Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[Unification]

But that's my argument. We've got nothing(verifiable, anyway) to suggest anything but a physical plain. That you believe there is some hidden or tucked away aspect to consciousness is fine, but there is nothing suggesting that's the case. As near as we can tell, without some manner of physical medium "consciousness" doesn't exist, it is all (quite literally) in your head. If it weren't, wouldn't there be some way to discern this?


I'm willing to bet that the "turn" towards consciousness and such was a gradual one rather than 'flipping a switch'. Something that slowly creeped up on us over eons, and we only really noticed it properly long after we'd had it. Sort of like how you're now breathing manually rather than automatically.

There is plenty to suggest a non-physical plane interacting with protons,neutrons,electrons. A requirement of physicality is to have mass. Not everything has mass. The only stuff that can be somewhat tested with little accuracy are things that have mass.

Take a thought or a breath, put them on a scale and weigh them... do they have mass?

The medium doesn't have to be "physical." The medium could perfectly be various forms of massless light/energy.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe the word "obvious" shows that you can't prove what you say. For me it is obvious that God was already formed and did not need to be in a formation process or be formed by anything.

Since allegedly God said "before me no god was formed" we know from God himself that gods are formed. I'm just asking you who or what forms gods? Obviously humans form gods, but who or what else?

 

[George-ananda]

No, I just find the Abrahamic notion that God spent time judging people to be utterly tediously things to do, as if judging humans for the afterlife, seemed to be pointless.

If the universe was his creation, and so vast, don't you think there are better things to do than deal with humans?

Why have them live and die on earth, then judge them and send them to heaven or hell?

The whole notion that God test them on earth, judge them when they die, and then sending them to whatever afterlife they deserve, seem rather absurd.

If God want populate heaven with people, then why not just create more angels, instead of dealing with "sinful" or "imperfect" humans.

I personally have moved past the Abrahamic God concept and hold a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) view. I was earlier just pointing out a flaw in the OP's criticism of the Abrahamic God concept, that was all. The OP was trying to give an infinite God concept limited abilities.

 

[Unification]

So do just about all NT scholars. Josephus, for example, is practically universally regarded as a witness to Jesus yet isn't in Jewish tradition. Virtually all scholars regard the Talmud as at least possibly (if not probably) referring to Jesus, yet nobody uses these references as evidence for anything but at best evidence for the view that Jesus existed (as if all of our evidence for Jesus were akin to that for Pythagoras: no biography until ~500 years later).


Wrong. Because there is an obvious difference between evidence for an individual and evidence for a particular tradition about that individual. Few if any today regard Alexander the Great or Caesar as gods, yet few if any wouldn't regard those who spoke of them as such as testifying (witnesses) to their historical persons.

And how would you compare his conclusions with those of the Jewish scholars Vermes and Neusner or the great Josephan scholar Feldmen or the elementary texts I gave for more information and additional citations
(Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching. Continuum.
Dunn, J. D. (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Westminster Press.
Theißen, G., & Merz, A. (2011). Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.)
or more specific texts
(e.g. Schäfer, P. (2010). Jesus im Talmud. Mohr Siebeck.)?

The "Talmud" and "NT/gospels" are simply telling the same exact stories using different language, characters, and symbols. One is older and one is more modern with evolved language and of Greek as opposed to Hebrew/Aramic. None of it happened historically. None of the characters are historical or literal.

The problem is that "Jesus" isn't a literal historical figure or literal guy. The other problem is tradition. The other problem are the texts are not historical or from a left to right/timeline POV.

The exodus is the same exact story as the "NT gospels" and have nothing to do with literal historical characters or history.

 

[Muffled]

Since allegedly God said "before me no god was formed" we know from God himself that gods are formed. I'm just asking you who or what forms gods? Obviously humans form gods, but who or what else?

I believe you are correct. humans do tend to make gods. Also they can come into power through superior technology. However God is not in that category.

 

[Muffled]

I personally have moved past the Abrahamic God concept and hold a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) view. I was earlier just pointing out a flaw in the OP's criticism of the Abrahamic God concept, that was all. The OP was trying to give an infinite God concept limited abilities.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.