I have achieved peace when I understood that everything is decided by God alone

So, I must be very careful here so I don't describe him in the Eastern Orthodox manner.

All Orthos and Caths agree that on a fundamental level, Father existed first.

Where the hugest Trinity disagreement (not sure on OOs) between EO and Cath is to do with a concept called Filioque.

For Caths, instantaneously the Son person was begotten. It is theorised his form and name in Old Testament is the unnamed Angel of the Lord who claimed to be equal to the Lord and was contextually was described as the Lord multiple times as well. In other words a subset of Caths including me theorise that inside Kudaism the Son persona, not yrt born as boy Yeshua, was in Angel Form as the apex Arch-archangel that even Michael was not equal to.

This is not confirmed biblically. It is strongly implied. What is also implied is The Son did not originate as angel at all but as god itself in another 'Person'.

Then from both as a unified way to experience the will, love and guidance (and more) of both camre/begot Holy Spirit. This is the most huye disagreement between EO and Catholics. EO insist this is severe heresy, to them HS is solely from and by Father's leadership and will, to Catholics HS is from a unified will of Father and Son.

Your question then, is who made Father. Father did not get made as such. Father is unedited Yhwh in a way but he instantly begot the Son persona so he could lean into role as leader, punisher, protector etc. most likely and also because Son can visit us here, Father has no form (yes I am.disagreeing with Catholics painting father as an.old man with white hair etc this is just wrong). Father is absolutely formless. He was unmade, uncreated and unbegotten. He always was is and will be but because he somehow needs the Son as the loving, forgiving side of him and the speaker and HS represents the will, aura, love, courage etc of both, he instantly made both, foreseeing the need to.

Mocking might score you a like among atheists, but thats about all it does now.

As I suggested then.

Your GOD conveniently, didn't need to be created.

So in that case, if one thing doesn't need to be created, then nor does anything else need to be created.

Therefore a creator GOD is unnecessary, other than as a character in a latter day hypothetical creation myth.

I already knew that.

I think I commited heresy... It says the Father did not exist before the Son by logic in our Catholic doctrine. But what I think it means by that is all 3 existed first before time itself or angels existed. On a fundamental level Father had to exist first.

I am confused.

Zed, are you a god? If not, do you admit you need to be created?

Yes, I understand your view. I just don't agree with it, because I think we are here to prove to ourselves, and to God, that we can act on our own to decide to follow his advice. We are useless to him, otherwise, if he is deciding for us what to do. My mortal father stopped making decisions for me once he recognized I had developed skills to make my own decisions, and he trusted that I would make wise decisions. When I did not, he didn't beat me; he sat down with me and asked questions about my motivation to decide to make wrong decisions, and helped me to think about what I might encounter to address situations not yet encountered so I would know what to do in the future. We had many discussions like this as I matured, and I now serve that purpose for my daughter.  I know you did not have that kind of relationship with your dad, and that breaks my heart than anyone suffers by that. So, in a sense, I'm trying to take the part of a father, my friend, only because I appreciate our back-and-forths, and have learned much from you and consider you a friend, even though we have some divergent ideas, and it has taken time for me to reach that conclusion of friendship. Agree to disagree on omnipotence?

And not answering the question will score you no points, nor will you get a gold star for effort.

Though I will award you a gold star for being the most reinvented member on DebateArt.

I did heresy, I apologise. He begot them via the same Yhwh essence of himself. Be did not create them as a subentity thus they were unmade, only begotten.

I admit to not knowing the reason for material existence.

And a magic man that exists for no reason does not assuage my ignorance.

Term is 'mystical' and only 1 of the 3 is okay to call a man as Christ is fully Man still (up there) and also fully God.

It was probably good for me that I never saw my father. The kind of father who never bothered to even call to check is not really someone I could miss in life. If he never cared to even see me, then I lose nothing by not having him in my life now. At best, I can just thank him for creating me, I guess.

Alright, agree.

Magic, as in appeared from nowhere...Which sure is a mystery.

And folk myths and legends are what they are...Analogically reasonable, relative to time and ignorance.

Idc the logic of how exists. It is am axiom. Metapgorically I am Super Mario, he runs Nintendo. I am focused on the stars and resisting Bowser.

How he came to exist is not my concern. I am certain of him. Allah is the other truly viable option but Allah is a demonic distortion to the point Allah treats his adherent akin to how Satant treats the demons.

Judaism has a viable alternative and Judaism only understood Father properly, not the other 2.

Well, the biblical myths are such that YHWH,  the Christin GOD and Allah are all derived of the same "mystical" man hypothesis and therefore essentially the same GOD.

And no doubt, that this GOD was a derivation of a previous idea.

And who's GOD club is best, is obviously relative to those who have joined and paid their subscriptions to whichever club.

But to pay homage to a mystery man with no concern for mystery man's validity, is a tad naive to say the least.

Just think, if it weren't for an asteroid, it would perhaps be intelligent reptiles arguing the toss over a mystery reptile.

Though, intelligence is as intelligence does, and the application of intelligence is not always sensible.

I think there's a definite peace in believing that everything is going to happen the way it was meant to and it's all predetermined. It frees you from responsibility, care, urgency, stress. 

But the implications of that philosophy are less peaceful. Effort is futile; personal accountability doesn't exist; free will is an illusion.

I am fine with those now.

In a way, knowing you will live up to a certain point frees you of the worry of smaller things. It's a feedback loop where less stress means you get to live longer.

Yep, I think that is a reasonable assessment.

I dont need to answer questions. I merely asked you not to mock religions.

I am a flat earther who think if there was an 'asteroid' it was sent by God.

Even if round earth theory is true, Father decides if massive natural disasters are permitted to occur or not, at times he even does them.

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die.

P.S. lying is a sin so I do worry how to balance that with my kids (if/when I have 🙏 and theyre lets say 11+ asking this) who will have to lie to ace biology and physics exams especially if they specialise in that. I am sure it is venial rather than mortal lying. I will quietly mention it to the Priest to make sure. Catholics have for a long time worked  better with science than Prots have. I will be careful how I go about telling.

And I merely explained that I question religion...And in doing so, one will inevitably point out religion's flaws.

And religion with it's associated ritualism, as a creation and existence hypothesis, is hopelessly flawed.

Which certainly isn't to say that the GOD principle can be overlooked.

Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between a purposeful universal process and pious men dressing up in gowns and pointy hats to recite gibberish.

Well, flat Earth theory is as flat Earth theory does.

Even though spherical Earth  has long since been disregarded as theoretical...But let's not get drawn into flat Earth.

And MANGOD sent the asteroid...I wouldn't expect anything less.

Though if MANGOD is responsible for everything, the he's responsible for everything, and not just the bits that you want him to be responsible for.

And for sure,  the once regional dominance of oppressive Catholic societies, will have undoubtedly dominated scientific research and discovery for a while.

But this is to overlook, human social and intellectual development that occurred previously, later and elsewhere.

And so, our bodies aspire to procreate, and if like attracts like, then any issue will inevitably develop accordingly...It's the way it goes...And the reason why human society upon planet Earth is as it is...Just the way MANGOD intended it to be I suppose.

You know from 1500s to mid 1800s how nasty UK treated Caths right?

You can question without insulting religion.

If people wish to feign insult via association, then such insult is of their own making.

One cannot directly insult an ideological concept...One might as well insult a brick wall.

I think that Caths also had a propensity for treating non-Caths nastily...And not necessarily a UK thing

It was sort of an era of general inter-faith inter-tribal nastiness...And as a human phenomenon, nothing really new.

Some of us have civilised a bit since then...But certainly not all.

But you are British acting like Caths were worse than Prots. How can a Brit say that?

You can.

You don't get it.

He is capable of leaving some things free to defy him. We do not even understand how he makes us, why would you assume he cannot make an entity with some capacity to freely resist him?

Acting?

Cath's, Prot's.

Rival GOD botherers.

Once, both as bad as each other.

Today, in the main more civilised.

Don't see what 21st century Britishness has got to do with it.