How is it meaningless? the Islamic world has had a slavery history as bad as Europe. They even had more female slaves to male slave ratio. Literally tens of millions. I'm unsure how war justifies that. Many Islamic rulers relied on military slaves (non-Muslims).
3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So pros case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person.
You can literally do the calculations yourself on the site, and change family size etc. I'm not disagreeing with you but even if i put it to two people and click literally everything available it only goes up to 20. We dont need all the different types of animals to survive. Admittedly its still too much for con to probably argue against it still being viable but your sources are still likely highballed but they're still in the same range of course so its not much of a complaint.
Here's a calculator you can use to see.
https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/
"To produce enough food to feed a family of four for a year, provided you have a suitable climate condition, you’ll need about 13 acres of land if you’re growing all sources of meat on your farm and 7 acres if you’re raising just pigs. Remember pathways are necessary for easy farm access, and at least 0.5 acres of land should be invested in that."
Novice admittedly highballs it massively with 40 acres, that's ridiculous in most cases unless you're trying to be more than self sufficient but sell to others.
Even for a vegan diet for 1 person you still take up over 3 acres per one person.
You can cherry-pick one majority Islamic nation. There's been way more female prime minsters and leaders in western nations. Mother Mary would never be respected as a leader of people like Muhammad or Jesus no matter what her personality, because she's a woman. A woman could never lead the church, just like a woman cannot lead Islam in any similar sense.
Yes, its sexist if the reason is done because they view women as too pathetic to be a threat. It would be a nice thing to do, if it was done for a nice reason and not because they're simply not a threat to Islam through their womanhood, its an insult.
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'm well aware only non muslim men pay jizya, and that's because Islam is sexist and doesn't seem women as a threat to its existence. It sees women as by nature and legally under the mans authority. They're easier to control, so are the sick and elderly. This is why they don't pay Jizya, not because of any righteous reason. The jizya tax was usually much more than the zakat tax on top of that, being exempt from military service for paying jizya, its simply an excuse to make it look like it wasn't a badge of humiliation. As is self admitted in the Quran, in the quran its seen as a righteous and great honor to die for Islam.
I'm also not a christian, rayhan. Whataboutism doesnt work. I dont like christianity.
"The Muslims do not fight anyone until they have told them about the religion of Allaah and given them the choice between two things, either accepting Islam or, if they refuse Islam and keep their own religions, paying the Jizyah (tax) to the Muslims in return for protection. If they refuse both of these choices, then they are to be fought.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid"
These are very easy interpretations to be had, rayhan.
This is very concerning for non Muslims "Islam should not ever let non Muslims have any authority over Muslims"
That sounds....dodgy. I've never brought it up in any of our discussions, and i dropped it when you brought it up but the jizya tax is rather discriminatory. It makes people second class citizens. People who paid jizya tax paid much more than people who paid zakat tax.
"Hence, it is impermissible for a non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman. If non-Muslim men were allowed to marry Muslim women, they will have a legal authority over them and God never allows non-Muslims to have authority over Muslims. Unlike food, it is allowed to exchange food with non-Muslims since there are no legal restrictions on it in Islamic law"
I just read it and he says the reason muslim women cannot marry non muslim men is because then the non muslim man would have legal authority over her. His second argument is because a muslim man will respect a non muslim womans faith but a non muslim man wont respect a muslim womans faith and try to change it?? how hypocritical.
Clearly the Quran is patriachial if muslim women cannot marry non muslim men if it means they have legal power over them and only muslim men should have that.
"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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Call it absurd all you want, but certain sects of Christians believe it and many of the brightest thinkers of all time believe it. Two of some of the greatest scientists of all time were pantheists in carl Sagan and Einstein. MANY of the most famous and influential philosophers of all time were pantheists too. Maybe 3 in the top 10 were pantheists, clearly this belief is over presented compared to the general population in the sciences and philosophy. Taoism even believes this philosophy, its more prevalent than you think.
You constantly give me weird indirect threats with the day of judgement. We will see rayhan, we truly will.
I personally feel like rape is bad. Can i PROVE it, like i can that the big bang happened? i cant, because morality relies on feelings. If god has different feelings, he has different morals. No philosopher has proven their moral system objectively correct, ever. You wont be the first.
God is also you rayhan, a punching bag even if God has no feelings. Don't think that part of God is hurting or insulting when you hit it. If God is everything he is also you, so he hits inanimate parts of himself through you. How could he condemn himself?
Your the one who thinks lowly of God if he were to be these things. You think being waste, or a fly LOWERS God. I think no such thing, as i realise human morality cannot be proven objective, my sense of duality, cannot be proven correct. Once more you have a massive burden of proof to show these things are OBJECTIVELY shameful.
I do believe that yes. Its the most likely philosophically and scientifically. I don't even believe in good and bad in the terms humans define them. I'm unsure why God would, or why this stuff DEGRADES God for you, it doesn't for me, as i put no negative judgement on these things. It doesn't make him lower in the least. Your the one who has a moral system you put on God.
Read the tao te chi
I don't believe in duality, good and bad like you. I don't believe in labeling things as good or bad. If im correct that labelling things as good or bad is wrong, then why would it be BAD or wrong for god to be everything?
Why would God care about being a refrigerator? what disgusts you may not disgust God. The wisest of humans argue for moral stoicism. I imagine God would be the greatest of stoics, i have no reason to see God as being limited by being something like a fridge, what bothers you, may not God. How can you say you and God ought to feel the same way or that it would be shameful for God to be these things? who decides what's shameful? you and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad? how do you know God would feel that way when even HUMANS don't always agree with you on this? a stoic philosopher would argue a man shouldn't care for these things as its not helpful. Then why would God? your burden of proof is hefty.
Elon musk, Spinoza, Einstein, Tesla, Hegel, George Berkeley, lao zi, the stoics. So many philosophers are pantheists, to the point where a large amount of philosophers are usually pantheists. Pantheists are overwhelmingly over represented in the scientific and philosophical fields compared to the general populace. There's overwhelming credence both in the philosophical field and the scientific field that pantheism is the most likely to be the reality of nature, that or atheism.
The universe has very very likely always been here too! so in pantheism it isn't a contradiction for the universe to be an extension of Gods being. I'm not a Christian. Jesus had a beginning as a man, but he's always existed through God in another form before his earthly form was created. He's a direct descendant of Gods being. He had a beginning as the person "Jesus" but he never had a beginning as a being.
Omnipresent:
Present everywhere simultaneously.
Present in all places at the same time; ubiquitous.
Being everywhere simultaneously
How can God be everywhere at once if he is not in the universe itself? That's simply impossible. I've said it a million times, but jesus being God does not mean God is limited, maybe in your human sense of morality, right and wrong. Of which you have no idea if is objectively correct or in alignment with the reality of God. The evidence suggests both scientifically and philosophically, if God exists the universe is an extension of him
True, followers of the Abrahamic faiths stumble over themselves trying to argue god that God is simultaneously omnipresent but not all things. Either God made from nothing or he made from himself. If he made from nothing, all their critiques at atheism are pretty silly if they too believe something can be made from nothing.
My moods change. Sometimes I want to argue; other times, not so much! What really bores me is your rigidity. I see no point in debating you when you clearly have no interest in what I have to say and instead want to enter the debate to talk about your point of view while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising anything I say. You have no intention of changing your views. I just imagine it will be a long day of passive-aggressive remarks and not much of anything being concluded from the debate. A lot of the things I choose to discuss I don't believe in. Half of it is just trolling and having fun. I think you would make it hard for me to even enjoy having a trollish debate with you.
I'm just not interested in debating you in the comment section about your takes; it takes too much of my time for something I feel little pleasure from.
How is it meaningless? the Islamic world has had a slavery history as bad as Europe. They even had more female slaves to male slave ratio. Literally tens of millions. I'm unsure how war justifies that. Many Islamic rulers relied on military slaves (non-Muslims).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
British and French pressure is the major reason why slavery regressed significantly in the Islamic world.
You're right, it just felt hyperbolic until i did the calculations myself, as understandably it sounds like a lot for so little people.
3 acres is barely enough as you said vegetables alone take up the entire space and more, this isn't even factoring fruits. So pros case is pretty doomed either way with even a vegan diet as you still need 10 per person.
You can literally do the calculations yourself on the site, and change family size etc. I'm not disagreeing with you but even if i put it to two people and click literally everything available it only goes up to 20. We dont need all the different types of animals to survive. Admittedly its still too much for con to probably argue against it still being viable but your sources are still likely highballed but they're still in the same range of course so its not much of a complaint.
Here's a calculator you can use to see.
https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-feed-one-person/
"To produce enough food to feed a family of four for a year, provided you have a suitable climate condition, you’ll need about 13 acres of land if you’re growing all sources of meat on your farm and 7 acres if you’re raising just pigs. Remember pathways are necessary for easy farm access, and at least 0.5 acres of land should be invested in that."
Novice admittedly highballs it massively with 40 acres, that's ridiculous in most cases unless you're trying to be more than self sufficient but sell to others.
Even for a vegan diet for 1 person you still take up over 3 acres per one person.
fuck me, that was brutal rationalmadman, amazing argument.
You can cherry-pick one majority Islamic nation. There's been way more female prime minsters and leaders in western nations. Mother Mary would never be respected as a leader of people like Muhammad or Jesus no matter what her personality, because she's a woman. A woman could never lead the church, just like a woman cannot lead Islam in any similar sense.
I dont worship anyone rayhan. Im unsure why an infinite power would need or want to be worshipped if he's infinite like it adds anything too him.
Yes, its sexist if the reason is done because they view women as too pathetic to be a threat. It would be a nice thing to do, if it was done for a nice reason and not because they're simply not a threat to Islam through their womanhood, its an insult.
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'm well aware only non muslim men pay jizya, and that's because Islam is sexist and doesn't seem women as a threat to its existence. It sees women as by nature and legally under the mans authority. They're easier to control, so are the sick and elderly. This is why they don't pay Jizya, not because of any righteous reason. The jizya tax was usually much more than the zakat tax on top of that, being exempt from military service for paying jizya, its simply an excuse to make it look like it wasn't a badge of humiliation. As is self admitted in the Quran, in the quran its seen as a righteous and great honor to die for Islam.
I'm also not a christian, rayhan. Whataboutism doesnt work. I dont like christianity.
"The Muslims do not fight anyone until they have told them about the religion of Allaah and given them the choice between two things, either accepting Islam or, if they refuse Islam and keep their own religions, paying the Jizyah (tax) to the Muslims in return for protection. If they refuse both of these choices, then they are to be fought.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid"
These are very easy interpretations to be had, rayhan.
That's just sexist, even if you believe its the natural order of things, its still oppressive. Women don't spread Islam or teach their children too?
This is very concerning for non Muslims "Islam should not ever let non Muslims have any authority over Muslims"
That sounds....dodgy. I've never brought it up in any of our discussions, and i dropped it when you brought it up but the jizya tax is rather discriminatory. It makes people second class citizens. People who paid jizya tax paid much more than people who paid zakat tax.
"Hence, it is impermissible for a non-Muslim man to marry a Muslim woman. If non-Muslim men were allowed to marry Muslim women, they will have a legal authority over them and God never allows non-Muslims to have authority over Muslims. Unlike food, it is allowed to exchange food with non-Muslims since there are no legal restrictions on it in Islamic law"
I just read it and he says the reason muslim women cannot marry non muslim men is because then the non muslim man would have legal authority over her. His second argument is because a muslim man will respect a non muslim womans faith but a non muslim man wont respect a muslim womans faith and try to change it?? how hypocritical.
Clearly the Quran is patriachial if muslim women cannot marry non muslim men if it means they have legal power over them and only muslim men should have that.
Why did you @me? i see no response to my question.
Why can Muslim men marry non Muslim women but not Muslim women being able to marry non Muslim men?
You should debate rayhan on one of these topics. If you ever find time or find it interesting enough.
"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 will be taking some inspiration from you in my first round argument, potentially some plagiarism.
go ahead, accept sir.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Call it absurd all you want, but certain sects of Christians believe it and many of the brightest thinkers of all time believe it. Two of some of the greatest scientists of all time were pantheists in carl Sagan and Einstein. MANY of the most famous and influential philosophers of all time were pantheists too. Maybe 3 in the top 10 were pantheists, clearly this belief is over presented compared to the general population in the sciences and philosophy. Taoism even believes this philosophy, its more prevalent than you think.
You constantly give me weird indirect threats with the day of judgement. We will see rayhan, we truly will.
I personally feel like rape is bad. Can i PROVE it, like i can that the big bang happened? i cant, because morality relies on feelings. If god has different feelings, he has different morals. No philosopher has proven their moral system objectively correct, ever. You wont be the first.
God is also you rayhan, a punching bag even if God has no feelings. Don't think that part of God is hurting or insulting when you hit it. If God is everything he is also you, so he hits inanimate parts of himself through you. How could he condemn himself?
Your the one who thinks lowly of God if he were to be these things. You think being waste, or a fly LOWERS God. I think no such thing, as i realise human morality cannot be proven objective, my sense of duality, cannot be proven correct. Once more you have a massive burden of proof to show these things are OBJECTIVELY shameful.
I do believe that yes. Its the most likely philosophically and scientifically. I don't even believe in good and bad in the terms humans define them. I'm unsure why God would, or why this stuff DEGRADES God for you, it doesn't for me, as i put no negative judgement on these things. It doesn't make him lower in the least. Your the one who has a moral system you put on God.
Read the tao te chi
I don't believe in duality, good and bad like you. I don't believe in labeling things as good or bad. If im correct that labelling things as good or bad is wrong, then why would it be BAD or wrong for god to be everything?
Why would God care about being a refrigerator? what disgusts you may not disgust God. The wisest of humans argue for moral stoicism. I imagine God would be the greatest of stoics, i have no reason to see God as being limited by being something like a fridge, what bothers you, may not God. How can you say you and God ought to feel the same way or that it would be shameful for God to be these things? who decides what's shameful? you and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad? how do you know God would feel that way when even HUMANS don't always agree with you on this? a stoic philosopher would argue a man shouldn't care for these things as its not helpful. Then why would God? your burden of proof is hefty.
Elon musk, Spinoza, Einstein, Tesla, Hegel, George Berkeley, lao zi, the stoics. So many philosophers are pantheists, to the point where a large amount of philosophers are usually pantheists. Pantheists are overwhelmingly over represented in the scientific and philosophical fields compared to the general populace. There's overwhelming credence both in the philosophical field and the scientific field that pantheism is the most likely to be the reality of nature, that or atheism.
in the Bible it says Jesus came down from heaven. Meaning he already existed before he was conceived or born as a human.
The universe has very very likely always been here too! so in pantheism it isn't a contradiction for the universe to be an extension of Gods being. I'm not a Christian. Jesus had a beginning as a man, but he's always existed through God in another form before his earthly form was created. He's a direct descendant of Gods being. He had a beginning as the person "Jesus" but he never had a beginning as a being.
Omnipresent:
Present everywhere simultaneously.
Present in all places at the same time; ubiquitous.
Being everywhere simultaneously
How can God be everywhere at once if he is not in the universe itself? That's simply impossible. I've said it a million times, but jesus being God does not mean God is limited, maybe in your human sense of morality, right and wrong. Of which you have no idea if is objectively correct or in alignment with the reality of God. The evidence suggests both scientifically and philosophically, if God exists the universe is an extension of him
True, followers of the Abrahamic faiths stumble over themselves trying to argue god that God is simultaneously omnipresent but not all things. Either God made from nothing or he made from himself. If he made from nothing, all their critiques at atheism are pretty silly if they too believe something can be made from nothing.
he just doesn't know how to respond against your galaxy brain economic system.
My moods change. Sometimes I want to argue; other times, not so much! What really bores me is your rigidity. I see no point in debating you when you clearly have no interest in what I have to say and instead want to enter the debate to talk about your point of view while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising anything I say. You have no intention of changing your views. I just imagine it will be a long day of passive-aggressive remarks and not much of anything being concluded from the debate. A lot of the things I choose to discuss I don't believe in. Half of it is just trolling and having fun. I think you would make it hard for me to even enjoy having a trollish debate with you.
I'm just not interested in debating you in the comment section about your takes; it takes too much of my time for something I feel little pleasure from.