How would you counter the "We are all God" argument /x/ ?

It's not something to counter.

The big bang was the one thing becoming the ten thousand things.

The universe is just feagments of God.

Argue all you want, fragment.

Define a godlike task and we'll fail it collectively.

>>19190968
Separateness is a meme

>>19190954
By saying that when you start going "we are all god" definitions become useless. If I called a rock god, that is incorrect. Even if god is part of this rock, this rock does not have the same qualities as god. At this level, clearly there are different beings, so calling everything god is just what idiots say. This coming from a person who believes in something similar.

There has to be some distinction between what god is and what other things are. Otherwise you negate the need to call anything god because it is much easier to call a rock a rock so people know what you are talking about and differentiating between an abstract concept and a physical thing with certain properties. If I found a rock and wanted to tell someone about this, it is absolutely fucking pointless to say I found god. What I would say is I found a rock. When you say god is everything, you negate the entire word. Because we can't walk around calling everything god. At some point we need to define things properly and separately otherwise we'd all be talking about god and meaning very different qualities and things.

>>19190954
Don't you ever photoshop Trump and Obama together again you dicksucker.

>>19190985
>If I called a rock god, that is incorrect.
>does not have the same qualities as god.
but it does
>There has to be some distinction between what god is and what other things are.
no... not really, god is omnipotent and all encompassing. For linguistics sake it is easiest to make distinctions between things. but this does not create separation only the illusion there of

>>19190954
by saying
No were aren't

>>19191055
>but it does
No. If we were to find god, would we find a rock or something else? We would find something else. A rock may have traits of god, but god is not a rock. Just like if I cut off my hand and someone finds it, they did not find a person. They found a part of a person, they found a thing that was a part of me, and shares similar qualities to me, but they did not find me or any other person. They found a part of it. If they said that my hand was a person and then met a person, they would find a fuck of a lot more than a hand. So clearly that does show a degree of separation. If only because these fractions or parts we can see (like a rock) do not fully convey or share ALL the qualities of said god.

>>19191090
>If we were to find god,
you can not find god, else you be looking at the entire universe.
>if I cut off my hand and someone finds it, they did not find a person
why are you cutting your hand off? the universe is not cut off from god.
if i were to look at your hand under a microscope, while it is till attached to your body, i am looking at you under a microscope. Am i not? those cells may only be aspects of you, but they are still currently you, are they not?

>>19191090
I think your issue lies in the fact that you mix semantics (what we want to "talk" about) with how things actually are on a mere organic point of view. Aware of it or not, all by essence is matter, in this way consciousness can be considered as a manifestation of God's will to experience himself (Knowing that he is all, including you).

>>19190954
I would first explain to them that a God is a created being with a set body and you are A God so saying you are part of a Deity doesn't make sense.

>>19191106
>you can not find god, else you be looking at the entire universe

The point remains. If you only consider god "the universe" then you have no need to call it god at all. Just call it the universe. Saying something is a god has very different connotations than something we already understand scientifically like a universe.

>why are you cutting your hand off? the universe is not cut off from god.
To illustrate a point. That point being that calling everything god is absurd. Either you call the universe god, in which case you mean the universe which is a scientific thing and you are an atheist in all but name and just wanna attach an unnecessary title to it, or you have to clearly admit there is separation to some degree. Because a hand is part of me. But I wouldn't call my hand me. There would be a difference between me (the totality of me) and a fraction of me like my hand. If there was no separation between me and any other part of me, I'd die instantly. My cells can die and I can live. No individual cell or limb or another part alone IS me. That right there shows separation to some degree already. If only because there is clearly a difference between the whole of something and a part of something.

The only way your argument makes any sense is if you are calling the universe god. And then I'd have to wonder why you'd do that when there is zero necessity or reason to do so except confuse people. Like I CAN call a dog a cat, but if I went around doing it all I'd accomplish is confusing people.

>>19191136
>understand scientifically like a universe
right, and there's nothing left for science to find and understand. universe is a scientific term for the measurable realm of matter, it describes physical aspects and phenomena.

what i am saying is the universe is part of or entirely gods material being. You place to much emphasis on finer detail. its like trying to label every pixel of a picture, if you look at a single pixel it is nothing just some random color but step back a few frames and you looking at a whole heap of random colors making an image

>>19190954
We all have the potential to be like a god within us, our free will. But modern science and philosophy actively try to disprove that we even have this property. It makes no sense to say that we are all God when most people on this planet refuse to take any responsibility for where they find themselves but just follow orders and blame others instead. That's not what God does. So we are not all God. Perhaps we are all part of him, but we are not much like him at all. I would say that a great number of people are in fact opposed to him.

When everyone on earth has made peace with their conscience, then we will all be gods.

>>19191206
>right, and there's nothing left for science to find and understand. universe is a scientific term for the measurable realm of matter, it describes physical aspects and phenomena
1. What makes you think there is nothing left for science to discover?
2. That is my point. If the universe, which you called god, is entirely just made up of matter, why call it god? That seems like a rather counter intuitive thing to do. Like what is the point?

>its like trying to label every pixel of a picture, if you look at a single pixel it is nothing just some random color but step back a few frames and you looking at a whole heap of random colors making an image

This was what I was arguing before with the rock and the hand. The rock or the hand is like a pixel. By itself a picture is just one color. It isn't much. But when you pull out you see something different. Pixels are part of televisions and other things, but you wouldn't say that the pixel, which comprises a very small part of the whole, and the television are the exact same would you? Of course not. While pixels are part of a tv, they are certainly not synonymous with one. That is why we have a name for the part (pixel) and the whole (tv). But these things are different. They are separate things even if when you pull out far enough they are part of that larger whole.

>>19190954
Isaiah 40:25
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Romans 3:4

Do you mean the "we are all God in a shared space" or "we are all God in our private copy of reality"? Because the first one is bullshit for obvious reasons but the second one is very true.

God doesn't lie. Only people who have biologically renounced their freedom to lie can speak for God. Otherwise they're just another full of shit human.

>>19191670
>little girl proudly shows God her first crappy drawing
>"Do you like it as much as I do, God? Should I make more?"
>"NO! It's garbage! I honestly think you have no talent.

White lies exist. If God could speak, he would lie to us all the time.

>>19190961
fuck off you fagment

We are all God, and we are also all Satan.

The spirit or soul is God, and the mind, thoughts and emotions are Satan.

The spirit or God uses Satan or the mind in order to fulfill the purpose of this universe: a growing ground for the soul.

Stranger in a strange land was a good as hell book, but their concept of god wasn't an ultimate diety. The concept "thou art god" is ultimately just rhetoric bullshit

>>19190954
In it's most common form, with the reasoning that an element of a set does not equal the entire set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
To put it in analogy form
>a drop of ocean water is not an ocean
>a single number is not the number line

No matter what other property you ascribe to it - form, consciousness, a name or title like "God" - the "set of all sets" is a unique, distinctive entity. No other set can be the "set of all sets."

>>19191847
This guy gets it. We are all non disjoint subsets of the universal set.

>>19190954
Them : we are all god
Reply : You can't be your just odd reactionary animals.

>>19191696
"I love how hard you worked on this! That makes it very special to me, and I bet you can get better if you keep drawing!"

>>19190991
Is that what happened? I wondered why Obama looked so goddamn ugly there. It's not like him to have such a gross, derpy face.

>>19190961
t. Fragment

>>19190991
is trump your daddy or what, fucking baby

File: 20170623_110721.png (999KB, 1035x1045px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1035x1045px

>>19191239
You are either playing devils advocate or are really ignorant today.

You are missing the forest for the trees

>>19191407
I'm confused is God saying that reason dictates that he should be equal or is he saying the opposite?

>>19190954
Obarump
>pure nightmare fuel

Can you limit the possibility of Universal God to one possible universe?

File: 1487566498107.jpg (24KB, 538x402px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 538x402px

>>19190954

>So you're mortal eh? Can't seem to use your will power to stop that, or getting sick, or getting old? How about that; guess that means that some intelligence is stopping you from simply "willing" changes into being, despite the fact that you're "God".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCXTu5jE-Ng

File: IsIs42.jpg (713KB, 1001x1501px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1001x1501px

>>19193156

>But then, that would be the argument that is simply about power......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTL4IrpxeXY

>>19191847
>>19191862

Irony alert.

Isis (/ˈaJsJs/; Ancient Greek: Ἶσις IPA: [îː.sis]; original Egyptian pronunciation more likely "Aset" or "Iset"[1])

File: thVFM16AI9.jpg (15KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x200px

>>19190985
So the rock is god is that what these people are sayin.

>>19190985
or maybe their talkin about jimi Hendrix lol

File: The-Rock.jpg (76KB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x304px

>>19193213

Things that make songs unintentionally hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etYHWZyRSMU

>>19190954
God is all of us; We are not all God.

"We are all of God" =/= "We are all God"

God is good, God is life. Man is not good, until they decide to be. Oft times, a man who claims divinity is not good, therefore they are not God.