I have found everyday Christians find the existence of God be a fact. — Athena

I agree.

The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day — Athena

No, not futile, just very difficult. People are leaving religion in droves, including many who have spent a great deal of their lives deeply entwined with it. and many who have very high qualifications in theology.

Just not in a senior center where are supposed to be civil with each other. — Athena

Sure, you gotta pick your fights wisely.

That is what we are working on here. Religions work because they make people feel good and give them rules for living together successfully. — Athena

Living together successfully based on a foundation of lies and fables is not my idea of wisdom.

I've never heard a believer claim that "god" is one fact among all other facts – and neither have you. — 180 Proof

I have no idea what priority individual theists place on that which they consider a fact or an objective truth. I have indeed heard many theists state god as an objective fact, but not as one fact among others,
but as the most important fact/truth that exists. But they can't meet the resulting burden of proof.
Such is not deserving of dismissal as mere 'folk beliefs,' many highly learned theists no longer believe that god is a fact, that manifestation of doubt was probably what started their decoupling from god, offered as fact.

Not familiar with Hester Berry. Had a quick look at the paintings your link took me to. I liked or saw some value in some:

and saw nothing interesting in others, such as:

Yeah, some of my attempts are better than others. I move between not wanting anything that is too photo-realistic, based on advice from various other artists who paint mostly in oils, including my PT art friend, and wanting to learn how to improve my ability to paint as close to what I observe as possible.
Photo-realistic painting is seen by many artists as pointless, based on, why not just take a photo or use digital production?

My PT art friend (who is a fantastic artist, who has art skills that I am quite jealous of) also stated that he likes some of the little technical inaccuracies, he spots in my paintings as he says it adds to their distinctive properties. But maybe he was just being nice to me.

Overall, I like his statement of:
"Just enjoy your painting mate, don't try to be too academic about it, you will spoil your vibe if you do. Your painting will become a chore."

I still want to improve my skills in certain areas however, so I will practice, practice, practice and continue to enjoy doing so.

:smile: It's not my intention to place you in any uncomfortable position.
I am just disputing your suggestion that

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is . — 180 Proof

is the position held by the majority of theists. 'God exists,' is a statement they believe to be fact. I am sure you have heard declarations such as 'I know that I know that I know that Jesus Christ is real!' The claim is not 'god the possibility,' it is god the fact!
The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet.

Ok but Really?

Many theists present their faith that god exists, as fact that god exists.
The burden of proof therefore lies with them.
If their response to a question such as 'do you know for a fact that a god exists?' or 'do you believe with a 100% confidence level that a god exists?' is yes, then they have the burden of proof.
I have watched theists who try to deflect this in debate after debate, many many times with atheists on-line, and they have been trounced, every time they try to reject the burden of proof.
So much so, that I rarely now hear the theist side, reject that onus. They now try to bolster and rehash the poor evidence they think they have, such as Kalam arguments about the universe must have a cause and god is the only one that makes sense or they point to scriptural evidence or personal experience / god encounters or even worse evidence such as NDE's.

Nothing you or I do or say make any difference whatsoever. — Vera Mont

Are you declaring a personal vow of silence Vera? If not then why do you continue to do or say anything if you really believe what you just typed above?

Power and faith, madness and delusion have nothing to do with logic, rationality or accountability. — Vera Mont

Sure, but there is nothing to stop us from using logic, rationality, and accountability to combat these issues and that is exactly what democratic socialists/ secular humanists / atheists / rational thinkers / logicians, etc, etc do every day and we (which includes you and I[/b] ) can make very significant differences indeed, when we choose to organise and act in common cause.
Please feel free to 'sigh' again, if you feel the urge.

No, Would it make such behaviour more acceptable, if I said yes?

I can't see much similarity between the visage of Carl and Steve Coogan but I appreciate you throwing me that bone. I think my ability to get proportions and perspectives and likeness correct are improving but I have no formal training in Art other than a grade C for art O'Level.
I think @praxis is far more skilled in getting proportion and perspective correct, compared to me.
Another of my friends is a PT art teacher and a fabulous artist himself. So he gives me little pointers from time to time. I also think @praxis has better blending skills than I do.

Identifying mistakes and errors in methodology does not change the logical position that those who make claims must accept the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise is folly and irrational.

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof.

Ask me that question again in a couple of millennia — 180 Proof

Yeah, fair enough

At any rate, religious books aren't "responsible" for what their misreaders and proselytizers, jihadists and missionaries have done with them. — 180 Proof

I already covered that:

I have heard some theists with a personal god belief, say that the 'real' god or 'their god,' can't be held responsible for the lies that have been written by humans, and passed off as the word of god. But even they start to get confused and challenged, when faced with probing questions regarding their personal perceived properties of their god and what should/could follow, based on the properties stated, as measured against common human secular notions of morality. — universeness

You reminded me of a great comment one of my so-called 'friends' made about the Mohamed Ali attempt in my 'dream team,' Star Trek painting posted above. Apart from saying that the likeness was not very good, he commented, 'Ali looks like he has bigger tits than all the women in the painting!' :lol:

:lol: No, that's Carl Sagan doing a bad impression of Alan Partridge.
I do agree however that I am still 'developing' my 'proportionality' and 'likeness' skills.
The 'no pressure' painting was one of my first and I only took up the hobby after I retired from teaching around 4 years ago. My honest answer to the

Why is the girl in the middle 'oversized?' — universeness

is 'oops!' but the answer I might offer (depending on who is asking,) is:
"Well, I wanted to make the central character of youth stand out more to the observer, to emphasise the notion of the fervor of the targeting of such youth, by both sides." :halo:

The trouble with being honest about my limited developing proportionality/likeness skills (most evident in my Carl Sagan attempt in that painting), is that some folks don't believe me when I then try to insist that giving the pope a 6 fingered hand, was deliberate!

By far, IMO, 'the internet' – a 24/7/365, billion-fold, vidiot-delusion machine – is worse than merely 'reading' religious books today. — 180 Proof

Do you think the internet is as responsible for horrors, that are easily as equal at directly causing such as 'holy war,' divinely sanctioned slavery, divinely sanctioned OT atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and genocide, establishing the divine right of kings, the idea of the superiority of believers over everyone else, compared to the ways that the bible and the quran, have been used to cause and maintain such?

I think there are a lot of nasties on the Internet, but I don't think it is proving to be as toxic to humans as the bible/quran has, and all other religious texts. Perhaps it is not the best comparison, as religious texts have had an at least, 6 thousand year head start.

I like that allegorical paintings cause folks to ask a lot of questions. The painting titled 'no pressure,' where religious icons and science icons battle for the mind of youth (represented by the child on the chair, (my niece as a 6-year-old) holding a copy of 'On the Origin of Species' and 'The bible.) for example.
When people look into that painting in some detail, I get many questions, such as:
Why does the pope have 6 fingers on one of his hands?
Why does Feynman have two fingers above Einstein's head?
Why does Einstein have an old head and a very athletic-looking body?
Why are all the scientists a little taller than all the religious folk?
Why is the girl in the middle 'oversized,' for a 6 years old?(I normally get this after I have explained who she is)
I don't understand some of the words/phrases on the tree, such as:
Eve-ill? and 'actions love consequences,' etc.
Who is the black woman?
Why does it look like everyone is smiling?
:grin:
These are the main questions I have had, and such questions allow for me to respond with my favourite response of , 'Well why do YOU think I did that .........' I don't tend to use that response when asked 'who is the black woman however.'

I like to paint allegorical stuff like:

A couple of mine you might consider:

I find all such aspects of the money trick abusive, blockchains, cryptocurrencies and shit art passed between the rich as fake inflated assets.

For me, applied physics or applying the scientific method, produces results that can be demonstrated again and again and again. Surely at some point that becomes 'reality' for most humans.
I don't think there is any choice, but to accept, that the sensory information we receive, comes from a source reality, and in the main, accurately reflects it. I think any philosophical or metaphysical projections from that reality or presupposition, have some value, but will always be unsatisfactory in comparison with the application of the scientific method.

I really enjoy Rovelli's youtube offerings on time, space and loop quantum gravity.

Rovelli, argues that ' Quantum mechanics teaches us not to think about the world in terms of "things," but in terms of "processes" instead. — Jack Cummins

But in that book, does he suggest that 'things' or 'objects' don't exist as a consequence?

Carlo also suggests (at least in my interpretation of his offerings about time,) that our notion of 'present' is absolutely individual. Almost like each human being experiences existence/reality, separately or perhaps even in a sense, solipsistically.
The idea that our reality is unique to each of us, sits fine with me, but the question of whether or not, at the largest scale of the universe, there is an existent 'objective reality,' is one of those thoughts that make my brain show me a picture of an off switch, as my only escape from getting trapped in a deadlock/livelock state.

The internet, by several leagues. — Vera Mont

It would be an interesting TPF poll question imo, but perhaps most members would just find the question rather too broad, to offer a well-informed answer.

In fact, it was reading the bible that turned me off Judeo-Christianity. — Vera Mont

I think that has become almost an atheist mantra and one I like for its ironic value. If you want modern people to reject Christianity or Islam, then suggest they read the bible/quran.

I have heard some theists with a personal god belief, say that the 'real' god or 'their god,' can't be held responsible for the lies that have been written by humans, and passed off as the word of god. But even they start to get confused and challenged, when faced with probing questions regarding their personal perceived properties of their god and what should/could follow, based on the properties stated, as measured against common human secular notions of morality.

I suspect that 'the internet' (e.g. social media influencers, cyber preachers, etc) is more popular in every way than either the bible or quran (or any other "holy book"). — 180 Proof

The question then becomes, which is more pernicious and more of an existential threat to humanity, the bible/quran or any other religious book (I will not dignify such, with the word 'holy'), or the internet?
I think we would both vote that the religious texts are more of a threat but I am not convinced, we would be in the majority, although I hope we would be.

menageries — 180 Proof

Which definition are you going with, in your use of menagerie?
a collection of wild animals kept in captivity for exhibition. (zoo)
or
a strange or diverse collection of people or things.

From your previous posts, where you have used 'zoo,' I assume its the first one.
I maintain my objection to that imagery but I do like the word menagerie.
It reminds me of this old tongue twister:

An imaginary menagerie manager, imagined that he was imagining an imaginary menagerie.

If you try to say it fast, it's quite hard to stop yourself from uttering the error menaGENarie, well, for me anyway!

The internet. — 180 Proof

Has a global poll ever been done yet as to whether or not the human race considers the internet a net positive or negative? I don't think it would qualify as the 'guide to being a human' education I think is needed, as it is too full of bad advice as well.

... but provided well-chosen 'what if,' scenarios and gave sound, robust, advice on what to do next.
The tech singularity (AGI —> ASI). — 180 Proof

Maybe ...... my mechaphile/monalithaphile friend! I do hope that a future AGI ...... ASI will help us become a better species, by advising us how to, or even just by stopping us, from acting like such vacuous morons in the future, compared to the now or to the past.
Btw, please forgive my bad attempts to invent new words. I am probably just trying to annoy those who are better wordsmiths than I, such as yourself, @Vera Mont, @Athena, :roll: the list of TPF members who I think are better wordsmiths than I, is toooooooooo long.

My goodness, those are delightful ! :smile: — jgill

Thanks prof! If you ever want me to do a painting of you, in any scene/composition you like, just PM me about it. I would not charge you a penny. It would be a pleasure, due to your service to us all, as a professor of mathematics. I think that's where the true value is, in the art skill I have. I am lucky that I don't need my art skills to be able to provide for myself, so I can use it to bring some enjoyment to others. I tried to gift the painting below to Neil Degrasse Tyson and then to Jane Goodall, as they both appear in my 'dream team Star Trek crew.' I got a nice 'thanks anyway,' from the PA of Jane Goodall and no response from my attempts to contact Neil. :blush: I couldn't contact anyone else in the painting as they are all dead, and the only other person featured was Tiera Fletcher (an American space scientist), who was included, as I bowed to pressure from my female family members, who complained there was no black female, represented on my dream team crew, and that this was not good from my position as a white het cis man. :scream:
The others were attempts at a Captain Carl Sagan, Navigators Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman and security men Bruce Lee and Mohamed Ali (well if you are gonna include security men then ...... who else would you choose?) :lol:

No, not that there's anything wrong with that. — praxis

I agree that Bob was a talented artist as is his son, who he taught very well. Some even say his son is better than Bob was at those landscape scenes he can churn out in 20 mins.
A painting takes me at least 4 to 6 weeks, and sometimes much longer. I can only work on a painting for around 2 hours a day, however and not every day.
I also don't sell paintings, (at least not yet). It was suggested to me by a friend, that I could make prints of the style of paintings I posted above, and use digital editing to edit the faces to any face required, and sell the images to anyone who would like themselves portrayed in that scene. I thought it was a bad idea, as you could do the same with photos etc, and I hate the 'base commerciality' involved.
I think I will have to remain content, that I will not ever make any money from my art. :halo:

He can remit however he likes, I don't care. I have a much simpler understanding of art. — praxis

The art world is certainly a fickle metric.

Nice work, btw, and it is distinctive. — praxis

Thanks, I appreciate that from a skilled artist such as yourself.

I will never understand the following however, other than via rich people just playing the money trick game.
The art of the late Jean-Michel Basquiat sells for millions. I think his work is utter crap and could have been done by a doodling 12 year old. This one sold for $110 million.


Tracy Emin is another example of total shit art:
£ 2.3 million for this crap:


Does such not make you angry? Do you see my annoyance at such, as just sour grapes on my part, or do you think that the abuse of the notion of art, that I think exists, and is caused by the rich, finding nefarious ways of 'investing' and inflating their wealth is 'acceptable?'

If you want you can join me in a mountain retreat and we can share books and give some thought to your question. — Athena

As long as the place does not remind anyone of the Berghof :scream: and I can get there without adding to the problems of climate change :scream:
Do you think we humans could create a guidance book that became as popular or more popular than the bible or the quran, but provided well-chosen 'what if,' scenarios and gave sound, robust, advice on what to do next. Would such a book be too big? Would a knowledge-based electronic hand-held computer system be better? Could a 'ziggy' type device be created to help humans deal with all situations they might face in life :chin: :grin: :lol:

:up:

Here are 4 of mine that have a style, based on movie characters, pets and holidays abroad, that will sell very well but I am not sure I like that.

I think you could sell many more of these type of paintings, if you do not already sell many paintings.
Do you have any concern, about becoming a 'Bob Ross,' style artist?
I don't mean he was not highly skilled at what he could produce in twenty minutes, he certainly was, and he made a lot of money as an artist, but how do you feel about this:

I watched a documentary about 10 years ago about an old, very eccentric artist, whose name I don't recall and whose work I didn't like, as it was 'too alternative/abstract,' for me. But when he was challenged by the documentary maker, as to the meaning or significance of his work, he said the following:

"I am an artist, not a fax machine or a photographer. If you want a facsimile or a photograph of a pretty scene, then don't come to me. As an artist, it is my remit to anger you, to invoke an emotional response from you, to intrigue you, to frighten you, to challenge you, to inspire you, to make you hate me and love me in the same confused breath. Can you even understand what a true artist is?"

But it's not only important persons who leave a legacy. Everyone does. Everyone leave traces behind him as they walk on the path of their life. — Alkis Piskas

Absafragginlootly Alkis! and this is part of the reasons why, in my opinion, @rossii, antinatalists, nihilists, continuous pessimists, killjoys, etc, etc are soooooooo wrong-headed, regarding their general opinions about the futility of living the human experience, for each individual human involved.
We are the only species we know of, who can experience thought and self-awareness, at the level of complexity, width, and depth, we do.
I could be completely wrong about that, but where is the counter-evidence?

How many times haven't you remembered wise words from your father or other close relative meny years after they passed by? These words, can make a difference for you and others, if passed to them too. — Alkis Piskas

I agree.

I still remember wise words of an old poor man that I knew in my youth and still have an effect on me. This man, as millions or others, could not write books to transmit their wisdom to people. But words from mouth to mouth can have a similar effect as a book. — Alkis Piskas

I am sure you make effort to pass his wise words on to others, for their consideration. That act in itself, gives you an important purpose and adds to the meaning and significance of your own life. This speaks very well imo, for the importance of legacy to all humans, past, present and future.

I find this somewhat disrespectful. However, I can let it be because I believe that you don't really mean it. I know that you respect other peoples' opinion and that you just reacted, as most people in here would. (BTW, these words/concepts mean a lot to a lot--if not most-- people on the planet.) — Alkis Piskas

I do mean such words Alkis, as I assign a high personal credence level, to the possibility that they are true.
There is no compelling evidence that any existent in this universe is eternal (the only suggestion I give any significant credence to at all, is that the universe may be cyclical or it may oscillate, but even that would not be proof that it is eternal) and there is no evidence of a supernatural/esoteric/ethereal/transcendent existent (just to use a few terms that may be considered synonymous with 'spiritual.') If you are using the word 'spiritual' in terms of its original meaning of 'breathing' and 'animated/dynamic,' then I agree that all humans are spiritual, (as we are all dynamic and/or are breathing) under that original non-theistic, non-theosophist meaning.

It's almost impossible not to sound disrespectful to some folk's beliefs, if your own beliefs conflict with theirs.
I do respect the opinions of others Alkis, especially honest interlocutors like yourself, but to offer you diluted opinions, for fear of making you feel that an opinion you hold, is being disrespected, would diminish my ability to try to show that I am also an honest interlocutor.

So my own conclusion - which I hope does not come across as a cop-out - is that the ultimate origin of our universe is unknown, and is potentially unknowable. And what (if anything) came before may have been some kind of reality that was a lot like ours - but considering that the nature of the universe at t=0 is fundamentally different to what our reality currently is, it seems very reasonable to expect that anything on the other side is likely to have been radically different to our current reality. Maybe even so different that we wouldn't even be able to understand it as anything "real". — Jaded Scholar

What do you think of proposals such as Roger Penrose's CCC, with his supporting evidence of 'Hawking points?' My quals in physics only go as far as year 1, of my BSc(Hons) in Computing Science, (over 30 years ago). Do you assign any significant credence to any of the cyclical or oscillating universe proposals?

I thought you and others might enjoy knowing that most physicists regard String Theorists and other specialists in unprovable/unfalsifiable theories as not really being "physicists", and actually being "mathematical philosophers". ;)
It's a distinction that is not usually made with disrespect (philosophy is a huge part of foundational physics) - but as more of a demarcation of what should be allowed to be called "science". — Jaded Scholar

As a 'fan' of string theory, I found this quite interesting. I wonder how someone like Brian Greene would respond to it, (if he has not already.)

I found this, based on a google search:
String Theory is currently not falsifiable. It does not make any testable predictions, and in the strictly positivist popperian view, it couldn't even be regarded as science. However, some physicists argue that string theory is falsifiable if an experiment shows quantum mechanics fails.

How would you respond to the last sentence, would your response be anything more than 'yeah ..... IF!'

If you mean if and how people are going to remember me, none. — Alkis Piskas

No, for me memorialisation is a part of legacy which is of very limited significance. I am more referring to cause and effect. The status quo of human civilisation, the good and the bad aspects of it, are a composite of all the decisions made, and actions taken, by all human lives that have already been lived. Some lives have been more significant perhaps, than others, when it comes to legacy. That is of course an individual judgment call (which is where memorialisation can be most useful). This is what legacy means to me.

Rather flowery and overly dramatic sentences, such as 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' is an example, of how some humans relate to legacy (mostly in the science community).
If legacy has no meaning to an individual human then, I personally can do no more and no less, than feel pity for such people. Do you think such a 'pity' response is unwarranted or disrespectful?

Do you think your life was well spent if it was spent, mostly helping others maintain, feel secure and feel valued and perhaps even progress, in their own life?
— universeness
I help people when and if I can and I'm happy in doing that.
Helping is a basic need in life. We see that not only in humans but in animals too. But, although in animals it is always done in a natural, instictive way, with humans it's very different. It can have a lot of faces and motives, other than being a genuine, natural and sincere action. — Alkis Piskas

That does not answer my 'yes' or 'no' question. Answering yes or no is quite possible as an overall judgment call, regardless of the nuances you wish to also consider.

I live life as an eternal spiritual being. — Alkis Piskas

Fine, as long as you appreciate that you have employed two words/concepts in that sentence that currently, have zero demonstrable, objective evidence of any existent, that has such properties.

I loved those stereotypes and I think we have a lot to gain by being aware of them. — Athena

I find such quite accurate parodies, of real human beings, produced via direct societal and cultural experience, foisted upon each of us, based on the lottery of where and to whom you are born, from the day we are born, as disappointing as you do.

I also agree with you that education, is one of the best methods we have, for changing the experience of a life as a human being, for the better. But I think that such will only ever succeed, when most of us can take their basic needs for granted. As long as basic needs are our main daily struggle, the elites will dictate the pace and pulse of human progress, more than the democratic majority will.

I think we need to start by getting global agreement, on exactly what our model is, for a standard of human life, which we wish to present, as our true 'role model.'

Should/could there be say, 'a book,' that could be given to all humans, as soon as they can read, that can be used for the rest of their lives, as their main guide, to 'how to live and be a progressive, free human being.' Are humans capable of producing something like that, that would work for the vast majority of us, at least for the next 100 years or so, as a 'first step,' to improving the human experience?
Would some future AI system produce a better set of guidelines for humans than humans can?

Do you think our species needs such a foundational model, to be able to obtain a broad global standard of being, for all humans?

no emotions, negative or positive whatsoever. Also assume that there is no afterlife, that is no consiousness, no knowledge, no memories, no emotions continue to "exist" or "survive" after death. — Alkis Piskas

You say "You will also avoid future joy". Certainly. But what is the value of it if you won't take that joy with you after you die? — Alkis Piskas

What value do you place on the notion of personal legacy Alkis?

As for the "positive difference you could potentially make in the lives of others", it is alsmost the same thing, only that it applies to others instead of yourself. — Alkis Piskas

Do you think your life was well spent if it was spent, mostly helping others maintain, feel secure and feel valued and perhaps even progress, in their own life?

I'm certainly not an antinatalist nor a suicidal case. — Alkis Piskas

I am glad for that.

I enioy life but I'm ready to die at any moment. I only wish to die peacefully or instantly. — Alkis Piskas

That's ok imo, as long as you are also ready to live, at any moment and make the most you can, of the time you have. Live life as a wonder and not as a curse.

I am more interested in a question such as, 'what makes a successful species?'

But for the sake of offering a position, for me, a successful 'state'/nation, is one that does not maintain itself, or grow its economy/military power by using any advantage it has, to subdue/intimidate any other nation or community. In any conflict situation, its priority must always be defense over attack.
I am far more attracted to a position where the people are as impervious as possible, to attack by others, compared to any demonstration of ability to destroy others.
A nation whose governance is of, for and by the people it represents.
A nation that nurtures people, foreign and domestic, far more, than it nurtures, the profits and power of its manifest elites, or better still, one that does not manifest elites.

If only we could become more like the Orgainians. Yeah, I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, perhaps one day, you will join us.

Is it rational to live, considering that I will eventually die anyway, so why postpone it? Moreover, by dying sooner, I can potentially avoid future suffering. — rossii

You will also avoid future joy and the positive difference you could potentially make in the lives of others.
Has your life always been solely about you? Have you never found common cause, or a sense of community with others?
I personally see no value at all, in antinatalism. Perhaps a TPF member such as @schopenhauer1, who is an antinatalist, could explain to you why antinatalism, does not suggest that those who are alive should commit suicide.

why suicide or why not? — rossii

As a stranger to you, I have an honest answer.For what it's worth to you, I would miss your questions.

And yet you offered me a choice between 2 scenarios with quite different conclusions. If the argument itself is nonsense as you say, why bother offer the options in the first place? — Benj96

Obviously, to attempt to impress on you, why god posits are nonsense.

Your decision to type a response is itself a clarification that the post had enough value to you to warrant the effort of your input. Which to me sounds less like "nonsense" unless you can concede that you indulged in it for absolutely no reason. — Benj96

Again, my purpose was to attempt to convince you that god posits are nonsense.

The point of the OP was that considering the beginning assumption, hypothetically speaking ofc, it does lead to - as far as I'm concerned anyway - a reasonable logical relationship with the Omni's. The post was not actually about whether you believe the first statement to be true or not. That is entirely up to you and what you believe or don't. — Benj96

It's not a matter of what any individual 'believes.' It's a matter of what can be demonstrated as objectively true. A person who is willing to accept a proposition as true (such as god as an omni existent) or a proposal that is deserving of a high level of credibility, has to be able to defeat logical arguments against such proposals. God is an unfalsifiable proposal. The first line of your OP cannot be proposed as a 'hypothetical' truth, for the reason I have already given. If it is taken as true then the rest of your OP is irrelevant imo.

But if every aspect of the universe is part of the "God entity" who's will are we speaking of exactly. — Benj96

Gods! The label you choose to use does not matter. Call it the flying spaghetti monster. It fits the notion just as well, as all labels would be manifestations of god. You are just 'of the will of god,' you have zero significance other than through god. If you accept the god posit then you surrender all notions of being an independent entity, imo. To answer your question more directly, we are speaking of EVERYTHING. That's what panpsychism points to, yes?

If consciousness is the ability of the universe to personify, than one will is divided into many. Often in conflict/ opposition. — Benj96

If god exists and IS the only omni then there are no 'divisions' and there is no 'outer' conflict. Nothing could exist or function outside of god. There could be no metagod. Such a proposal makes no sense and so it is nonsense. The proposal is easily tied up in paradox such as 'can an omnipotent god die, like a human can? If it cannot then it is not omnipotent.

For me if absolute determinism existed, choice wouldn't. And if choice doesn't than we are automatic dead mechanistic operations. Except consciousness doesn't feel like that. It feels like awareness. There's no sensible need for awareness in a fully determined system. Rather i would say consciousness résides at the frontier between the determined (the past) and the yet to be (the future). Time perception also seems pointless in a determined system. — Benj96

I agree, absolute determinism does not exist, if it did, then so could god.

One is an origin entity, the other is a state of mind. I'm discussing the Omni's as being relayed to people. Not the universe. Knowledge is a mind thing. Omniscience and omnipresence would be sensations or states of awareness carried within minds. Not one single universal being. See the difference I'm trying to establos for the argument? — Benj96

There is just zero substance to this paragraph imo. It defeats itself. God and your mind state would be synonymous concepts, if god exists. The only way they can be independent concepts, is if the god concept as the only omni, is nonsense.

really nobody understands my thinking or why I think this way. — rossii

I still feel haunted by my thoughts, thinking the only reason I continue to live (for now) is the fear of death. That seems like a pretty bad reason to live. — rossii

No-one is afraid of being dead, as when you are dead, you no longer exist, and cannot experience fear.
People fear dying and the anticipation of such, not death.
Do you mean that you are afraid of how you will die?
You were oblivious before you were born, oblivion has no time or awareness aspect.

That song was just an unpleasant, annoying noise to me. I could not even focus on the lyrics as the music and voice, was so bad, imo. I think as far as Rock goes, I will stick to my 'Meat Loaf' albums.