-->
@EtrnlVw
I think it is coherent in a way. But not to us.
Yes, No, I don't know
Posts
Total:
165
-->
@RationalMadman
Firstly, no it doesn't. Matter isn't the same as energy, nor is space or time. Energy has many forms but to say that everything is energy is firstly physically false because 'field theory' hasn't been proven yet.
I don't go by what has been "proven" so that means jack shyt because what becomes "proven" was already true before it was ever proven. Matter would not exist without energy. Energy is a property of matter, matter itself has energy called "rest energy". Prior to the Big Bang was this body of pure energy which co-existed with the conscious activity of God, the Big Bang generated quite a few more elements to create with, but without the isolation and condensed point of energy which was then released to create what we call the BB there would be no matter.
You are aware how matter and forms are created right?
Matter isn't the same as energy
And so an ice cube is not the same as water?? lol...
Even if you proved field theory true, your latter statement is false as consciousness has nothing to do with whether or not the brain is made out of energy.
I have no idea what you are arguing here. Brains were never mentioned, they simply confine consciousness to the observation point of the physical body.
Are you saying that all forms of energy have consciousness as a result of them or are you saying the opposite?
First you have conscious awareness, then energy and then form. Conscious activity generates energy and then energy is manipulated through processes to create form.
All forms of energy have awareness because as I said, they co-exist. Anywhere you have energy you have awareness and anywhere you have awareness you have energy. That is why you see energy act like an intelligent source in creation, by what it produces. Because awareness is always present wherever there are processes of energy.
If not, I don't understand how this sentence flows. How did consciousness make electricity in a cable?
Electricity is harnessed and conducted (isolated) through electrical components to power equipment, appliances and machinery. Your house contains an electrical panel to conduct the flow of electricity to all parts of the home. Without electricity the appliances within the house are worthless...dead. However, electricity exists independent of any electrical components or panels...it exists independent of your house.
In the same way consciousness is harnessed, isolated and confined to physical bodies to animate and power them. Your brain is much like an electrical panel which conducts the flow of consciousness to your physical body and confines your experience to this world. Brains don't create consciousness, they are simply a component that is conductive to the presence of your energetic soul. And...much like electricity can be measured through an electrical meter/device so can brain activity be measured in a brain while consciousness occupies it.
As well consciousness exists independent of the brain in the same way electricity exists independent of components.
Even further consciousness can be compared to energy as I've been saying. Energy exists both within form and independent of form, it is omnipresent and is neither created nor destroyed. Ironic how energy has the same attributes as God??
How did consciousness make kinetic energy from movement?
Conscious activity IS movement. As this movement occurs energy is generated. This energy can be manipulated, isolated or confined through the power of God's conscious thought. Your soul (consciousness) also generates energy on a much smaller scale because God is not restricted or confined to any location or forms. God's consciousness exists on an eternal massive scale. The amount of energy that is generated from an omnipresent, vast and infinite Reality is unimaginable. This full scale energy was condensed and released at the BB to create and generate more materials through the combustion and fusion of kinetic force.
-->
@RationalMadman
How did everything come from nothing?
Something { occupied space } does not come from nothing { truly non-occupied } space except in the irrational, illogical lack of common sense of some peoples imaginary consciousness state aka day dreaming
How did your god come from nothing?
None here or elsewhere have "god". They have word with no rational, logical common sense basis. Old news
If it didn't come from nothing, what is logically coherent about an entity that never didn't exist prior to its existence?
Finite, occupied space Universe IS and is eternally existent. Prior existence is irrelevant to Universe/God.
You keep saying you have absolute proof of god and souls but what is the proof? It's about educated guesses on either side. We are estimating and gambling, not directly knowing.
Soul = biological ergo synonyms. Simple, not complex to grasp.
If you truly deeply know that God is real and if your basis is that it is simply logical, then what is logical about it?
Just as their exist virtual, quasi-real unicorns, that we can see as rubber toy, or on tv or digiatal gaming, so is the same for "God is real" concept.
At least explain. How are you conscious of yourself?
What your really asking and not clear ab out is ego. * i * How is humans have access to Meta-space/Spirit-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo ego * i *
Why isn't your body just a puppet of the god?
My guess is that, Universe has total of 184 chemical elements --I dunno--- and I do know, that, at best, we my find 92 chemical elements in humans.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just wanted to add It's always nice to see you here
-->
@3RU7AL
What is perfect?
-->
@janesix
What is perfect?
Perfection cannot be improved.
-->
@janesix
Just wanted to add It's always nice to see you here
Thanks! I always like seeing you around too. It's nice to know that after all these years communicating in a forum with the same people all the time that there are a few (maybe a couple) people to share in comradery.
-->
@EtrnlVw
First off, I appreciate that you are here to have proper conversation, and reciprocate this respect. You seem articulate, eager for a productive discussion and civil. I don't wish to turn this thread into a battlefield.
My biggest problem with God can be categorised as the "problem of evil", but it's not quite simple. If we posit the existence of a supernatural God who is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then we must conclude that there is no unnecessary suffering at all. Take note of the term unnecessary suffering, synonymous to gratuitous evils. Unnecessary suffering is tautologically unjustified - it cannot be explained away by a "greater good" of "free will", as that would render them justified suffering. With these definitions, it can be concluded that, in the thiets world view, all the suffering we see around can be justified, and that, as God is all loving, every bit of seemingly "unjust" act is actually just. This is where it becomes difficult, as I can very easily point out unnecessary suffering in the world. Take a deer as an example. What good could possibly come out of a deer being squashed by a falling tree, resulting in hours of agonising pain? Why did the suffering go on for exactly as long as it did? Why didn't God shorten it for 10 seconds? Why didn't God marginally shorten the suffering? This too me seems unanswerable.
-->
@Bones
First off, I appreciate that you are here to have proper conversation, and reciprocate this respect. You seem articulate, eager for a productive discussion and civil. I don't wish to turn this thread into a battlefield.
I appreciate that.
My biggest problem with God can be categorised as the "problem of evil", but it's not quite simple. If we posit the existence of a supernatural God who is bothand omnipotent,
I'm going to hear you out here, I just wanted to make it clear that we haven't given God any features or attributes. Actually the "Omni" terms won't be necessary until we show they should be necessary and it may be that only one is usable but I'll get to that later. I want to start from scratch instead of invoking ideas I may or may not agree with. Mainly because I don't want to spend any time correcting concepts that I have not presented. If you come into the discussion with preconceived ideas it will only hamper productivity.
I do have a very unique approach and I want you to have the best opportunity here so for now, let's just go with the idea of Creator and we have not asserted any particular personality other than being creative. The one feature we could at least apply given that the Creator is creative could be "conscious" meaning alive and aware. And....of course that would entail mind, thought and intelligence.
then we must conclude that there is no unnecessary suffering at all. Take note of the term unnecessary suffering, synonymous to gratuitous evils. Unnecessary suffering is tautologically unjustified -
I agree with this only to a point, and that being that I understand the logic behind it. So understand that I comprehend why you believe there should be no unnecessary suffering but I must say that it is derived from the very features that you asserted God has. And I'm not saying that God is evil either just follow me on this one.
The dynamics of the full scale of creation make limiting what can be experienced in this world an issue. There are reasons why we see the full swing of duality on this planet. I call it the wild, wild west of creation lol....it is where we can experience both extreme pleasure, joy and happiness as well as extreme sorry, pain and sadness. It is not that the Creator forces or limits us to suffering rather it is the weak state of man that demands that he must learn from pain. Pain has a cause, evil has a cause and suffering has causes. Where there is any fruit of suffering there is a root cause involved.
To understand why, you must first understand the nature of duality and you also should understand very clearly that evil, pain and suffering aren't things or objects that are created...rather they are free to occur. If they are free to occur they are free not to occur.
it cannot be explained away by a "greater good"
You're right, I think that is a silly justification and again, misses the real reason why suffering occurs.
"free will", as that would render them justified suffering.
Justified only in the sense that it occurred because it was caused.
With these definitions, it can be concluded that, in the thiets world view, all the suffering we see around can be justified, and that, as God is all loving, every bit of seemingly "unjust" act is actually just. This is where it becomes difficult, as I can very easily point out unnecessary suffering in the world. Take a deer as an example. What good could possibly come out of a deer being squashed by a falling tree, resulting in hours of agonising pain? Why did the suffering go on for exactly as long as it did? Why didn't God shorten it for 10 seconds? Why didn't God marginally shorten the suffering? This too me seems unanswerable.
Before we go much further lets back up a hair, because again we are encroaching upon religious territory with concepts we have no need to assert yet. It seems your whole basis for this problem stems from your idea of omnibenevolence. But for the sake of argument lets say that God probably doesn't want creation to endure any more pain than necessary but at the same time....if we want to enjoy a world where we have trees, which by the way provides oxygen as we know, then we have to risk the potential one could fall on us at any given time. Having said that, it is indeed going to be a very rare event.
The problem with hypotheticals is that you are forcing me to answer for problems that may or may not occur and we may not have the proper perspective or perception to see them accurately.
How could we possibly know if a deer suffers and for how long if 1....we aren't the deer and 2....we aren't God? I'm not a deer so I have no real way of knowing how and if they suffer and for how long. Any answer I give could be limited to my own ignorance of that experience. So we can talk about pain and suffering in general but I can't answer for hypotheticals because I'd have to be the one experiencing the occurrence to allow for an accurate perception of the event.
I'm also not stupid, so I know that pain is a real phenomenon and I also know that as pain reaches a certain level or threshold consciousness will black out. You can only experience pain for so long before you will just go unconscious. Now the flip side of that coin is that you can also experience beautiful, orgasmic and enjoyable sensations and everything in between so if we want a world where we experience touch and feel sensation through a nervous system then we risk undergoing very unpleasant experiences of pain but as I mentioned previously there is a shut off feature, there is also adrenaline which can mask pain.
So we are back at the nature of duality, if we want one thing it makes for the possibility of the other. You can't have pleasure without pain, you can't have light without darkness, you can't have cold without hot, you can't have freedom without confinement ect ect that is the very nature of duality.
Now it appears there are two distinct issues of suffering...pain that can be caused due to "free will" and perhaps suffering that occurs as a result of accident or misfortune. The first one is easy to deal with because we know that we are free to cause really anything we want in this world and inflict any pain we want on another whether that be physical, mental or psychological. This must be possible for us to live in a world where we are free to choose but this is also why creation is ruled by moral laws. Some people might call it Karma and others may simply call it a form of moral cause and effect (sowing and reaping).
Now pain that occurs due to misfortune or accident can't be avoided because again, if we want one thing we must have the other. If we want a world where we can build cars and drive anywhere we want at any reasonable speeds then we must suffer the reality and consequence that there could being an accident, it only follows not because the world is mean but because one thing must allow for the other....and again back to the tree problem, if we want trees we risk the potential one could fall on us and if we want pleasure we risk the potential for pain.
Now, as far as there being unfavorable circumstances I want you to go look up the term "Karma" and really let that soak in before you react to it. I know we said we weren't going to invoke any religious ideals but since you presented a problem that results from a religious perception of God I think it is fair to introduce this concept. What I want you to do, is take that concept at face value and simply apply it to how you feel about suffering and remember that Karma is not limited by any time frame or person, it is simply a cause and effect law and can play out anyway necessary.
The one thing that I want you to really consider about Karma is that nothing is "unfair" no matter how bad it may appear and the other thing I want you to consider is that it takes the problem of evil and suffering away from the hand of God and into the hands of man. Now, the other feature you have to consider when looking at Karma is reincarnation, and this just means that a soul can come back and be placed into situations and circumstances it must learn from and mainly due to suffering itself caused at some point in time.
How a soul learns from their mistakes is to experience what they put others through in a similar manner, or perhaps if a soul is greedy and lived one life only concerned with itself it may come back to experience what it is like to be deprived. Now keeping in mind that these lives are temporal and though it may seem vicious at times it really is only a brief moment in the eternal nature of the soul. Anyways I don't want to get too far into this but the issue of suffering is rather dynamic and so it takes the consideration of many different angles. I just want you to see how God's existence fits in with the reality we live in and that there really are no equations that cannot be solved or explained.
If you want to, we can set aside the problem of suffering and go back and first deal with God's existence as it relates to the universe I'll leave it up to you.
-->
@Bones
As I said earlier, the solution to the problem of evil, if you accept Pagan and/or deistic outlook as valid, is that the god is at least in part sadistic.
-->
@949havoc
Yes.I speak to him multiple times daily, to the extent that its gone beyond knowing him as a father; he's Dad. The communication is not one-way. Not that I always have response, because I don't, sometimes. But I have had a frequency that assures me I am being heard, understood, and answered. Often, the answer is no, not now, or occasionally no, not at all, stop asking. But often enough, the answer is yes, and that agreement has often been a challenge to do more myself to serve him. And I never approach without being grateful for what I've already received. More often than not, all such communications are nothing but being grateful. I've learned to ask for nothing, and that, alone, has brought abundant blessing.
Hmmm. I do believe in Go. Yet to suggest that God is real because I speak to it is unhelpful. To say that God speaks by frequency of an assurance is also unhelpful. It reveals that God is unable to speak to me in my language. What kind of God would do that?
-->
@Bones
My no is as certain as the no which I give to people asking me whether there are invisible naked men dancing my room right now.
Wow! talk about not understanding the question posed?
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes. I had personal experiences that make me absolutely certain.I'd accept anyone accusing me of being an agnostic but I'm not a soft atheist, instead I'm a deist.The god I believe/know to be real is, in human psyche terms, sociopathic and apathetic. She is also rather feminine, we are here to impress and entertain her.You can think I'm insane, I accept that. I can't make you go through what I did, including clinicial depression where you screamed in your head at god to give you a reason to live and then the reasons came the next day, indisputably. You don't know my life or story, I'm telling you there's something out there and it's apathetic and sadistic but not without redeeming features. The god doesn't want us all to suffer, that's not entertaining to watch, it's more fun if pleasure and characters to root for are mixed in.Everything in reality actually fits this type of god, the rest falls into place after you first reach out and get your own answers (won't be the same as mine).
I thank you for your thoughts - but so subjective it is hardly evidence for me. Although I agree that everything in reality fits the picture of God in the Bible, your explanation does not fit. But kudos to you.
-->
@zedvictor4
Whose GOD/GODESS/GENDER NEUTRAL DEITY?Which GOD/GODESS/GENDER NEUTRAL DEITY?What GOD/GODESS/GENDER NEUTRAL DEITY?GOD/GODESS/GENDER NEUTRAL DEITY in what format?1. An eternal floaty about, supernatural bloke/woman/gender neutral, as mentioned in archaic legends.....Is just as much the impossibility of something from nothing as everything else is.2. Alien ancestor/s....Alien ancestors are a possibility, but logistically unlikely....And are also, ultimately subject to the above limitations of 1.3. Or simply, the principle that gives material evolution purpose.....I tend to loosely run with this option.....An ongoing sequence of events, though nonetheless still subject to the ultimate limitations of 1. and 2.The fact is, no one is actually able to know or explain, how anything can exist.(We are all constrained by what we have been to conditioned to think. relative to ongoing data input, but defined to a greater extent by formative data input).And the opposite of something, is just as bewildering a thought.And personal experiences are exactly that.....Self contained, data processed responses....One thinks, therefore one is.So one thinks a GOD is, therefore a GOD is only a thought.
Yep - another irrational post.
-->
@Tradesecret
Nowhere in my post did I ask what you think of the rationality of my belief. You blindly believe a book written to control people that didn't have a single word of it written until around forty years after Christ was already dead and gone.
-->
@DeadFire27
I DON'T KNOW:I joined this site as a traditional Christian, but, after my humiliating loss to Bones (my first debate), well, I started to doubt myself. I had never actually questioned God before, but the points against it make sense.However, there is a reason I don't personally identify with Atheism either.Death.Where do we go?There is no scientific evidence anywhere which proves where our spirits go, so the only option I can see is a deity. Or deities.So, agnostic. And until someone proves where we go when we die, I'm staying this way.
Death is a good thing to think about. Death by the way proves evolution WRONG. Interestingly, evolutionists would suggest that death is essential for evolution and within that though there is some sense - yet the heart of evolution is - "life". Death is an end.
Nevertheless, I am sorry that a debate with Bones made you question your faith - not that questioning your faith is bad - although losing it seems to demonstrate your faith was weak in the first place.
I have met many atheists who have disgarded atheism because of an argument - mostly because they had never really understood their position. Mostly these days in schools it is assumed that atheism is correct - but it is not given much intellectual basis so many atheists end up stop being atheists. SO what I am saying is don't be too hard on your self. Most people don't think too deeply about these things. Bones is no exception. Ask the right question and he too will have some self doubt.
-->
@RationalMadman
So.
-->
@Tradesecret
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't have an issue with judging. the bible does not say - don't judge - it says - get your house in order before you judge someone else.
Or as Jesus puts it - take the log out of your own eye and then you will be able to see to take the splinter out of someone else's eye.
Judging means making determinations. It means discernment. Making an assessment.
The fact that you are using this text -is nuts.
'
-->
@Tradesecret
Is it really? Do elaborate how you came to rationally conclude that some dude named Jesus is the son of the almighty creator of reality superior to the rest of us and sacred in a way the rest of his worthless creations are not.
Oh, also let me know why a pig is not worthy of respect but a human is, simply because of its species. I'm curious of many aspects of your religion, not just the ones the atheists usually pick at. So, keep your own fucking house in order before coming at me. I didn't try to convince you I was right but you damn well better be ready to convince me you are right if you're to live by what that verse says and come at me about convincing you to believe in what I do.
-->
@Tradesecret
I have met many atheists who have disgarded atheism because of an argument
And what position did they adopt ?
-->
@Tradesecret
Death by the way proves evolution WRONG
If we didn't have death, wouldn't we still have Neanderthals? And no, I don't mean Trump voters.
-->
@Bones
Well I hope you decide that this topic of discussion will at least be worth your effort of consideration. We can go much deeper into the problem of evil but I'm trying to keep this as short as possible. Just to kind of go over the points of why evil and suffering occur....
1. The nature of duality- for one thing to be possible it must allow for another thing to be possible. Without duality there is no creation.
2. The nature of our own will ("free" will)- if evil and suffering are free to occur they are also free not to occur.
3. The nature of Karma- a moral law of cause and effect. "The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."
4. The nature of God has been undecided. The terms omnibenevolence and omnipotence have no meaning in this discussion as of yet.
One thing I have not brought up until now and just something for you to keep in mind is that every single thing each one of us experiences God also experiences. Everything you go through God goes through, everything you observe God observes. This is because there is no distinction between what you experience and what God experiences as you are a direct channel of access for the Creator.
What does this have to do with the problem of evil? well for one it's not really a problem anymore if evil and suffering are part of what God wants to experience, and that most likely extends to the reality that God wants to learn something from the experiences. This doesn't mean God creates it though just that as the soul learns from its actions in a dualistic environment it's learning between the nature of positive and negative. In this way, evil and suffering are teachers just as much as pleasure and joy.
If I do this I get this, if I act this way it creates this or that, or if I don't do this that other thing won't occur and this applies to both sides of duality. And as the soul moves into the knowledge of good and evil it also learns what to do and what not to do. All in all we are learning from our experiences in a compromised setting so to speak and in so doing God is not removed from our own contributions whether they are good or bad. God is one with our experiences because there is no place or location that God is not present, and that means that whatever you do God does, whatever you feel God feels and whatever you see God sees.
This eliminates the temptation to say "well why does God allow this or that to happen"....when the real question is why do we allow it. Because again, there is no distinction between what we allow and what God allows, there is no distinction between what you do and what God observes.
This creates a fifth entry here.
5. Evil and suffering are not a "problem" for God- even though they appear as unfavorable conditions they are required as a means of learning from mistakes and learning about the deepest parts of our character and being. The fact they are the very results of how we operate in the world they are just as free not to occur as they are to occur.
-->
@3RU7AL
Who decides what is perfect and cant be improved?
-->
@janesix
Who decides what is perfect and cant be improved?
You do.
Ex which if any of following to you consider perfection;
0} the Vector Equlibrium ---see also cubo-octahedron LINK see A-- wherein the radii and the chords are of equal length via 12 equal radius spheres around a 13th, nuclear/central sphere,
1} inviolate physical laws aka cosmic principles, ex the can only exist five, regular/symmetrical, and convex, polyhedra of our finite Universe,
2} a biologic that can come in so many differrent forms, and be afflicted with so many differrent physical or mental flaws,
3} a particles that has various properties of mass, charge, spin, --fractional{s} or whole { 0, 1, 2 etc---,
4} a concept that has no mass, no color, no mass, no physical spin, no properties,
5} a whole number, ex 1, 2, 3 etc, or fractions { 1/3rd, 1/4th, 1/6th etc }, or,
6} is transcendental ratio of diameter to circumference Pi more or less perfect { pure },
7} finite, occupied space Universe is more or less perfect { pure } than say,
8} truly macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces surrounds the above #7, finite Universe
You choose, or not.
-->
@Tradesecret
To say that God speaks by frequency of an assurance is also unhelpful. It reveals that God is unable to speak to me in my language.
What does the one, approaching God frequently, and having response, have to do with, and necessarily imply that God cannot speak in any language he chooses to do so.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Evil and suffering are not a "problem" for God- even though they appear as unfavorable conditions they are required as a means of learning from mistakes and learning about the deepest parts of our character and being.
Partly true, in my opinion. I agree with you that it's not a problem for god, however I don't think it's only an important lesson. Many religions make a mistake of romanticising god as a being that is 'good and caring'. God doesn't give a shit when you're in agony, the reason God may lend a hand to you is if you interest god more when you're happy than when you're in agony.
If it's neither way (you bore god either way or entertain god equally either way), God tends to focus on manually altering other things and just leaves your outcomes on 'automatic'. That's what I think anyway, there's no gain for god to actively influence everyone's life to be pain-free, that's a predictable bore to watch unfold and we are here for the entertainment of this 'god'.
-->
@janesix
@949havoc
What does the one, approaching God frequently, and having response, have to do with, and necessarily imply that God cannot speak in any language he chooses to do so.
Humans do not approach God/Universe except in a conceptual { Meta-space/Spirit-1 } way;
1} concept of non-sensical mythical something { occupied space } that created itself,
2} concepts of how Universe/God operates i.e. to find the physical laws/cosmic principles and the collective operational, coor-dinate system { math ergo inclusive of geoemtrty }.
Any other, than the above set of two, is non-sense ergo clueless.
Heart is that of feeling emotion { ex empathy } between humans and humans humanity as a whole or biologic systems as whole eco-system or some specific set of some animals { pets } and has nothing to do with Universe/God.
Universe/God are synonyms that are defined as finite, ---yet eternally existent---, occupied space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You do.
Ex which if any of following to you consider perfection;
0} the Vector Equlibrium ---see also cubo-octahedron LINK see A-- wherein the radii and the chords are of equal length via 12 equal radius spheres around a 13th, nuclear/central sphere,
1}
inviolate physical laws aka cosmic principles, ex the can only exist
five, regular/symmetrical, and convex, polyhedra of our finite Universe,
2} a biologic that can come in so many differrent forms, and be afflicted with so many differrent physical or mental flaws,
3} a particles that has various properties of mass, charge, spin, --fractional{s} or whole { 0, 1, 2 etc---,
4} a concept that has no mass, no color, no mass, no physical spin, no properties,
5} a whole number, ex 1, 2, 3 etc, or fractions { 1/3rd, 1/4th, 1/6th etc }, or,
6} is transcendental ratio of diameter to circumference Pi more or less perfect { pure },
7} finite, occupied space Universe is more or less perfect { pure } than say,
8} truly macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces surrounds the above #7, finite Universe
You choose, or not.
-->
@ebuc
Humans do not approach God/Universe except in a conceptual { Meta-space/Spirit-1 } way;1} concept of non-sensical mythical something { occupied space } that created itself,2} concepts of how Universe/God operates i.e. to find the physical laws/cosmic principles and the collective operational, coor-dinate system { math ergo inclusive of geoemtrty }.
Your premise supposes the God is a spirit. I disagree.
Therefore, your 1] is non sequitur since physical presence is not a myth. It either is, or not.
Your 2] is, in effect, factual because the universe is either ordered and mathematical perfection, or it is disorganized, i.e., not yet formed b y God into an ordered structure of matter and energy, but exists as did the Earth when it was still "without form, and void." Gen, 1: 2
Heart is that of feeling emotion...and has nothing to do with Universe/God.
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Matt 65: 21
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3: 5
"Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me." Psalms 51: 10
"My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." Psalms 73: 26
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Matt. 5: 8
Sorry your heart can do nothing but imagine numbers, and they multiplied by themselves, but draw not unto the perfection of the language of God.
Ex which if any of following to you consider perfection;
Which of your 8 premises is perfection? Those that are pure mathematics, being the language of God, and any other [sorry, none within your eight] that demonstrate the eventual ability for nan to become perfect as God is now, for God was once a mortal man, advancing even as we do, now, just as numbers advance from the finite to the infinite. Your math is a room with no doors; limiting your potential. Our languages do not necessarily define all that we are, just as his does not limit God.
-->
@ebuc
Humans do not approach God/Universe except in a conceptual { Meta-space/Spirit-1 } way;
I completely disagree.