Proof that I am God.

[elopez]

Yahweh is not all the monotheistic gods, he is just the most prominant. He is the God of Abraham, he most assuredly not the Dianic Godess. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Superman, or Chuck Noris, or Haruhi Suzumiya, or Xenu...

There are no multiple MONOtheistic Gods. Mono means one, hence one God. Are you trying too hard to troll or are you honestly this dense?

Physical existence, not total existence.

That's what we are talking about, physical existence. Remember?

Atemporal does not mean that it doesn't have a beginning either. For one something can become atemporal.

It does mean just that, actually. Again, time has a beginning. A timeless being would have no beginning. Thus, to say that an atemporal deity could become such is nonsensical.

Something that is eternal can have no beginning, and something that is atemporal can have no beginning as well... That does not mean that all things that are one or the other have to be mengi.

Eternity is essentially atemporality, as already explained. A deity that is eternal is atemporal, not one or the other.

I chose to ignore that, because it should be obvious. Also, because we are dealing with and in identities I figure that the law of such would be effectively the most relevant.

Relevance towards what exactly? The law of identity does nothing to explain how one commits the fallacy of equivocation. You would have to explain what the fallacy is and how one is committing it. You want it to be obvious because you do not or cannot explain yourself.

The incarnation of Christ can be human, I am human, therefore I can be the incarnation of Christ. (Simple logic.)

It's faulty logic. The incarnation of Christ is God taking on the form of human, not just being human. We humans are only human, not God. So no, you are not Christ incarnate. Get real and argue something from that standpoint please or move on.

We are godly, there for God must be humanly.

You haven't even shown how we are godly, so again this does not follow.

No, it is a yes. It was something that I have witnessed. Do you deny that I witnessed it?

I deny that anime is reality. You watched a cartoon. Anything can happen in a cartoon. To infer something from a cartoon can happen in reality is, well, near unstable.

 

[Tuddrussell]

There are no multiple MONOtheistic Gods. Mono means one, hence one God. Are you trying too hard to troll or are you honestly this dense?

That's what we are talking about, physical existence. Remember?

That's what you are talking about, I am talking about existence period.

It does mean just that, actually. Again, time has a beginning. A timeless being would have no beginning. Thus, to say that an atemporal deity could become such is nonsensical.

Time does not necessarily have to have a beginning, and atemporality does not need to be without a beginning. Beginnings have nothing to do with any of this, and this argument is getting ridiculous!

Eternity is essentially atemporality, as already explained. A deity that is eternal is atemporal, not one or the other.

They mean completely different things! One means without end, the other means without time. Neither have anything at all to do with beginnings or each other!

Relevance towards what exactly? The law of identity does nothing to explain how one commits the fallacy of equivocation. You would have to explain what the fallacy is and how one is committing it. You want it to be obvious because you do not or cannot explain yourself.

Equvocation is not a fallacy, it is however annoying. The law of identity has to do with the discussion we are having, namely to do with man and god and whether they are mutually exclusive. (Which, by the way, they are not!)

It's faulty logic. The incarnation of Christ is God taking on the form of human, not just being human. We humans are only human, not God. So no, you are not Christ incarnate. Get real and argue something from that standpoint please or move on.

How dare you disrespect your lord and saviour in such a manner! I died for your sins you know.

You haven't even shown how we are godly, so again this does not follow.

We are godly in that we participate in the form of the lord as we were created in his image. If X is like Y, then Y is like X.

I deny that anime is reality. You watched a cartoon. Anything can happen in a cartoon. To infer something from a cartoon can happen in reality is, well, near unstable.

I said I witnissed it, and I did. In what way is anime not reality? It was a real anime. To infer that nothing that happens in a cartoon can also happen in life is a madness as well, perhaps even more so.

Art imatates life as much as life imitates art.

 

[Antarctika]

There are no multiple MONOtheistic Gods. Mono means one, hence one God. Are you trying too hard to troll or are you honestly this dense?

There are multiple monotheisms. Each one of them affirms the existence of only one God, and that's not always Yahwe.

 

[elopez]

Hey it's not my fault you lack comprehension of what monotheism is and need to post some picture instead of some well thought out response.

That's what you are talking about, I am talking about existence period.

If I recall correctly you were trying to say that humans could be gods, so when you refer to "human" I can only take that to mean our physical existence. Maybe you shouldn't be so ambiguous if you want people to know what you're talking about.

Time does not necessarily have to have a beginning,

Evidence to support this? As of now just another baseless claim.

and atemporality does not need to be without a beginning. Beginnings have nothing to do with any of this, and this argument is getting ridiculous!

Atemporality is a state of timelessness. If time has a beginning, which it does, and there is a state of existence with no conception of time, then the state of existence with no conception of time would have no beginning. The only reason you say this argument is ridiculous is because you cannot refute it and are probably frustrated at your contradicting statements.

They mean completely different things! One means without end, the other means without time. Neither have anything at all to do with beginnings or each other!

I didn't say they meant the same thing I said they are related. Eternity infers timelessness as I've already explained and not repeating myself again. A quick Google of eternity should confirm this. Again, show how the definition of eternity does not mean without beginning.

Equvocation is not a fallacy, it is however annoying. The law of identity has to do with the discussion we are having, namely to do with man and god and whether they are mutually exclusive. (Which, by the way, they are not!)

Actually, equivocation is a fallacy and that you think not only goes to further show your misunderstanding of logic. Without defining what 'god' means all of this is pure nonsense. If we are talking about the monotheistic God of Christianity, then there are properties that God possess that humans do not, and thus humans cannot be in the same classification as God.

How dare you disrespect your lord and saviour in such a manner! I died for your sins you know.

Sorry your logic is weak and you cannot further explain it. Not like I would expect that anyway.

We are godly in that we participate in the form of the lord as we were created in his image. If X is like Y, then Y is like X.

Yes but that doesn't mean Y is X. There is a huge difference, you know?

I said I witnissed it, and I did. In what way is anime not reality?

I cannot believe your asking this. Cartoons are not real....

It was a real anime. To infer that nothing that happens in a cartoon can also happen in life is a madness as well, perhaps even more so.

Art imatates life as much as life imitates art.

Yes, a real cartoon but that doesn't mean what was happening in the cartoon is the reality we are experiencing now. I mean, you can differentiate what is happening in cartoons and what is happening in real life, correct? If not then again, that sounds a little unstable but would actually explain a lot.

 

[elopez]

There are multiple monotheisms. Each one of them affirms the existence of only one God, and that's not always Yahwe.

Okay? And your point is?

That doesn't mean there are multiple gods in monotheism even if each monotheistic religion calls the one God a different name. There is one God, not multiple.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Hey it's not my fault you lack comprehension of what monotheism is and need to post some picture instead of some well thought out response.

Monotheism is the belief in one god, it does nto mean that there is one god. There are many monotheists, and they have many gods between them.

If I recall correctly you were trying to say that humans could be gods, so when you refer to "human" I can only take that to mean our physical existence. Maybe you shouldn't be so ambiguous if you want people to know what you're talking about.

When I say human, I mean human. Physical existance is just one aspect of what it means to be human. Even if I did mean physical existance, that still does not mean that humans cannot be gods. Gods can have physical existances too.

Evidence to support this? As of now just another baseless claim.

Not any more baseless than yours buddy, therefore they are equally valid.

Atemporality is a state of timelessness. If time has a beginning, which it does, and there is a state of existence with no conception of time, then the state of existence with no conception of time would have no beginning. The only reason you say this argument is ridiculous is because you cannot refute it and are probably frustrated at your contradicting statements.

So what if time has a beginnng or not? Timelessness can have a beginning. Somethign can become timeless.

I didn't say they meant the same thing I said they are related. Eternity infers timelessness as I've already explained and not repeating myself again. A quick Google of eternity should confirm this. Again, show how the definition of eternity does not mean without beginning.

e·ter·ni·ty -Noun/iˈtərnitē/

1. Infinite or unending time.
2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Actually, equivocation is a fallacy and that you think not only goes to further show your misunderstanding of logic. Without defining what 'god' means all of this is pure nonsense. If we are talking about the monotheistic God of Christianity, then there are properties that God possess that humans do not, and thus humans cannot be in the same classification as God.

Apparently talking like an idiot is a form of using logic incorrectly, for some reason. Whatever, I admit I was msitaken.

there is no reason why a human cannot be the God of Abraham, which is just one god among many.

Sorry your logic is weak and you cannot further explain it. Not like I would expect that anyway.

Taking on the form of a human, is being both human and god. Exactly what you claim cannot be.

Yes but that doesn't mean Y is X. There is a huge difference, you know?

Y=X does mean that Y is X! Four plus one, mathematically speaking, is exactly the same as six minus one.

I cannot believe your asking this. Cartoons are not real....

Yes they are, as opposed to being fake cartoons.

Yes, a real cartoon but that doesn't mean what was happening in the cartoon is the reality we are experiencing now. I mean, you can differentiate what is happening in cartoons and what is happening in real life, correct? If not then again, that sounds a little unstable but would actually explain a lot.

It was an event that I witnissed, whether it it was "real" is irrelevent. DO YOU DENY THAT I WITNISSED IT!?

 

[elopez]

Monotheism is the belief in one god, it does nto mean that there is one god. There are many monotheists, and they have many gods between them.

There are many views on one God in each monotheistic religion. That is not the same as saying there are multiple gods in monotheism, because you then make it sound like polytheism which assuredly is not.

When I say human, I mean human. Physical existance is just oen aspect of what it means to be human. Even if I did mean physical existance, that still does not mean that humans cannot be gods. Gods can have physical existances too.

When you throw around terms without defining them first you make yourself out to be vague and unclear. When we are talking about physical humans I would assume we are also talking about physical existence, so if that's not what you meant then you need to clarify that. If a god has the property of being incorporeal, and humans the property of being corporeal, then no, humans cannot be gods.

Not any more baseless than yours buddy, therefore they are equally valid.

The assertion that time may require no beginning is not as baseless as saying time does have a beginning mainly because there is a basis to say that time had a beginning. Nice try though.

So what if time has a beginnng or not? Timelessness can have a beginning. Somethign can become timeless.

So what? It isn't so what because as time had beginning it would imply that timelessness cannot begin. The state of 'becoming' is applied to time, so it would be incoherent of you to say that a state of timelessness would be related to the concept of time. Do you not realize this?

e·ter·ni·tyNoun/iˈtərnitē/

1. Infinite or unending time.
2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

LOL! Now you contradict yourself plain as day here. Earlier you said they mean different things, yet when you quote the definition of eternity what follows it but atemporality! I'm guessing you don't think too much before you post, do ya?

Apparently talking like an idiot is a form of using logic incorrectly, for some reason. Whatever, I admit I was msitaken.

there is no reason why a human cannot be the God of Abraham, which is just oen god among many.

Mistaken about your misconception of equivocation not being an informal fallacy or mistaken about me committing the fallacy? Because you were mistaken on both of those ends.

And yes, there is reason why the God of Christianity cannot be human except in the form of Christ the Son as already stated and to which we are arguing (pointlessly I would add too).

Taking on the form of a human, is being both human and god. Exactly what you claim cannot be.

Taking on the form of human implies incarnation, which none of us humans could experience as we are already human. I am saying that none of us humans could be God, and as Jesus was God and was human he was not any of us.

Y=X does mean that Y is X! Four plus one, mathematically speaking, is exactly the same as six minus one.

You said that Y is like X, not that Y is X. Again, there is a difference in saying something is 'like' something and something is something. I am like my dad because we share some similarities but I am not my dad.

Yes they are, as opposed to being fake cartoons.

Cartoons are not real in the sense that they exist as we do within reality. Cartoon characters do not actually exist as we do, so no, they are not real. I know you understand this so you can stop being pretentious anytime now.

It was an event that I witnissed, whether it it was "real" is irrelevent. DO YOU DENY THAT I WITNISSED IT!?

It actually is not irrelevant. And, as I have already answered your question, I do not deny that you witnessed it, but you did not witness it as a reality.

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

I know the title is fairly silly, but I just wanted to make quite an interesting point:

The only thing that I can know is real, is my own mind. As I (relative to my understanding) am as a person myself the most real thing I know/ And for all I know everyone else may not be "real"

Anselms law states:

God is the greatest possible thing thinkable, and that therefore because existing is far greater than not existing. God must exist.

Therefore, is it not fair to say? That as god must be real (as it is far greater than not being real) And the only reality I can be certain of, is my own.

God therefore can only be me, as I am the most real thing imaginable to me.

I am god? - discuss.

You have senses including your mind and senses give you a perceptible reality. If you can sense a chair by seeing it and sitting in it then it must be real. If you can hear someone speak then the words they speak must be real through a perceptible reality.

If you believe that the world is a manifestation of your own will yet you have no supernatural ability to manipulate it then it is most likely that the world is in fact not a manifestation of your will.

I can see feel touch taste and hear the world around me. It is the senses that tell me the world is real, that other people are real. My mind extends outward also, into the world, through the senses.

 

[mpok1519]

I challenge the premise that the highest "idea thinkable" is god; what about god's heart? mind? soul?

 

[Tuddrussell]

There are many views on one God in each monotheistic religion. That is not the same as saying there are multiple gods in monotheism, because you then make it sound like polytheism which assuredly is not.

I am not saying there are muiltiple gods in monotheism, I am saying that there are many gods who are said to be the one true god, and that these gods are distinct entities in and of themselves.

When you throw around terms without defining them first you make yourself out to be vague and unclear. When we are talking about physical humans I would assume we are also talking about physical existence, so if that's not what you meant then you need to clarify that. If a god has the property of being incorporeal, and humans the property of being corporeal, then no, humans cannot be gods.

Everyone throws around words without defining them, to do otherwise would take forever.

It is up to you to understand what I am talking about based on context, if something I say is unclear in that regard then it is my duty to inform you of what I mean if asked. By human, I mean human. Not physical human, or african human, or any other form of x-human or human-y. ANY KIND OF HUMAN, it could not matter less.

Humans need not be corporeal, and gods need not be incorporeal.

The assertion that time may require no beginning is not as baseless as saying time does have a beginning mainly because there is a basis to say that time had a beginning. Nice try though.

Just becasue something is so, does not mean that it is always so and can never be not so.

So what? It isn't so what because as time had beginning it would imply that timelessness cannot begin. The state of 'becoming' is applied to time, so it would be incoherent of you to say that a state of timelessness would be related to the concept of time. Do you not realize this?

As long as there is time, there is time for things to happen in. Things such as becoming timeless. Once somethign is timeless there is not time for things to happen in, because of this timelessness cannot end but it can begin.

LOL! Now you contradict yourself plain as day here. Earlier you said they mean different things, yet when you quote the definition of eternity what follows it but atemporality! I'm guessing you don't think too much before you post, do ya?

One of the first things I said about the subject is that philosphically speaking eternity can refer to timelessness.

In the same way that crap can refer to feces, its standard definition, or thigns that are like feces. (Its colloquial definiton, which is differentiated by context.) This is not to say that the crap that I scrape out of the inside of my boots are literally feces. They do not mean the same thing, although they are realated to be sure.

Mistaken about your misconception of equivocation not being an informal fallacy or mistaken about me committing the fallacy? Because you were mistaken on both of those ends.

About the first, I stand by the second.

And yes, there is reason why the God of Christianity cannot be human except in the form of Christ the Son as already stated and to which we are arguing (pointlessly I would add too).

You can't make exceptions. If god can be human, and I am a human. It is possible that I can be god.

Taking on the form of human implies incarnation, which none of us humans could experience as we are already human. I am saying that none of us humans could be God, and as Jesus was God and was human he was not any of us.

Jesus was both god and human, hence god can be human. Is there a reason that Jesus cannot be one of us, or that Jesus is the only case in which a human can be god?

You said that Y is like X, not that Y is X. Again, there is a difference in saying something is 'like' something and something is something. I am like my dad because we share some similarities but I am not my dad.

You say that you are like your father, that necessarily makes your father like you. This is one of the points I was making. Y and X are both titles for a value, if the value is the same for both X and Y then X is Y.

If a value is aproximately equal, then X and Y mean pretty much the same thing.

Cartoons are not real in the sense that they exist as we do within reality. Cartoon characters do not actually exist as we do, so no, they are not real. I know you understand this so you can stop being pretentious anytime now.

Cartoons and cartoon characters exist exactly as much as we do. If cartoons did not exist, then how could I have watched them?

It actually is not irrelevant. And, as I have already answered your question, I do not deny that you witnessed it, but you did not witness it as a reality.

You asked if I witnissed it, I did. You chose not to accept that, but your acceptance is not my problem.

 

[elopez]

I am not saying there are muiltiple gods in monotheism, I am saying that there are many gods who are said to be the one true god, and that these gods are distinct entities in and of themselves.

Except when you said, " So yes, there are multiple monotheistic gods."

Everyone throws around words without defining them, to do otherwise would take forever.

Actually it wouldn't take forever it should take a limited amount of time. Words need to be defined before they can be used or else we can say whatever we want them to mean.

It is up to you to understand what I am talking about based on context, if something I say is unclear in that regard then it is my duty to inform you of what I mean if asked. By human, I mean human. Not physical human, or african human, or any other form of x-human or human-y. ANY KIND OF HUMAN, it could not matter less.

No, it is up to you to clearly state what you are saying, and then if you are still unclear it is up you to clarify further. So by human you don't mean a physical human yet you mean any kind of human though it does not matter? See what I mean by being totally and utterly unclear?? This is it.

Humans need not be corporeal, and gods need not be incorporeal.

Corporeal means to have a physical material body, so what in the world do you mean humans need not be such? Do you even realize what you're saying here? Oh, and take note of how extremely easy it is to define a word.

Just becasue something is so, does not mean that it is always so and can never be not so.

In regards to time it does, unless you have some sort of evidence to suggest otherwise.

As long as there is time, there is time for things to happen in. Things such as becoming timeless. Once somethign is timeless there is not time for things to happen in, because of this timelessness cannot end but it can begin.

Still aren't catching onto your contradiction here are you? Timelessness has no properties of time. There is no time in an atemporal state, right? So, if there is no time in atemporality it cannot become atemporal. It has always been an atemporal state as again 'become' denotes a relation to time, and timelessness has no relation to time once so ever.

One of the first things I said about the subject is that philosphically speaking eternity can refer to timelessness.

In the same way that crap can refer to feces, its standard definition, or thigns that are like feces. (Its colloquial definiton, which is differentiated by context.) This is not to say that the crap that I scrape out of the inside of my boots are literally feces. They do not mean the same thing, although they are realated to be sure.

And that's all I was saying -- that eternity infers timelessness as the two are related. For some reason you were seeming to have issues with that, but now all of a sudden you don't.

About the first, I stand by the second.

Then again explain how I committed the fallacy instead of just saying I did. Put up 'er shut up as they say.

You can't make exceptions. If god can be human, and I am a human. It is possible that I can be god.

You can make exceptions if there are relevant differences, and in the case of you and every other human like you is different from Christ, your argument is still weak.

Jesus was both god and human, hence god can be human. Is there a reason that Jesus cannot be one of us, or that Jesus is the only case in which a human can be god?

Well, is Jesus one of us? No, Jesus is himself existent as God and man. Christ can be God because He has been God from eternity, while we have always been human since our birth.

You say that you are like your father, that necessarily makes your father like you. This is one of the points I was making. Y and X are both titles for a value, if the value is the same for both X and Y then X is Y.

If a value is aproximately equal, then X and Y mean pretty much the same thing.

Yes, but again I am not my father and my father is not me. X and Y are similar but not the same thing. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Cartoons and cartoon characters exist exactly as much as we do. If cartoons did not exist, then how could I have watched them?

Pay attention. I said cartoons do not exist in the same manner in which we humans exist within reality. Cartoons are not reality. Why this escapes you is beyond me.

You asked if I witnissed it, I did. You chose not to accept that, but your acceptance is not my problem.

I asked thinking you wouldn't go to unreasonable lengths to make an attempt to put cartoons on par with reality.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Except when you said, " So yes, there are multiple monotheistic gods."

And there are, I didn't say that a monotheist beleives in multiple gods.

Actually it wouldn't take forever it should take a limited amount of time. Words need to be defined before they can be used or else we can say whatever we want them to mean.

Words are defined before we use them, as they have set definitions. It would take longer than I would care for, and would be ABSURD.

No, it is up to you to clearly state what you are saying, and then if you are still unclear it is up you to clarify further. So by human you don't mean a physical human yet you mean any kind of human though it does not matter? See what I mean by being totally and utterly unclear?? This is it.

I mean a physical human, because that is a kind of human. If I meant physical human, and only physical human... I WOULD HAVE SAID PHYSICAL HUMAN! Is that so hard to understand?

Corporeal means to have a physical material body, so what in the world do you mean humans need not be such? Do you even realize what you're saying here? Oh, and take note of how extremely easy it is to define a word.

Yes, I know what corporeal is. Corporeality is not a requirement of humanity, nor is it incompatible with godhood.

In regards to time it does, unless you have some sort of evidence to suggest otherwise.

It may, but that doesn't mean that it always has to be the case.

Still aren't catching onto your contradiction here are you? Timelessness has no properties of time. There is no time in an atemporal state, right? So, if there is no time in atemporality it cannot become atemporal. It has always been an atemporal state as again 'become' denotes a relation to time, and timelessness has no relation to time once so ever.

It had a relation to time, but doesnt any longer. It stopped havign a relation to time when it became timeless. Timelessness is related to time, in that it is an absense of such.

Take a state, and remove its time. It is now a timeless state.

And that's all I was saying -- that eternity infers timelessness as the two are related. For some reason you were seeming to have issues with that, but now all of a sudden you don't.

Timelessness is necessarlity eternal, the reverse is not true. Eternity is not necessarily timeless.

Then again explain how I committed the fallacy instead of just saying I did. Put up 'er shut up as they say.

You were equivocating, equivocation is a fallacy. Do the math.

You can make exceptions if there are relevant differences, and in the case of you and every other human like you is different from Christ, your argument is still weak.

Jesus is a human, I am a human, therefore the possibility exists that I am Jesus. There also exists the possiblity that the circumstances that led to Jesus becomign godly may be repeated.

Well, is Jesus one of us? No, Jesus is himself existent as God and man. Christ can be God because He has been God from eternity, while we have always been human since our birth.

Jesus was both god and man, therefore god and man are not mutually exclusive. It happened before, allegedly, so there is no reason why it can't happen again.

Yes, but again I am not my father and my father is not me. X and Y are similar but not the same thing. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Again, whether they are the same thign si not the argument. It is whether they are alike. If they are alike, then it is reasonable for them to be equivalent. If they are equivalent, then any distinction between them is arbitrary at best.

Pay attention. I said cartoons do not exist in the same manner in which we humans exist within reality. Cartoons are not reality. Why this escapes you is beyond me.

Except they DO. They exist as we do, we are both things that exist. We are different thigns, but we are both extant things. Neither more real than the other.

I asked thinking you wouldn't go to unreasonable lengths to make an attempt to put cartoons on par with reality.

Cartoons are on par with reality, to deny this is stupid. Again, if cartoons are not real... Then how are there cartoons?

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

I challenge the premise that the highest "idea thinkable" is god; what about god's heart? mind? soul?

Yea but God is his heart mind and soul. All of those things would be God if they are found in God. In Catholicism, Jesus presents his heart as a furnace of fire--that is an idea that has already been thought up, as God having a heart burning with the fire of his Love. With the mind is a halo that shines as the countenance of the sun. And the soul is just a body, A body that is glorified with beauty.

 

[elopez]

And there are, I didn't say that a monotheist beleives in multiple gods.

No, you just said there are multiple gods within monotheism which isn't any more less confusing.

Words are defined before we use them, as they have set definitions. It would take longer than I would care for, and would be ABSURD.

That you think words take so long to define and is absurd to do so is absurd itself. It is a conventional part of reasonable dialogue, but then again I wouldn't expect you take part of that, so after all it is not surprising that you care less for defining things.

I mean a physical human, because that is a kind of human. If I meant physical human, and only physical human... I WOULD HAVE SAID PHYSICAL HUMAN! Is that so hard to understand?

There is only one type of human and that is a physical one. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that??

Yes, I know what corporeal is. Corporeality is not a requirement of humanity, nor is it incompatible with godhood.

Obviously you have no idea what corporeal means as it is very much so a requirement of a human. Just answer this one question: how could a human be a human without a physical body? You really don't think these things through, I can tell.

It may, but that doesn't mean that it always has to be the case.

Until there is evidence presented otherwise, it means exactly that.

It had a relation to time, but doesnt any longer. It stopped havign a relation to time when it became timeless. Timelessness is related to time, in that it is an absense of such.

Take a state, and remove its time. It is now a timeless state.

None of this makes sense and honestly I am quite over your rambling dribble. Being that time is absence from timelessness, then time cannot be related to timelessness.

Timelessness is necessarlity eternal, the reverse is not true. Eternity is not necessarily timeless.

Yup, none of this follows either. Eternity infers timelessness as again time has a beginning while eternity does not. Time has an end, while eternity does not.

You were equivocating, equivocation is a fallacy. Do the math.

What you're telling me by not explaining how I committed equivocation is that you cannot explain it because I didn't commit it, or that you have no idea what equivocation is in the first place being that you made the mistake of thinking it wasn't even a fallacy, or both. I'm going with both until an explanation is offered and until you back up your claim here. In other words, you need to show the math.

Jesus is a human, I am a human, therefore the possibility exists that I am Jesus. There also exists the possiblity that the circumstances that led to Jesus becomign godly may be repeated.

There is no possibility you could be Jesus. We both know this. At this point all I can assume is you're trolling. You're pretty good at it though, I'll give you that.

Jesus was both god and man, therefore god and man are not mutually exclusive. It happened before, allegedly, so there is no reason why it can't happen again.

There is reason why it cannot happen again as there would be no other God but the One who was incarnated.

Again, whether they are the same thign si not the argument. It is whether they are alike. If they are alike, then it is reasonable for them to be equivalent. If they are equivalent, then any distinction between them is arbitrary at best.

If that is not the argument then why are you saying x is y? Just because something has similarities to something else doesn't mean the one thing is equivalent to what it is similar to. Refer back to the analogy of me and my dad. I am similar to my dad in some facial features, some personality traits, whatever, but that doesn't mean I am my father. I am myself even granted I am similar to him. We different in our height, weight, and so on. So no, the distinctions are far from arbitrary.

Except they DO. They exist as we do, we are both things that exist. We are different thigns, but we are both extant things. Neither more real than the other.

So you're saying we no more part of reality than cartoons? You honestly cannot differentiate from cartoon, which is fiction, and the reality we exist in? As I said this explains a lot of your discordant arguments as this implies your mental condition is highly unstable.

Cartoons are on par with reality, to deny this is stupid. Again, if cartoons are not real... Then how are there cartoons?

LOL! Cartoons are not reality. Sorry. Ask anyone besides me. Heck, even ask a cartoonist! There are cartoons because people make up ideas in their heads and work them out on paper in the form of a cartoon. Based on this remark I don't think I can continue on with this conversation, as I cannot take someone who believers cartoons are on par with reality seriously.

 

[Tuddrussell]

No, you just said there are multiple gods within monotheism which isn't any more less confusing.

I did not, if I did quote it.

That you think words take so long to define and is absurd to do so is absurd itself. It is a conventional part of reasonable dialogue, but then again I wouldn't expect you take part of that, so after all it is not surprising that you care less for defining things.

No, (Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement) defining (To state the precise meaning of a word or sense of a word.) Everything (The entirety of a specified or implied class.) before ( Previous to in time; earlier than.) speaking (the utterance of intelligible speech.) is (Third person singular present indicative of be.) perhaps (possibly; maybe) the (Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things.) most (Greatest in amount, extent, or degree.) absurd (Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.) manner (A way of doing something or the way in which a thing is done or happens.) of (With reference to; about.) communication (The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.) I (Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.) can (Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill.) think (To call to mind; remember.) of. (Produced by; issuing from.)

There is only one type of human and that is a physical one. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that??

The physical human is the physical human, it is not all humans. Which is why you need to clarify.

Obviously you have no idea what corporeal means as it is very much so a requirement of a human. Just answer this one question: how could a human be a human without a physical body? You really don't think these things through, I can tell.

Being a spirit, haveing one's mind plugged into a cloud of nanobots, uploading your brain into a computer, and astral projection.

Until there is evidence presented otherwise, it means exactly that.

Can you provide evidence that time always has to have a beginning? You can't, you can only prove that time in this universe had a beginning.

None of this makes sense and honestly I am quite over your rambling dribble. Being that time is absence from timelessness, then time cannot be related to timelessness.

Time is time, timelessness is the absense of time. If it were a thing unto itself, it would not be defined as the absense of something else.

Yup, none of this follows either. Eternity infers timelessness as again time has a beginning while eternity does not. Time has an end, while eternity does not.

Prove that eternity has no beginning, and that tiem has an end.

What you're telling me by not explaining how I committed equivocation is that you cannot explain it because I didn't commit it, or that you have no idea what equivocation is in the first place being that you made the mistake of thinking it wasn't even a fallacy, or both. I'm going with both until an explanation is offered and until you back up your claim here. In other words, you need to show the math.

Cool story bro.

There is no possibility you could be Jesus. We both know this. At this point all I can assume is you're trolling. You're pretty good at it though, I'll give you that.

Why is there no possibility that I'm Jesus? Can you explain that to me? (I can totally read your mind with my Jesus poweres, but that is not the Godly path.)

There is reason why it cannot happen again as there would be no other God but the One who was incarnated.

Says you, pics or it didn't happen.

If that is not the argument then why are you saying x is y? Just because something has similarities to something else doesn't mean the one thing is equivalent to what it is similar to. Refer back to the analogy of me and my dad. I am similar to my dad in some facial features, some personality traits, whatever, but that doesn't mean I am my father. I am myself even granted I am similar to him. We different in our height, weight, and so on. So no, the distinctions are far from arbitrary.

Four plus two looks so very different from six minus one, there is no way that they can possibly both equal five!

So you're saying we no more part of reality than cartoons? You honestly cannot differentiate from cartoon, which is fiction, and the reality we exist in? As I said this explains a lot of your discordant arguments as this implies your mental condition is highly unstable.

Yes, we are no more real than any other real thing. There is a difference between us and cartoons, we are not cartoons and they are not us.

LOL! Cartoons are not reality. Sorry. Ask anyone besides me. Heck, even ask a cartoonist! There are cartoons because people make up ideas in their heads and work them out on paper in the form of a cartoon. Based on this remark I don't think I can continue on with this conversation, as I cannot take someone who believers cartoons are on par with reality seriously.

If cartoons are not real, then why are there cartoons? If cartoons were not real, there would be no cartoons anywhere or at any time.

 

[mpok1519]

Yea but God is his heart mind and soul. All of those things would be God if they are found in God. In Catholicism, Jesus presents his heart as a furnace of fire--that is an idea that has already been thought up, as God having a heart burning with the fire of his Love. With the mind is a halo that shines as the countenance of the sun. And the soul is just a body, A body that is glorified with beauty.

well of course; but just from the alternative multitude of subjective perspectives that what we percieve as being mind bodies and souls when divine, it all becomes something that is beyond even the subjective multitudes understanding of divinity.