Creating your own personal God and religion

[LuisDantas]

I tried to find some common ground between ourselves but the more I try the more I lose my hope [emoji16] [emoji16]

I somewhat sympathise.

I must assume it can be very frustrating to seek common ground with sincere atheists when one has a long history of being accustommed to a social environment that is shaped by Abrahamic expectations and has little allowance for other perspectives.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If u read my previous posts u will find that two necessary existents can't be existed at all that u need to answer to another big question that is about their existence.
Which one is older? Who created them?
And u will involve with infinite regress and u will understand that two necessary existents can't be existed.

I see the logic in your views. It doesnt make sense that there can only be one god. It doesnt matter how tbey originated. If youre taking about the god of abraham, no one created them.

It just means two beings would exist at the same time. I dont understand specifaclly there can only be one god. Thats like saying there can only be one parent becauwe they both have the same roles aa parents.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Did u open that link?
Didn't I prove the existence of first cause that is creator of everything after him??????

I read it, yes.
But no, you did not prove anything.
You made a logical argument for your belief that there must be a first cause. It's a terribly flawed argument, for many philosophical and logical reasons. And not only that, but even if it were a solid argument, it does nothing to equate the First Cause with your secondary claim that the Prime Mover was Allah, monotheistic deity of the Abrahamic tradition who is not named Yahweh.

 

[interminable]

I somewhat sympathise.

I must assume it can be very frustrating to seek common ground with sincere atheists when one has a long history of being accustommed to a social environment that is shaped by Abrahamic expectations and has little allowance for other perspectives.

It's not like that.
Even I doubted my religion and had some problems and questions that I couldn't find a good solution for them till now.
That's why I'm gonna solve them through manifestation

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not like that.

It is not? I don't know what it can be, then.

Even I doubted my religion and had some problems and questions that I couldn't find a good solution for them till now.
That's why I'm gonna solve them through manifestation

I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

 

[interminable]

I see the logic in your views. It doesnt make sense that there can only be one god. It doesnt matter how tbey originated. If youre taking about the god of abraham, no one created them.

It just means two beings would exist at the same time. I dont understand specifaclly there can only be one god. Thats like saying there can only be one parent becauwe they both have the same roles aa parents.

Seems we need to define the meaning of god first!

In my view God is a creator of everything.is the first cause that wasn't something before him. Is the only independent existent that everything depends on him.

Till now we didn't prove it's attributes and names or other things

So
We can't have two first cause can we?

First cause should be unlimited if it is not there is a question here
What limited it ?
If u say there was something that limited the first cause I would say so the first cause isn't first anymore because u say something has limited the first

That's why we say first cause is unlimited omniscient omnipotent

There is nothing that can limit it so it's power and knowledge are unlimited too


As u see i proved that first cause is unlimited and it's clear that existence of two unlimited existents is impossible too .

Do u have any questions until here ?

 

[interminable]

I read it, yes.
But no, you did not prove anything.
You made a logical argument for your belief that there must be a first cause. It's a terribly flawed argument, for many philosophical and logical reasons. And not only that, but even if it were a solid argument, it does nothing to equate the First Cause with your secondary claim that the Prime Mover was Allah, monotheistic deity of the Abrahamic tradition who is not named Yahweh.

Please reject my logical argument


Besides I didn't prove that first existence is Allah or other gods yet

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please reject my logical argument

For all you know, there does not have to be a first cause. That's true from both the religious and scientific argument of origins. Your assertion that there must be one is wholly unsupported. Neither you, nor any of the great philosophers of eons past, have validated the necessity of First Cause.

Besides I didn't prove that first existence is Allah or other gods yet

You haven't because you can't, at least not without begging the question and inserting your deity into the variable slot.

 

[interminable]

For all you know, there does not have to be a first cause. That's true from both the religious and scientific argument of origins. Your assertion that there must be one is wholly unsupported. Neither you, nor any of the great philosophers of eons past, have validated the necessity of First Cause.


You haven't because you can't, at least not without begging the question and inserting your deity into the variable slot.

So please tell me about infinit regress and reject it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seems we need to define the meaning of god first!

In my view God is a creator of everything.is the first cause that wasn't something before him. Is the only independent existent that everything depends on him.

Till now we didn't prove it's attributes and names or other things

So
We can't have two first cause can we?

First cause should be unlimited if it is not there is a question here
What limited it ?
If u say there was something that limited the first cause I would say so the first cause isn't first anymore because u say something has limited the first

That's why we say first cause is unlimited omniscient omnipotent

There is nothing that can limit it so it's power and knowledge are unlimited too


As u see i proved that first cause is unlimited and it's clear that existence of two unlimited existents is impossible too .

Do u have any questions until here ?

This is how I would see it.

A baby cannot be created with only one parent. There cannot be one cause in creation. Instead, it takes two parents to create a child and a whole family to take ccare of that child.

There are many first causes because they all work together. Like creating a child, a single first cause cant create alone. If we are in the mirror of god, it would have to be two gods as it takes two to create offspring.

Creation or life isnt linear its circular. Its not one unity but a diversity of sorts. I cant think of anything in life that creates and is made up of only one single unit without having something else to create it or it popping up from nowhere.

A lot of people want to make life a one-party system; and, life doesnt work that way. Arbahamic religions do not dictate how the world is set up.

There cant be a first cause because the cause is Defined by diversity not a diversity a product of the cause.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So please tell me about infinit regress and reject it.

Infinitism - Wikipedia

You simply cannot rule it out. Therefore you cannot assert your claim as truth. You've nowhere else to go without basing your argument on an invalidated premise. Your conclusions will always be hindered by unsubstantiation and doubt.

 

[interminable]

This is how I would see it.

A baby cannot be created with only one parent. There cannot be one cause in creation. Instead, it takes two parents to create a child and a whole family to take ccare of that child.

There are many first causes because they all work together. Like creating a child, a single first cause cant create alone. If we are in the mirror of god, it would have to be two gods as it takes two to create offspring.

Creation or life isnt linear its circular. Its not one unity but a diversity of sorts. I cant think of anything in life that creates and is made up of only one single unit without having something else to create it or it popping up from nowhere.

A lot of people want to make life a one-party system; and, life doesnt work that way. Arbahamic religions do not dictate how the world is set up.

There cant be a first cause because the cause is Defined by diversity not a diversity a product of the cause.

Tell me about first human beings

How they were created?
Something that we know is that 1 million ago there was not any human being.

 

[interminable]

Infinitism - Wikipedia

You simply cannot rule it out. Therefore you cannot assert your claim as truth. You've nowhere else to go without basing your argument on an invalidated premise. Your conclusions will always be hindered by unsubstantiation and doubt.

Please
I can't understand those things
Would u please represent an explanation to make it easier?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Custom godz? Nope... Creating your own God is merely creating your own idol... and might be a temporary feel good strategy for the moment, but in the long run idols turn to dust and so do you.
And there isn't anything new about it. John Calvin said people are idol factories, we make godz all the time. They might be idols of success, looks, image, money, performance... in the end idols are facades of salvation and not the real deal and will lead to emptiness and not satisfaction. Why do so many Holywood stars commit suicide? even comedians? they have engines that are 'idol'ing too high and the depression catches up with them ( or us as people in general )

"This is eternal life that they might know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ who you have sent" John 17:3

John Piper gives an opinion on this from Colossians 3 --> What Is Idolatry? | Desiring God

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Tell me about first human beings

How they were created?
Something that we know is that 1 million ago there was not any human being.

I do not know about the first human being -s-. I don't follow any scripture Bible, Quran, whatever. The suttras and suttas does not talk about the origin of life and I never thought about it before.

I just know that it takes more than one person to create an offspring; and, logically, if we are a mirror of god, there would have to be more than one god to have a full creation. And a lot of gods like family to take are of that creation.

Many communities are seen each as one community with each person within it working as a whole. Community does not mean single-cause. It's just a collective term for multiple people who live or work in the same environment, working together as a unit, and supporting each other.

How can one god be the cause of everything when it takes more one to create and more than one to take care of creation?

 

[interminable]

I do not know about the first human being -s-. I don't follow any scripture Bible, Quran, whatever. The suttras and suttas does not talk about the origin of life and I never thought about it before.

I just know that it takes more than one person to create an offspring; and, logically, if we are a mirror of god, there would have to be more than one god to have a full creation. And a lot of gods like family to take are of that creation.

Many communities are seen each as one community with each person within it working as a whole. Community does not mean single-cause. It's just a collective term for multiple people who live or work in the same environment, working together as a unit, and supporting each other.

How can one god be the cause of everything when it takes more one to create and more than one to take care of creation?

Suttas?
Suttras?

I've never heard of.



What is the problem of creation that is created by one single existent???
Does it lead to something illogical???

Explain it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Suttas?
Suttras?

I've never heard of.



What is the problem of creation that is created by one single existent???
Does it lead to something illogical???

Explain it.

Suttas are The Buddha's discourses in Pail language
Suttras are The Buddha's discourses in Sanskrit

The suttas are the original Buddhist discourses. There is a debate whether the suttras or later scriptures are part of The Buddha's actual teachings or are the teachings of his disciples.



Everything in life happens within diversity (multiple-cause). It's simplest form is two parents creating a baby instead of one. The more complex it takes more than one atom in the form of energy, a movement of atoms, to create everything we know of life from our thoughts we can plot on EEG machines to the chair I'm sitting on.

A single cause cannot create. One atom cannot create a chair anymore than one parent can create a child.

One-god believers I ration they rather see diversity as one unit while polytheist (speaking for myself) like to see diversity as just what it is, diversity or many causes/many-gods. I also don't see "gods" as causes because I do not agree that the universe can pop out of thin air or "be created" from nothing. There is always a formation of one thing into or with another. There is also a cycle and mixture of sorts that creates B from A. Nothing is isolated.

One-god theology sounds new age as many many people years ago were polytheists not monotheist. As such, I can only assume and study that monotheism came when power and politics took over into religion. People started having "one ruler" and "one king" that dictated things or aka one god.

What's ironic about the whole thing is, we can kill one ruler (say president) but we can't kill god. Whomever thought of that one-god all powerful concept was actually smart in keeping control or peace among people. The problem is people took advantage of that power and now you have what we have today.

If we stuck with polytheism, each person would have the right and freedom to worship or believe in whichever god they are called to (or however described). It would mirror their personality and visa versa rather than everyone trying to figure out one-god in their heads but have many denominations in the attempt to do so.

So that's why it makes sense to me.

Please read this in full. This is actually what I believe when it comes to god versus gods. I don't believe in god/deity; and, I believe in spirits/souls of our environment, kin, history, and deceased. Whichever you call it, we need multiple things to sustain life, not one.

That's why it's logical.

 

[bnabernard]

The first human being, in the image of God was neither male or female, the female man relationship came about when Eve was created from out of Adam.
There are experiments for women to bear ofspring without the help of men using, if I recall rightly extrcts from their bone marrow..

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please
I can't understand those things
Would u please represent an explanation to make it easier?

You are arguing for creation by a deity based on the concept of Causality. You have asserted that it MUST be so, therefore God is real and his name is Allah. (Although that last part is a stretch which you have yet to directly address.)

I have provided one simple rebuttal. You have not (and cannot) refute the possibility of Infinitism. It's entirely possible that our Universe is but one in an infinite cycle of Universes, needing no cause. Your argument for the existence of God is based on nothing more than unsupported assertion and a few subsequent logical arguments. It is not a good argument.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Many people don't like the types of dogmatic religions and condemning Gods out there. The Gods demand that you worship them or be punished and tormented in hell. These gods restrict certain acts as sinful and demand that you live how they see fit.

But you can create your own personal God and your own personal religion that is suited for your personality and your lifestyle. Has anyone done so? What name would you give your personal religion and what name would you give your personal god? Furthermore, what would your own personal heaven or hell be like?

Do you think that this should be the new religion as opposed to those other awful and condemning religions out there in the world that cause harm to self and others? Sure, you could just create your own personal philosophy rather than a religion, but many people are interested in a God and an afterlife. That's how all religions work anyway. They make something up, pass it along, and many people believe in it.

I think that idea that you can create your own religion is silly. It is not like you can wander into a spiritual supermarket and say ‘I’ll have some of that and some of this and I’ll mix it all up together, this is my religion, and I’ll put my name on it.’ What you will end up with is a mess. I remember the story of a man who went to his local Christian minister and complained that he wanted to make his own religion, and what must he do to do that? The minister thought about it and then replied, ‘well all you have to do, is to die, be buried and rise the third day, and you should have people following you.’

I think the real question that should asked, is what is truth? Everything and all your belief system, should be built on truth. If it isn’t then it will fail. I once had a conversation with a lady about Christ and in the end she said ‘you have your truth and I have mine.’ That cannot be, because there is only one truth which is built on facts and it up to us to find it. Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity