Jesus is not God

Ill vote for this, but I am leaning towards tie currently.

> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell

Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Hinduism)

I do not divert anything.

With terrorism, I state that there is nothing in the book that supports terrorism, unless you think self defence is terrorism.
With oppression of women, I state there is nothing in the book, that oppresses women.
With Miracles, I say there are miracles in the Quran
With contradictions, I address the contradictions. I am not doing anything here, I am hard to debate because people cannot accept the truth, not because I divert it.

Nothing you say can change my mind as its rather void of sense. I dont follow Christianity as i dont agree with all its teachings. Therefore as a pantheist even if i think Jesus is part of God im not a Christian. You're hard to debate rayhan, not because your ideas are so strong but more so because it feels like you flip the board all together and find some way to come up with something which diverts the conversation into another logical fallacy.

I never said there were more creators. I said Hindu's worship the different Gods like they are the creator. Plus Hinduism is not a religion where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell. Hinduism is like Buddhism, it is an ideology, a more philosophical faith rather than a spiritual faith. After you die, depending on karma, you get turned into a different being. It is a little confusing however as I said, Hinduism is a different matter

> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.

there is only one creator in hinduism

and that creator is Brahman

All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.

1 creator who is independent
1 creator who has no beginning
1 creator who is self sufficient
1 creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc etc.
You can believe in what you want to believe, but there can only be 1 truth. And that 1 truth will come in the hereafter

> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.

not exactly

Brahman is the source

all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman

like the characters you encounter inside your dreams

Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc. Plus Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, Christianity is claiming to be mono however it is clearly not. But then again, this is a difference of opinion. Nothing that I can say will change yours or Ehyeh's mind. Ehyeh believes in Jesus being God yet is not Christian, not much sense in that.

i'm simply pointing out

that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams

then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing

in-fact

Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.

it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream

and our universe is Brahman's dream

A dream is completely different to life. Jesus existed in life however he had no divinity on his own, only with the help of his father and he was 100% human. Never encouraged people to worship him etc

here's an example of separate without being separate

when you dream

do you encounter other people and or animals in your dream ?

do you consider those people and animals you encounter in your dreams to be your puppets ?

or do you perceive them to be independently-minded creatures ?

"I agree, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power."

as 3RU7AL said, to be omnipotent you don't need to be infinite in size, as to be infinite in size/space means omnipresence, not omnipotence. Therefore only 1 aspect of God needs to be omnipotent.....I don't know how to phrase it any easier. That means God can be us in a omnipresence sense and it doesn't deny Gods ultimate omnipotence. Even if God were not omnipresent, he could still be omnipotent.

"God is infinite. But not in his creation. The reason being is it would contradict his other attributes. If God is all powerful, He cannot be in his own creation. Therefore, if he is not in his own creation, he has to be outside his creation. We believe that God is closer to us than our jugular vein in spirituality. However as you are talking about a physical aspect of God, this is not supported"

If God exists in us in a spiritual sense but not in a material one, that still means there is a place where God doesn't exist. Which either means my body and the universe don't actually exist, or God is once more, not everywhere, meaning not infinite. What you said is like me saying, "There's a bogeyman in every corner and space in this room." Then you ask, "so is he on the roof?" I say, "no everywhere but the roof." Clearly, there's a contradiction here. He's not everywhere in the room if he's not on the roof.

I've debated this before... I do like to play devil's advocate.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god

Omg, yes it means infinite power.
Omnipotent, means infinite power
Meaning, there is no one more powerful than God
Lets just say a raindrop is God. This is believed by Ehyeh. a raindrop is a small aspect of God. First of all, that raindrop would have to have Gods qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience, but it doesn't because the main God which is not in the universe has got these qualities. 2 entities cannot have these qualities. If God who is not in this universe has these qualities then nothing else can have them. It is so simple

> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.

OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER

god retains all power at all times

nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will

without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish

god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things

no event can contradict the will of god

there is no other will

only the will of god

This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.

I just cannot believe why people are not understanding this. Basic, basic understanding.

Do you not understand?

I agree, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power. So God needs to have the most power, no one can have more power than Him. This is what it means if you break it down. Now, there cannot be 1 aspect of him which is not omnipotent. If 1 aspect is not omnipotent, then something would be more powerful than that 1 aspect. This contradicts Gods omnipotence so that 1 aspect cannot be omnipotent. This is basic logic,

All the aspects of God need to be omnipotent, and the ones that are not, are not God. This is basic logic,

I do not mix up omnipotence with omniscience etc. I know the difference. But omnipotence is just 1 example. I could apply what I just said in my last paragraph with omniscience as well, however omnipotence is the more used term. You are the one contradicting things. So simple to understand yet they are 'deaf dumb and blind' to understand

> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic

just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability

for example

you can presumably read and type

but that does not mean that you hair can read and type

it does not mean that your feet can read and type

we are like god's fingernails

the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system

You seem to conflate omnipotence with omniscience and omnipresence, putting all 3 into omnipotence. I'm not even going to get into how silly (imo) your argument against god being omnipresent is. Its a direct contradiction to be infinite but not in everything at once.

Rayhan, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. Omni present means to be EVERYWHERE. Since they are different words for different things it means they dont necessarily exist together. Therefore not all aspects of God have to be omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time to be omnipotent. That doesnt make sense. God is omnipotent if even only 1 aspect of him is that.

Based.

It does not matter about the substance of the shapes, matters about the shapes themselves. If I slice a person in half, the top of the head would be the beginning, and the bottom of the belly would be the end. Then we move on to the other shape. The top of the pelvis would be the beginning and the bottom of the feet would be the end. Or vice versa. It does not matter about the substance, the shape itself

God is infinite. But not in his creation. The reason being is it would contradict his other attributes. If God is all powerful, He cannot be in his own creation. Therefore, if he is not in his own creation, he has to be outside his creation. We believe that God is closer to us than our jugular vein in spirituality. However as you are talking about a physical aspect of God, this is not supported

Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic

You've previously said God is infinite, now you dont believe hes omnipresent? how do you reason that?

Omnipotent simply means to have infinite power, to be "all powerful" is a mistranslation.

not all of God needs to be "all powerful" to be omnipotent, only one aspect of himself needs to be INFINITELY powerful to fulfill the omnipotent criteria. There's a reason why there's a distinction between omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience

> It would mean that God had a beginning.

not necessarily

the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"

the shapes have a beginning

the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning

How have i contradicted myself? can you show me in any reality, where a chair and paint are wholly physically distinct to the senses, from touch, to sight, to smell etc?

What? That just supports my point, If God is not omnipotent in 1 aspect, then that 1 aspect is not God. Because there is something that is more powerful than that 1 aspect. it is just basic english

omnipotent
ŏm-nĭp′ə-tənt
adjective
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty.
Having unlimited power of a particular kind.

Based on the definition of omnipotent, God can have aspects of himself which are not all powerful, if there is one aspect of himself which is all powerful.

God is not omnipresent. I do not believe that. So it is not a fact of dodging a question, it is a fact of you being too ignorant of looking at my answers and interpreting that Rayhan does not believe that God is omnipresent

However you have just contradicted yourself with the paint analogy. Lets say the paint and the floor were made from the same materials. 1 primary materiel with the rest being secondary and changeable. If the paint is then spilled on the floor, you can basically say according to your logic that the paint is falling on the paint and it is not a boundary. I will give an example on your perspective of God. God is a chair and God is the floor. Both chair and floor are made from 100% wood or 99% wood. You can then say that the chair and the floor have no boundary as they are both the same. So the chair is God and floor is God. There is no valuation of God here

> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.

another example would be a red ball

would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?

or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"

You think very black and white rayhan. I think God is infinite, i think God net gains through a sense of separation from himself. Whether you see this as limiting is up too you, i personally don't as i believe all aspects of him return to infinity once they let the unreal illusions die. Your still wholly incapable of answering my question ive been asking you, constantly dodging it.

If God is omnipresent, how is he seperate from the universe?

We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.

also can you write your comments in 1 comment pls, it is kinda hard if I send a message and you send another 1. just make all your points in one comment

Of course every aspect of God has to be all powerful. If one aspect of God is not all powerful, then it is weak. And if it is weak, then it is not God as God is all powerful. It his God's nature to be all powerful however you do not think like this

So there is a whole, lets assume it is a block of cheese. I half the block of cheese, cook a half and eat it and poo it out. The block of cheese is in the sewage system. The block of cheese has decomposed and has now become my poo. Does that block of cheese in the sewage system still have the same attributes, properties, smell, taste as the one in the fridge?

I don't see why every aspect of God has to be all powerful in every moment. With certain theories of time, it remains true that all those arguments you just said are incorrect as they rely on a linear sense of time. All eventually will collapse and go back to God in almost all beliefs, even pantheist ones, once more then attaining limitlessness in his ultimate being. You say God can only do things which make himself more powerful, have you ever thought to consider there is a lesson or something valuable in a sense of separation from itself something which makes him more powerful than if he chose not to create this way? The idea that for something to be perfect must mean it cannot grow anymore, is wrong. As to be infinite means to always be transcending always going up more. God is like maths, simply endless but always going up. Therefore it can be justified that there could be things God gains from creating the universe and embodying as everything inside it.

God is not split into parts, as the sense of "I" we have doesn't exist. I've said this before, but separation as a whole is an illusion. Read my "all is one" debate. The believe that things can even be subtracted into parts from the whole, is WRONG. Scientifically.

If you both believe that God is everything,

If God is a droplet of water, if God is a grain of sand, and there are billions and trillions and more and if God is a star and there are billions of stars and if God is a person, there are billions of people etc etc. This basically means that God is split into parts. Illogical. The reason why is very very simple. It would mean that God had a beginning. If God is infinite, and you break God into parts, then each part has a beginning and an end to the next part. And of course you guys both believe that God has no beginning and no end.

If God is a droplet of water, if God is a grain of sand, how do we know if that is God? By this I mean what attributes is God like that the grain of sand has? Is the grain of sand omnipotent? If God is all powerful, there cannot be something more powerful than Him. So a grain of sand is not all powerful, which means it is not God. Basic.

> No. He used his will to make the materiel.

(EITHER) god's will is part of god (OR) god's will is part of something else

god's will is the materiel

also, when god took part of itself and made the cosmos, that was not "subtracting" anything from anything

the total substance and power of god remained constant

the same before

and the same after

You hurt yourself, God in his higher form doesn't suffer the way you do even if he is you. When you suffer doesn't mean God does, as he has a different perspective on your suffering. He has more knowledge of the events, as he directly sees them through you but has higher knowledge of those events and different morals and a different "I" so he doesn't feel the way you do, even if part of him is you. i believe God experiences through us. If you disagree, show how God can be omnipresent but separate from the universe at the same time.

You believe what you want to believe but don't say I did not warn you.

I am not as intellectual as you so many of these big words you are presenting are not in my vocab.

Realistically, if I am hurting myself, am I hurting myself or am I hurting God?

It seems abnormal because you have an ego a sense of "I". This is a normal experience for most people, but most philosophers realise the "I" doesnt actually exist.... at least in the way we like to imagine it. "you" as in who you believe you are, doesnt really exist.

God is you, so if you hurt another you're really hurting yourself. Although many would say you cannot consider yourself part of God till you realise your union with him, only then can you act in tandem with Gods true will. Essentially we do evil because we have egos, or take on the illusions of not being one, or God. Yet because this is simply unreal, if we overcome it we become one with Gods mind, therefore act as he would. So you don't act as God or the higher form of you would act, as you can only act the way you do in ignorance. But God is still these other parts of the universe too, although they could be said to have free will or God allows aspects of himself to feel separate from himself simply for the experience it. If you think this limits God, you have no way of proving this, as it relies of a certain theory of a linear time and many other assumptions you must presume.

No. He used his will to make the materiel. Not pieces of him. This is illogical, because if God is infinite, there cannot be pieces of him. This would make him finite. For example, reduce his power. And you may say, He is God, he does whatever he wants. He does stuff that befits his attributes. If he makes himself weaker and he is omnipotent then that is going against his attributes. Illogical

> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.

god made the materiel from the only available resource

god made the materiel out of god

pieces of god

It is not a threat, a warning.

If I kill myself, am I killing God? If I kill people, am I killing God? This is wrong according to the Bible. If I spit a chewing gum out, am I spitting out God? This entire philosophy is just abnormal