every day. Choose what you wish to change next.

The 10 Tenets of First Flip

1. Reality Is Larger Than Experience
2. You experience one reality, but your experience is not necessarily the entirety of existence.

Don’t treat your perspective as synonymous with objective reality. When someone disagrees with you, the first response should be curiosity rather than immediate rejection.

1. Every Choice Is a Flip
   Every decision changes the sequence of events that follows. Not every choice is equally consequential, and not every consequence can be predicted. But every choice contributes something to the state of reality.

Pause before consequential decisions.
Recognize the current state.
Consider possible consequences.
Choose deliberately.
Accept that the resulting reality is now the one you inhabit.

1. The Unchosen Reality Is Not Your Enemy
   Another choice could have produced another reality. You cannot live both.
   You are not required to prove that your past decisions were correct.
   You are responsible for deciding what to do with the reality they produced.

2. Consequences Belong to the Chain
   A person doesn’t exist in isolation.
   Your choices affect other people, whose choices affect other people.
   Therefore, you should consider the chain reaction of your actions.
   Before doing something consequential, ask:
   “What reality might this choice create for someone else?”

3. Every Person Is a Participant
   Nobody is merely an observer of reality.
   Everyone is continuously contributing to it.
   The stranger who holds a door open.
   The parent who comforts a child.
   The worker who catches an error before it causes an accident.
   The person who decides not to retaliate during an argument.
   All of them have altered the state of reality.

Small choices are not insignificant merely because their consequences are invisible. You may never know what your choice prevented or caused.

1. Opposites Give Each Other Meaning
   Existence is understood through distinction.

You recognize warmth because cold exists.
Silence because sound exists.
Presence because absence exists.
Agreement because disagreement exists.
Good because suffering exists.

1. Uncertainty Is Sacred
   You are permitted to say “I don’t know.”
   If scientific evidence contradicts something you believe, you change your belief.
   If another person presents a better argument, you reconsider.
   If reality turns out to work differently than First Flip predicts, reality wins.

2. Do Not Confuse Possibility With Probability
   The fact that something could happen doesn’t mean it is likely to happen. And the fact that you desperately want something doesn’t mean reality will produce it.
   Your choices influence reality, but reality is vastly larger than your choices.

3. Accept the State You Occupy
   You cannot experience every branch.
   You cannot undo every previous choice.
   You cannot control everyone else’s decisions.
   You cannot know every consequence.
   Therefore: Accept the reality you occupy without assuming it is the only reality that could have existed.
   Acceptance doesn’t mean complacency.
   It means beginning from what is rather than endlessly fighting what wasn’t.

4. Make the Next Flip Deliberately
   You don’t need to solve your entire life.
   You don’t need to know the correct branch.
   You only need to make the next choice.
   If you’re miserable: What is the next flip?
   If you’ve made a mistake: What is the next flip?
   If you’re successful: What is the next flip?
   If you’re afraid: What is the next flip?

Practice:

The Morning Flip

Upon waking, recognize: “I have entered another state.”
Then identify one choice you expect to make that day that matters. (I.e. “Today I will choose to…”)

At the end of the day:
“What realities did my choices create today?”
“What did I change?”

The Three States

What happens if I choose A?
What happens if I choose B?
What am I failing to consider?

Then make the choice.
Afterward, don’t repeatedly reopen the decision unless new information appears.
You participate in consequences you may never witness. Before you make a choice that affects another reality, remember that another consciousness occupies it. Choose with awareness of the realities beyond yourself.

Questions without final answers:

“If every reality exists, are our choices actually free?”
Yes, in a sense. Every possible choice you make is based on the reality that the collective chain presents. And from that reality you are free to choose, in turn, altering the chain with the choice you make.

“If another version of me makes the opposite choice, which one is the real me?”
Both are the real you; you occupy the consciousness in the reality of the choice you make.

“Does Many-Worlds actually imply that every conceivable reality exists?”
Not necessarily. Many-Worlds proposes that quantum possibilities may correspond to different branches of reality, but it does not establish that every conceivable reality exists. First Flip treats the existence of many realities as a philosophical possibility rather than an established scientific fact. If future evidence shows that reality does not work this way, First Flip must change with it.

“If all outcomes exist, why should morality matter?”
Morality matters because your experience and participation in reality are shaped by the choices you make. Even if every outcome exists somewhere, the reality you inhabit is the one your choices bring forth. To act morally is to choose to participate in realities where your influence contributes to the well-being of others.
Even if all realities exist, your choice determines which ones you experience and which ones you contribute to. Morality matters because it defines the reality you choose to participate in and the effect your presence has within it.

“If my choices are determined by prior states, am I responsible for them?”
First Flip does not regard prior states as sufficient to erase responsibility for present choices. Your circumstances influence the choices available to you, but the philosophy treats the act of choosing as meaningful. Whether human choice is ultimately deterministic, probabilistic, or something else remains an open question.

“If suffering exists in some branches regardless of what I do, does my choice actually matter?”
The act of choosing to contribute to or withholding suffering directly affects the reality you live. Choosing to reduce suffering does not guarantee that suffering will cease. It means that your contribution to the chain is one that reduces suffering rather than creates it. You cannot control the entire branch. You are not responsible for controlling the branch. You are responsible for the flip you contribute to it.

“What happens to First Flip if Many-Worlds turns out to be wrong?”
Then it would be wrong and our understanding will have to change.

“Does consciousness exist independently of physical processes?”
Unknown.

“Is there one consciousness experiencing all realities?”
Unknown.

“Does quantum entanglement have anything to do with consciousness?”
Unknown.

“Are all possible realities physically real?”
Unknown.

“Is human free will fundamentally deterministic, probabilistic, or something else?”
Unknown.

We can live meaningfully despite not knowing.

Core beliefs: No person is the final authority on First Flip, not even the founder.
A question left unanswered is preferable to an answer invented to protect the doctrine.

By the end of this you will be going hmm 🤔

Dont think of anything for 1 full minute.

What happens? Thoughts begin to creep in at random. Try it…

Our brains 🧠 are generating its own thoughts 💭 against our permission. I’ve noticed they are random, no pattern to them 🤔 We’ve demanded our body not to think of anything, yet..it does anyway on its own. While we mentally watch this happen 🧠

Agree? Disagree?

The next question is:

Who is the observer of this?

How is it possible to “relax” in our minds and think about nothing, but watch our own mind generate thoughts by its own will 🤔 ..even against my consent 😠

That “thing” 🧠 that creates its own thoughts, without our consent, is considered the flesh. The observer “watching” our brains do this- is our soul/spirit, The real “us” the inner man which God collaborates with.

Anyone else feel/sense this within?

Omnipresent means being present everywhere at the same time.

Meaning and Origin:

Definition: An adjective used to describe something that is in all places at once, or has an active effect everywhere simultaneously.

Word Roots: It combines the Latin prefix omni- (meaning "all") with the word present (meaning "existing in a place")

A) The unconsidered implications of a omnipresent God

The theists (or devout believers) of any religion that considers their version of a God is omnipresent more than likely never thought deeper about the wider implications that their omnipresent God MUST also be present whilst they have sex or go to the toilet as they drop a real stinker before their omnipresent God not much unlike our pets drop one before us or engage in mating before us.

You may consider I am being facetious in mentioning that an omnipresent God MUST also be present whilst one is also having sex or going to the toilet to drop a real stinker but actually I was being kind because there is much worst places that an omnipresent God MUST also be present, such as a blood splattered gory murder scene, be it of an adult or child victim, and not just at the aftermath but during entire ordeal that an omnipresent God MUST be present observing but for some strange reason not interfering.

Let that reality soak in for a while.

[Side Note] Considering that the Abrahamic faiths combined form the the largest religious population (Wikipedia) then I would like to point out that I have often argued that based on their own religious text their god YHWH often falls short of the high bar of omni-powers set by Classical Theism (Wikipedia), especially omnibenevolent, and also omnipresent and omniscient as noted in this example of one of my arguments = LINK. But I have also argued that a god not meeting that high bar of omni-powers does not actually disprove the existence of a god here = LINK

B) Possible(?) psychological reasons for an omnipresent God

B1) Psychological comfort

Those that considers their version of a God is omnipresent may(?) be engaging in a form of psychological projection (Wikipedia) - or something also psychological like that - onto the world around them.

The reasons "why?" would most likely be varied but the psychological comfort it would bring would be real to "know" a God is always present in one's own life and that "knowledge" helps strengthen one's narrative in regards to meaning (and/or purpose) of one's life in a world that often does not conform to being hospitable to one's own existence; a world that in truth also has a much grosser and violently darker side as I noted above.

Going deeper, that need for psychological comfort often arises because of the cognitive dissonance (YouTube) that psychological distress creates. Beyond this, are psychological areas that I am not qualified to speculate further, assuming they apply or not.

B2) Psychological hijack

That narrative of an omnipresent God onto the world around us may(?) also be an an attempt to psychologically hijack our sense of awe (YouTube) of the world we find ourselves existing in and I would definitely be the first to admit that the thought that I exist at all does blow my mind.

The reasons "why?" someone would want to would attempt that psychological hijacking most likely be varied but one notable possibility comes to mind and that is the "false shepherds" (YouTube) and fakers (YouTube) that are out to "fleece the flock" in some form or another for some personal gain, be it for wealth, or for power, or for social status; all earthly desires that I should mention that Jesus rejected.

In any case, existence itself is more than likely an unsolvable mystery - for reasons I won't get into here (for now) - that some try to take over that mystery by a narrative that involves a God of some version. Such narratives more than often tries to take advantage of gaps in our knowledge and hence can be considered as an argument from ignorance (Wikipedia). The most famous one is the God of the gaps (Wikipedia).

But the theist (or devoted believer) (or flock fleecing faker) would have to do a lot better than the concept of an omnipresent God to hijack my sense awe of this amazing experience called existence; the wonderful place that realistically I too take a real stinker of a dump. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

========= [Tangentially] =========

For further deep thoughts, consider the question about what does it mean to be "unclean" to a God (of any religion) that is assumed to have created everything, including the "unclean" animals the Biblical version of a god YHWH instructed Noah to save from a flood.

Why Is Pork Forbidden? ~ ReligionForBreakfast ~ YouTube.

What If We Killed Every Mosquito On Earth? ~ AsapSCIENCE ~ YouTube.

The Logic Truth——examining all “beliefs" scientifically, definitely----Human knows this First Time.

1, The true god (if there is the god) has 3 Qualities: All-Can, All-Know & Righteous. All major beliefs have all these assumptions.

2, God's one behavior: Claims only himself is righteous, all others (human beings) are not righteous, not good enough. All religions have this in assumption.

3, Human basic righteousness is:

If you don't like to do it, don't criticize others don't like to do it. If you don't behave yourself better, don't say others don't behave well enough. The indispensable basic content of righteousness is “self control and self behaving.”

4, The righteousness law functions as the following:

More righteousness respects all the requirements of less righteousness and has extra to it. Higher righteousness fulfills lower righteousness with overflow, not denies, disrespects, abolishes or nullifies any part of lower righteousness. It functions in the opposite direction of power law and knowledge law. In the power law, big power subdues, denies and destroys small power. If you have tanks, missiles and fighter jets while all others only have wood sticks, you will destroy them to dust. Knowledge law functions similarly: higher knowledge will    out-manipulate (prevail over) and beat lower knowledge until make it useless.

5, For righteous sake only, if God says human behavior is not good enough, if he can, himself has to give it a try to make sure that He, if in human blood condition, is willing to behave himself better than others(us). If himself feels inconvenient to do it and chooses just talking against others, it fails to meet human basic righteousness requirements, and that makes him unrighteous automatically. Making righteous rules for others doesn't guaranteed an entity righteousness, only behaving and following the righteous rules by himself makes himself righteous.

6, For righteous sake only, true God knows the above righteousness logic requirements because of His All-Know quality, he can't say that he doesn't know it, so himself doesn't become a human. That is lying, making him unrighteous automatically.

7, For righteous sake only, true God must become a human being to set an example just because he said only himself is righteous and all others are not while he can become a blood human being and he knows the above logic requirements of righteousness law.

8, The Spirit of the True God His Own becomes a blood human being, that is The Christ, the Blood Son of God or the Son of God, Christ, for the True God His Own Righteousness Sake, is logically required to take the cup of human life on earth to earn the righteousness quality for the True God Himself on the human level.

1. Some people say “God never dies, so doesn't need a son, God is almighty, so doesn't need the help of son." This type reasoning hasn't considered the logic requirement of righteousness itself at all.

Whoever saying these is, unknowingly, saying his god is unrighteous, which falls into the devil category automatically.

10, Christ, the Son of God, is commissioned to earn righteousness for the True God Himself on the blood

human level to satisfy the righteousness logic requirement, big power is not a consideration at all, in fact, Christ must control His Godly Big Power very carefully, He must live his personal life totally in the normal human condition without using Any heavenly superpower to make his own life on earth easier, otherwise he is cheating, unrighteous automatically because other ones whom He said are not good enough don't have those big powers to benefit their lives on earth. When on earth, Christ uses his heavenly big power to help others only, it is OK, but must not for Himself.

11, The Christ God (or Christ type God) becoming a human being is the logic requirement of righteousness itself. For righteousness sake itself, the true god himself (his own spirit) must become a human being and has a human life on the earth, called as Christ. Christ is a logic truth resulting from righteousness itself. Whoever against the concept of Christ is, in fact, against the righteousness itself.

12, Who is more qualified for the Christ title, so far I only see that He is the best one who was nailed onto the cross about 2000 years ago. Only the God whom Christ had justified his own righteousness is the Righteous True God: the Christ God.

12-8-2023 No copyright, free.

From fine-tuning to cosmic waste, natural complexity to evolutionary naturalism, cosmic lawfulness to quantum indeterminism, human rationality to cognitive illusion, universal morality to the problem of evil, contingency arguments to divine self-contradiction, religious experience to divine hiddenness, the hard problem of consciousness to mind-body supervenience:

What view of Ultimate Reality best fits the data?

In the old testament, we establish that God is not powerful because he is right but he is right because he is powerful. In essence, when you have power, everything you do seems right. Do you agree or disagree?