Comments by "Eli Nope" (@elinope4745) on "God is not a man with a beard on a throne in the clouds | Pete Holmes | Big Think" video.

You are drastically underestimating the Zionist Jews.
3
I was an agnostic atheist, now I am a gnostic pantheist. Here is my definition of god. god is the sum of all things that exist. god is synonymous with the capital U Universe. If something did something, then god did that. You have hopes and dreams, so god has hopes and dreams.
3
@lestatcomedante3907 I think therefore I am. I am, therefore things can be. The group of all things that are I choose to call "god".
2
@oaktreescomefromacorns what is god? If that isn't god, then what is? And it wouldn't be "universe" it would be "Universe". But you lose sight of some important aspects when you call it Universe. For one it is a thinking feeling entity, in fact it has every thought and every feeling that any living creature has ever had, because it includes all living creatures. Just like hives have overarching characteristics that none of the single individuals within the hive have, god has larger scale characteristics than any individual or even entire species has. Everything ever seen by anything was god looking at itself. Simply calling it the Universe loses a spiritual aspect, many truths and your place within it as part of god.
1
@naturealbums If that is how you want to view it, just remember that you are part of that sum of all things, and god is greater than you. Perhaps you should try to be more positive =D
1
@xXscreamingkoalaXx I believe that in ancient times some people had the same concept but not a good vocabulary to describe it. When it was passed from person to person in oral tradition, those who weren't as bright corrupted it. God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, this describes the capital U universe, all knowledge, power and space that exists is part of god.
1
@xXscreamingkoalaXx omnipotence means all powerful, yet all of the.power that exists is within the Universe. There is no scientific consensus on the Universe being an open or closed system. If it is open then it stretches for infinite and has infinite energy. So we can't know at the moment if it meets a relatively modern idea of all powerful but it definitely meets a primitive concept of all powerful.
1
@xXscreamingkoalaXx all space and things that exist are part of it, thus by definition it is omnipresent.
1
@xXscreamingkoalaXx you are arguing semantics in that case I am an agnostic athiest. But my position is to define god as the entirety of all things. So by my definition god definitely does exist, so a gnostic panthiest. They are functionally the same thing. You and I have equal authority on defining what we mean by a word. You cannot determine if god does or does not exist without first defining "god". See "igtheism". My gnostic panthiest stance is valid within the way I have defined god.
1
@xXscreamingkoalaXx there is utility in holding a panthiest view. Consider radical Islam, it commands to kill atheists but not pantheists. Consider multi-religion cultures, pantheism has more solidarity. Pantheism is a less antagonistic label than atheism. I am a strong believer in the constitution, including freedom of religion.
1