God Doesn’t Exist if This Is What You Mean With “Exist” | Jonathan Pageau (Freedom Pact)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Watch the full version:
The Inevitability of Religion: Evolution, Video Games, AI and Psychedelics (Freedom Pact): • The Inevitability of R...
The clips on this channel are selected and compiled by certain members of the Facebook Group (linked below) and not by Jonathan Pageau himself.
The unofficial Symbolic World Facebook discussion group: / 1989208418065298
-
Main channel: / pageaujonathan
Support:
Website: thesymbolicwor...
Patreon: / pageauvideos
Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Paypal: www.paypal.me/J...
Links:
Website: www.thesymbolic...
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.c...
Dtube: steemit.com/@s...
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
Jonathan at his best!
John, you absolute Charmer! Thanks for your work John and Jonathan. God bless you both!
And that's because of his faith and understanding of Orthodox Christianity and the teachings of the Church Fathers. Let it be noted.
@@johnnytass2111 you sure that it's the case?
Many have understanding of all you mentioned, but few talk with JBP on equal footing, and have attracted the uninvolved public by talks with Vervaeke.
@@manubishe Yes, Jonathan is at his best because of his faith and understanding of Orthodox Christianity and the teachings of the Church Fathers.
@@johnnytass2111 one wonders if a person such as Jonathan could have formed elsewhere in the Christian world, outside the Western world.
You claim only what Pageau can confirm, and only partially, since implicit learning is a thing.
What I dislike most about the new age is the constant use of the word "Universe". To me it always seemed like they're half-ass meaning God, but are afraid to say it.
Agree.... Though I heard God/Goddess/Spirit a lot too from various pagan/new agey groups as well.
There is that, but also the fact that the universe has no personhood and no will. Universe can't really hold you accountable, and being grateful to it means nothing. Hence the love from the new age folk.
Fear could be a component but it seems to me that the word ‘God’ has this incorrect association Jonathan is talking about, so it may be necessary at times to say another word depending on the audience. Jonathan occasionally uses language such as the “God-Man” instead of saying “Jesus Christ” because we’re all mixed up in our notions of what words mean, especially important ones like ‘Jesus Christ’. So he has to make his point using different language. Kind of like a Zen master or even the parables of Christ, that get the mind out of it’s own way.
YES! There is already a word
Possibly people are disillusioned with churches/Christianity and hear of abuse in especially the Catholic Church, tho it happens in many institutions. Then people who are known and deliberately ‘hidden’ to other parishes, and not brought to justice, is, I think, why some people strange and stray to the New Age tripe… like I did. What a mess that was for my soul. Returning to my faith was stabilised everything in my heart. Returning to the Catholic faith may happen one day when justice for many broken victims both present and past becomes a reality for them. Orthodox Church is a place that seems ‘right.’
This is really important. It may have been fine for the simple laypeople of previous generations to not have this sophisticated, nuanced conception of God, but I think in our age of skepticism and materialism, this is something that most Christians need to have some understanding of.
The funny thing is, if you go deep enough into the sophisticated, nuanced conception of God, you eventually end up (back) at the simple, childlike view of / attitude toward God.
@@badgermccullins6729 I'm definitely not a theologian, so I wouldn't know, but that's interesting to hear! But in any case, I assume those who go that deep aren't going to fall prey to simplistic objections like "The idea of a bearded guy in the sky watching us sounds silly" or "if God is real, why is space big?" or "If God is real, why doesn't he make everything be the way I want it to be?" Or "If Christianity is true, why isn't Genesis scientific?"
@@badgermccullins6729 You may call it that, but it's nonetheless more enlightened than both the fundamentalist view and the materialist view.
Part of the problem is that most Christians have completely internalized the scientific materialist understanding of the world. This manifests itself in areas like the creation vs. evolution debate. Christians in the US have been arguing with atheists about dinosaur bones since the 1970s, and yet church attendance continues to decline. Trying to beat the world by playing the world’s game is a foolish errand; we’ll never win that way. The only winning move in a game’s that’s rigged is not to play to begin with.
@@badgermccullins6729 I agree, just to mention that perhaps you don't end up "back at" a childlike view which seems like regression like Social Justice in its modern form, the true goal is to go THROUGH childlike liberalism and use the bumps and bruises from it to understand and value conservatism. Then to use the monotony and suffocation of conservatism to NOW understand liberalism properly, from both sides to the proverbial coin with all its sophisticated nuances. To return to a childlike state in a state of full awareness. That's like a resurrection.
The Family kind of embodies this through the children-parents-grandparents interplay. Children eat too many sweets get sick and don't eat their dinner. Parents don't let them eat any sweets so the children are stroppy and don't eat their veggies in protest. Grandma steps in and lets the child with the best school report have 1 sweet, then shows the rest of the children their sweets which they will all be getting just as soon as they finished their dinner- including veggies.
Incidentally, this is why I find elderly climate change/extinction rebellion protesters the most contemptible people of all. Entire life, learnt nothing.
If we want to understand what God is like, we should turn our eye to Christ
Excellent!
@@JIMMYUNKNOWN my 21 year old son who is a kind of atheist, recently when we were discussing God, asked me, “if God is real, why wouldn’t he send someone or a sign to show people that He is real?”
@@JIMMYUNKNOWN the point was that he realized before he finished his question what the answer was. Then it became a case of “I don’t want to believe that story …”.
@@nmoriss The idea that Jesus lived, is quite believable, however to say that Jesus is God is another thing entirely, especially when there are so many problematic narratives about Jesus and Jesus' supposed resurrection. Add to that, the multitude of religions we have around the world, all with followers as confident as you are. This is worldwide religious confusion. Is God playing a game or maybe there is no God at all, but mankind's yearning for one.
But I agree with your son though. God should have been communicating with mankind *all this time*. The same being who gave Noah exact measurements of how to build the boat, is now completely silent. Not good at all, especially for a God who supposedly loves us.
What we call normally love is our experience of participating in unity (to die to our individualities and to be reborn and transfigured in that unity)- a fusion without confusion. This is why Love is the truest name for God. Even so, all names for God point ever into an infinite expansion of their meaning (not as an amorphous infinite nebula, but an analogical horizon of ever increasing unboundedness, intensity, and unity), thus The Beautiful, The True, and The Good.
Woah, that's a true, good, and beautiful synopsis. In the same way that we cannot speak of the transcendentals to their fullest extent, we cannot grasp God in His fullest. Nevertheless, even though we cannot see beauty (perhaps we shall after we leave this mortal coil?) we can see the beautiful just as we can see or hear glimpses of God. It is like Moses, unable to see God's face, yet being allowed to see His back. What we see of God is hidden through layers of veils eventually overcome by unity in Him.
2:37 THANK YOU! This formulation is what has been missing in my vocabulary. It's been so frustrating to try and explain this to people who lack the necessary intuition to understand what a "being" is.
I love the example of the chair. Huxley used the same example to describe being in doors of perception.
Doors of Perception to Perennialism to an Orthodox Christian world view, not the path I foresaw myself taking but LOGOS is strong
As long as you didn't miss out on William Blake
At around 2:55 I felt my brain bridging some gaps. Very well said.
You've certainly made myself and others think about intriguing abstract concepts.
Your the sort of person who needs to be in the education system.
God bless your insight.
Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind and Love your neighbor like yourself. Different elements coming together in communion to serve one purpose.
How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?
@@theoskeptomai2535 The reliability in Christ alone in what he said and did.
@@theoskeptomai2535 i think you need to relisten to the video.
@@Tyler_W Why is that?
@@twalker8020 How did you determine what this Christ said or did?
Reminds me of the Interstellar movie metaphor, where Love is what allowed the characters to communicate across dimensions/distances/time...
“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).
Universe= unity in Verse
The Word was With God
And the Word was God
Universe comes from the Latin universus which literally means "turned or combined into one".
Universe comes from uni = one and not from unity in verse. That's super cringe.
🤣🤣🤣
I know somebody who does this kind of stuff all the time. Shut up; you're not as smart as you think you sound. "Uh CURSIVE like if you sign the wrong document you put a CURSE on yourself." So cringe. Just because words kinda have some similar sounding parts doesn't mean they're connected in that way.
This is what I love about Jonathan. In some sense, he expressed St. Thomas Aquinas' distinction between Essence and Existence but in different words. The individual apple "jumping up" in to a unified identity (basically the essence of the apple, "appleness" itself) is pretty much the same thing as saying that each being is a particular instantiation of an essence, it has an act of existence.
Now, because things where their essence and existence are distinguished cannot cause their own existence (for a not-yet existing apple cannot cause "appleness" to become an apple), there must be something in which Essence and Existence are the same thing. Thomas calls this subsistent Existence, and this is what everybody calls God. So in some sense it is a non-sensical question to ask "does God exist?" because God's very Essence is Existence, and by participation in His Existence every other being has existence.
*Essence/Energies distinction* boi.
God bless Jonathan Pageau.
If Jonathan dedicates a video to explaining God like he’s doing here there will be very few atheists left on RUclips.
There will still be anti-theists, though.
@@Tyler_W There's all kinds of atheists out there. Some of them have a real death-grip on their apathy/uncertainty and are almost further lost than the ones who have a similarly powerful death-grip on obstinate nastiness towards Christ and those who believe in Him.
If you think these types of videos are problems for atheists you are still stuck at problem #1 for atheists which is that you have no proof for your claims and your claims are not special amongst various religions so it would never make sense for an atheist to have a bias for your religion. You're still stuck there. You will persuade 0 atheists to be christians without providing proof of your religious claims which we all know that you can't.
@@MrTheclevercat Considering many atheists have been convinced, you’re wrong,
Is God a noun or a verb?
Yes - AND where the noun and verb intersect (communion).
God isn't category if being. God is being itself. It means as it is pre-category of existence that is source of emergence to categories.
Everything Johnathan says is encapsulated in the two names of God.
the ideas of "neti neti" and "no self" are also apophatic. i'm less critical of new agers now since everyone hates on them and some of their ideas conform to NDE. they are also less restrained with their conceptions of reincarnation, they seem to see reality as more playful than enslaving. another good thing about them is that some of them put more focus on personality and becoming which is a balance to the negative froms of mysticism. if all of reality is mental then the unity is mind. metanoia means unity with the infinite mind, imo. no bigger kind of repentance than theosis.
Yeah I’ve always understood annata and sunyata as being useful Christian concepts as well. It’s important to realize that there is no separate self outside of a context. It’s the body of Christ metaphor. We don’t exist of ourselves in some vacuum but rather, we exist only by a mirroring with God and by necessity everyone.
God does exist that way too, as Orthodox you should know He does exist in a way you can touch... Hr did come in space in time, he manifests in our daily life too, we can "touch" too
How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists? Explain the methodology you employed to reach such a conclusion.
@@theoskeptomai2535 ... It's basics of Christianity... Not physical touch so to say, rarely physical
Would an accurate way of thinking about God be something like. God doesn't exist because he is beyond "existence" ?
God bless your clarity and gift for rational expression.
The Theosophical system of 7 levels of existence seems a more useful way to interface with the world to me.
His definition of God sounds almost analogous with Heidegger’s Dasein
A painter paints a painting, who painted the painter? No one, the painter is beyond painting.
This is a good analogy for God creating the Universe. Who created God?
*Creation* is not applicable to God, God himself is the source of all creation, He is beyond creation. He is beyond existence itself. He is the source of existence.
The apple exist through communion of love
When you say God is the infinite source of everything, you're doing a God of the gaps, because we don't really know at all where everything i.e. reality came from, so now we ASSERT an origin. The problem with the term God is that it also includes a ton of baggage, which people from thousands of religions are free to 'pack' themselves.
Also Jonathan says God is not a being but being itself. Yet we hear that God wants a relationship with us or is a consciousness capable of free will.
God is really just an anthropomorphization of reality...an abstract... to satisfy a psychological and social need of humanity, a need that humanity has been indoctrinated to believe it needs....to believe it can't do without.
3:14 I usually say pantheism is to modest, God is the universe and infinitely more.
I love this clip. God bless.
I think you should go even further and say that God is the apple but also an apple within an apple, because he repeats himself in all levels and dimensions. He is also touchable, he said to Thomas, touch me and believe.
Hindus understand reality as a manifestation of God. Which is true, but God is always more than just that. He simultaneously manifests in the world AND transcends it. That's the whole idea of the incarnation. He's also not just personal, but ultimately personal in the ultimate way, because He grounds us as persons and must therefore be a "person of persons" just as He is the "king of kings" - He IS personhood as such, which is something the Eastern mysticisms don't seem to integrate at all in their conceptions of ultimate reality (at least as far as I've seen. I could be wrong.)
And this being/non-being/communion of love is also the ill-tempered cloud guy from the bible?
God is a communion of persons...like the trinity
Brilliant. And true.
God is beyond your comprehension but he is the over ruling power...His throne of power and His hierarchy of Holy creatures in heaven and the mystery on earth is unfolding if anyone would pierce the fog...
I hate when these new age atheists want some concrete evidence that God exists. If you could prove God existed in that way then all you’ve proven is the existence of an alien being, thus negating what makes God God. Faith enters into the definition of God in my opinion. It’s something inherently in everyone’s gut. There are just those who embrace it and those who are in denial(pride?).
What _exactly_ am I, an atheist, denying?
Theo Skeptomai ???….God. I would’ve thought you could infer that if you read what I wrote….
@@RamManNo1 Denial is a refusal to acknowledge a fact despite ample evidence that establishes the fact. You haven't presented any evidentiary facts that suggest the existence of a god. So what _evidentiary fact_ am I denying?
Theo Skeptomai Did you even read my post? Did you even watch the video or just come to troll? I can’t prove to you God exists. Only you can choose to accept to believe or not.
Question for you. Why do you feel the need to create a RUclips account with an “edgy” name and come to these boards? It would be more “atheist” of you to simply not give a crap wouldn’t the it? Why the need to act as a rebellious teenager if what you are rebelling against doesn’t even exist?
@@RamManNo1 WRONG. I cannot _choose_ to accept your assertion that a god exists. I am either convinced by the evidenced or I am not convinced. Either way I have no _choice_ in the matter. I am not convinced and will not be convince of your unsubstantiated claim until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. And it YOU that is in denial. You assume my position is a reflection on my choice (in this case denial of facts), but it my position is determined by the evidence (or in this case the absence of evidence).
So answer my question. What _evidentiary facts_ demonstrating the existence of a god am I denying?
If it is true what you say (that I am denying evidence) then there is no excuse as to why you can't prevent the actual evidence you claim I deny.
So, present at least one evidentiary fact I am denying.
To understand the things of God, you have to have His Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 KJVS
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. [11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. [16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
To be fair I listen to the whole video, but not once was scripture used in a attempt to describe God. They may have started with this.
Romans 1:18-20 KJVS
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
great video. very nice
God is not a communion of persons. At least that is not what the Bible teaches. God is a person, the Father and He has a Son who is also a Person.
There are three distinct persons in the Godhead, each one equally God. But they definitely do all commune with each other, as we see Jesus praying to the Father and being blessed by the Holy Spirit. It defies human comprehension, as God does.
This makes Dawkins feel really low-level...
It's because he is. That isn't to say he's unintelligent. He just can't comprehend amything outside of a rationalist materialist frame of perceiving the world. He's very intelligent in that school of thought, but not so much when it comes to anything outside of that. There is merit to that perspective, it's just not the sole and exclusive lense through which to understand reality in all of its complexity or the only way to identify and determine truth.
@@Tyler_W He can comprehend what you believe and he thinks its stupid. People who say your religion is backwards and stupid don't need to up their game to see that your religion is really good, because it isn't.
@@etienneditolve1567 He appears to have an IQ about 50 points higher than yours. That's not even a good attempt at shit talking. Stay mad invisible friend bro.
@@MrTheclevercat I think he understands the fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, but that's a very low resolution interpretation. Dawkins doesn't think it makes sense because it doesn't fit within his materialist frame of reference. It doesn't neatly fit into the confines of his understanding of how the world works, ergo, it's dumb. People like him and Harris don't understand what they're criticizing. Even someone like Peterson who can speak back and gorth to both sides has easily communicated this. He and a lot of these people don't understand how so much of the things they value and believe aren't a given. They come from Christianity. People like him, again, not to level insults because that's not my intention, treat Christianity like an edgy teenager who knows enough to ask valid questions but doesn't see the bigger picture and has no appreciation for what his parents have actually given him.
The thinker is the abstraction
Sounds like explaining the Tao!
Except the Dao is not personal. But God is personal.
Well said
i didnt understand one thing. Isnt the "universe" the identity that u give to everything that is part of the universe? therefore the unity above the parts that it contains
The universe is not one thing. It is a seemingly endless manifestation of diverse particulars. The universe is not one, but does come from one source that is above and not contained in it. God is above, separate, and the source. Praying to the universe is just the same "worshipping the created vs the creator" error just on a grander scale.
What is the bridge between this “ground of being”
Which sounds fundamentally abstract, unknowable, and impersonal, leading only to deism at best.
And the idea that God is personal, and incarnate, that we can not only see and behold him, but carve images of him, and even kill him.
So personal that he manifest himself by miracles and healing.
I think that’s the issue most have, it’s one thing to believe in some abstract philosophical notion, called “god.” Where saying he is real is like saying Santa clause is real - real only in the abstract.
And a personal god whom I can know, and commune with, who loves me, and cares for me.
I think that was the heart of the question here, and unfortunately I don’t feel it was answered.
Or maybe it was, and the answer is god is the philosophical notion that abstractly holds things together. But not a person that you could know him, see him, touch him, walk with him - manifestly incarnate in your life.
Pretty sure the answer is both, not either/or. Which is why Christians insist that Jesus was both God and man, the bridge between Heaven (abstract principles) and Earth (physical manifestation of those abstract principles.
Good points. Jonathan expounds on the points you've made on some of his other videos and conversations.
When you commune, God manifests
Like other commenters have said. It's more of a "both/and" sceanrio and not so much a matter of "either/or."
Appreciate the replies. But I think much of what is contained in these notions are diametrically opposed. Thus a both/and option is not viable.
God can not be both absent and present.
These are opposites - it’s the heart of the problem of divine hiddenness. Believing in a “personal God” who is impersonal and absent causes issues.
"How can you say that the universe is one?" How about by definition?
The universe is not one thing. It is a seemingly endless manifestation of diverse particulars. The universe is not one, but does come from one source that is above and not contained in it. God is above, separate, and the source. Praying to the universe is just the same "worshipping the created vs the creator" error just on a grander scale.
@@jesseandjoyj It's both one thing and a collection of many things. A chair is also one thing and a collection of many things. Universe comes from the Latin universus which literally means "turned or combined into one".
@@jesseandjoyj I prefer to see the universe as the totality of the energies of God or the totality of His expression in form. The apparent diversity and separation of the universe is an effect of mental perception and does not reflect the truth, which is that all is united in the Source beyond space and time.
@@jesseandjoyj How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned is the source of the universe? What methodologies did you employ to reach such a conclusion?
@@theoskeptomai2535 your logic can be turned on it’s head. what methodologies have you used to prove otherwise? Feel free to tell me how you can disprove the transcendent. I’m all ears.
I wouldn't say everything we say about God is wrong, that would make all religion a lie and a waste of time, I would rather say "everything we say about God doesn't even begin to cover it."
He called it a compromise
The way I would interpret this is that our words are insufficient to fully describe his totality because we are merely finite beings trying to string together equally limited words to describe the infinite. We see through a mirror darkly as I believe St. Paul put it.
Its called ‘uni’ verse for a reason
And why is that?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Collective.
💜
Shouldn’t that read, “God doesn’t exist if this is what you mean by exist?”
Ok so God is the communion of love and it’s the communion of love that makes things into being. wherefore, the apple was created out of a communion of love and This is what love is? Ok????
So the same person who argues where do Atheists get their objective morality and truth from says this about God and love? I’m going to assume that if I think this is moral relativity at its best, I’m not worthy or blessed to see the emperors invisible clothes. Jonathan is just making assertions.
However, this definition of God is definitely more tolerable to atheists than other definitions of God that are anthropomorphic. If this definition of God helps people to deal with the sorrows of the world without the claim to divine authority over others than I’m ok with it.
Isn’t it “who” ?
Hmmm..... basically from all those he said what i have concluded is that for him "god" is what he can't give any better explanation. Just a word to fill gaps in knowledge and more.
If that's your takeaway from what he just said, I think that's just ypur fallback amswwr for what you assume he means because you don't understand what he's talking about, because that's definitely not what he's suggesting.
@@Tyler_W I never suggested i am talking about what someone else assumes he means. Of course i am talking about my takeaway of what he said, why would i be talking about yours or anybodyelse's takeaway?
And anyway ofcourse he is not presenting his version of god describing it as "the god of the gaps". However a "God that doesn’t exist if this is what you mean with “exist”" as he describes it, is exactly that.
Hey is the art in orthodox come from pagan Rome?
Iconography is way different then pagan Rome art
1. God is the infinte source of everything.
2. Everything we say about God is wrong.
So you that... okay and that is because... okay...
I think the way he worded his second point is going to cause a lot of confusion, and based on a few of these cimments, clearly already has caused a great deal of confusion for those who have no idea how to think in these terms. I think a better way of rewording that is that "everything we say about God is insufficient." In other words, we can describe and talk about God, but talking about God isn't like observing and describing some inanimate thing sitting next to you or even like describing another regular person. We can know God, to the extent that it's possible to conprehend him, but that's just it. What he means (to my understanding) is that the effectiveness of our words are limited to our finite experience as humans. We are finite beings trying to find the insufficient finite words to comprehend and then describe the infinite. We can accurately speak of God's person, but we are limited in our ability to understand amd cmunicate who God is in his infinite totality. Think of what it would be like for a microscopic bacteria to try to comprehend and then describe a human being, and then exponentially multiply that challenge tenfold (technically to infinity, but I hope you get the point). There's simply a limit to our understanding. It's the reason why we are told that we will spend all of eternity getting to know God and who he is on a deeper and deeper level.
@@Tyler_W I understood pretty well what he said. But indeed that maybe due to the fact I am farmiliar with the kind of language.
It just sounded funny to me the way he explained it.
You've lost all meaning. The apophatic must necessarily be balanced by the cataphatic. God has a distinct, particular nature, which He revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. We can say that God is not this or that, but we must also be able to say what He is. God IS what He revealed Himself to be. God is NOT everything and anything else we might imagine about Him.
We’ll never understand God😹 holy holy holy
A "communion of persons" ... nonsense. Billions of people don't understand that the almighty God cannot be PERSONALLY here, this is NOT POSSIBLE. Why? Because it's sure that - before the birth of our universe and time - the almighty God already knew the whole future in the universe ready to start and this was a problem. We could talk about many hypothetical futures, but eventually ONLY ONE WELL DETERMINED future will REALLY come true. Well, God knew that ONE FUTURE, so that it was supposed to REALLY become true. But, since that one future had to REALLY come true, then God had to just LET IT UNFOLD exactly LIKE IT WAS. God was NOT supposed TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN IT because God CANNOT DO ANY MISTAKES in his knowledge of the future ! God was thus supposed to JUST WATCH every day that future while it EXACTLY UNFOLDS, with no possibility to change ANY detail of it, not even the weather of tomorrow. Even worse, that ONE future INCLUDED ALL FUTURE GOD'S ACTIONS, this means that God would have been personally OBLIGED to EXACTLY take ALL THOSE ACTIONS. God "being obliged"...that was a bad scenario, what was the SOLUTION to this problem ? When in a remote past God knew the WHOLE future, He simply COMMANDED his power "SO IT SHALL BE (but without me)". That's all. By doing so, God avoided LATER OBLIGATIONS to PERSONALLY and EXACTLY take all the God's actions set out in that WELL-DETERMINED future. God's work was OVER, He was immediately FREE from any other duty. This means that God is NOT here now and that the God's words are automatically spoken by his power (a thing) alone. Since we hear the God's words but NOBODY is here, we say that God is a spirit ("God is a spirit" John 4, 24). He is the "Spirit of God". This means the almighty God ONLY dwells in that remote past ("the world has not known you") and nobody ever saw Him. Thus, the almighty God is absent, just his power is here (Jesus in heaven indeed sits only next to THE POWER of God). This all means that God is NOT immutable: there was a time BEFORE commanding "So it shall be" when God PERSONALLY LIVED all relationships with us, and a time AFTER that. During the time BEFORE, God was able to SEE US into his future and to take actions in that future. But, changing active to passive form, this conversely means that we are NOW observed by Him from that distant past.
After his command, the almighty God was totally FREE, He could thus get rid of his then useless power (his power was already set for that determined future, ready to work alone) to become like a normal man : the "Son of God". "Son" thus means that He DERIVES from God. The Father didn't cease to exist though! As shown above He went on existing in the form of a spirit. We can say that God is a spirit and is here (version preferred by Jesus). In reality we now have a relationship with the almighty God who is in that distant future, we are observed by Him NOW.
You place Time above God, that’s a mistake
@@LKRaider "the almighty God in a distant past knew THE future and this was a problem..." I think it's sensical, it's also sensical that before that time (a not well-defined "God's time", no years, months...) He made all his decisions concerning that determined future. Our time made of years... didn't exist yet. In any case please see the Occam's razor.
“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).