Atheism is a Lie

That... was An intricately woven masterpiece about a fairytale Spinoza god that gathers his might and expresses his unwavering need for balance through the cosmos and their eventual creations. In deed, from outward appearance, this god seems all mighty, all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent as well. The first glaring problem about this Spinoza God, is that he has particular qualities that make him unfit to be called the one True God. Namely, the fact that he has somehow been or can be "defined", though not entirely understood and "known", Con has been able to "limit" the properties of this God. Con refers to such properties as a "guiding principle" from which God may not stray. These guiding principles, however seemingly befitting to God (harmony, justice, equality, truth, love, etc.), so as to refer to them as God's nature, do not necessarily mean God CANNOT be personable. Here it seems that Con is trying to make a slippery slope argument, that because we know that which works based on principle, such as physics or nature, often times does not possess a person (or active agent) that thinks, feels, to put action in motion, then it is impossible for that which works on principle to have a personable quality. OF course, we only know that which is "personable" by the term to which it refers. People. Something is personable, if it acts like a person. Animals may be personable, but not trees. Trees work on principle while animals exhibit freedom. Those that work by principle and only by principle, cannot stray from their intended purpose of form. Thereby exhibiting what people call "perfection." However, people, recognizing such perfection are unable to practice it themselves. This is the age old question of flesh vs. spirit. One is corruptible, the other is not. Just because people are not perfect, it does not mean God cannot be perfect. Just because ppl are unable to live by principle, it does not mean God cannot live by principle , be perfect, and be personable at the same time. It is also important to differentiate , personification w/ personalization. To personify something is to place human qualities on to that which does not possess such qualities. PErsonalization ... in this context, is being used to refer to any thing or being or entity, actually possessing some qualities of a person, and thereby describing that being in terms of a person. Like referring to my dog as "good boy." God cannot be personified. But can be personalized. The key error in all atheist , agnostic, and mystic thinking is this. : YOU are made in HIS image. Not the other way around. Him first. You next. God is the original. You are the clone. God does not resemble a person. A person resembles God. You can not, should not personify God. You should let God sanctify (making one godly) You. So... what does it mean that God is "personable" exactly? MY theory is that it is not referring to the fact that God, acts, thinks or feels, necessarily. What is it that makes a person ... a person? Is it his ability to act think and feel? then are all animals also people? Maybe thats what atheists like to tell themselves, yet act as if they are not. What makes a person a person is that which is what makes God personable. As you can see... it makes God's nature entirely irrelevant. It also makes the fallibility of people entirely irrelevant. Even if all individual people are not able to live by perfection or principle, what makes them human would still make them that. Even if they all did live by such perfection, such principle, unable to stray from that Will. they will still be a personable human. Ah then what makes something or someone or some God ...personable? What does it mean?? to be "personable."? The bible, as fallible as it may be, is replete with insight into such matters. Though the book itself, may not be dictated, compiled, and scribed by God himself, the scriptures or books (authors) within the book (the bible), seem to have certainly been inspired by or claim to be inspired by that which we call God. Much controversy obviously exists regarding the bible, its interpretation and its fallibility. As such , the bible may not be perfect, but it is definitely a useful tool for us to leverage the knowledge of ancestors as well as important figures, that helped shape our modern history. And as such, the bible is an excellent artifact for scrutinizing what past people meant, when they refer to God. And the first thing we find, is that they say we are made in His image. Or perhaps it is the bible that is perfect. And the interpreter who is flawed. Everytime. I just am unable to know it. Without knowing what is perfection (because I am helplessly human) , how could I make this determination? From this simple sentence. There is a snowball of confusion about the "image" of God. We imagine a human. With arms and legs and a body. We imagine a person, with feelings, thinking, and acting. We also imagine a consciousness ,,, that just IS. But is this all that makes a human a person ? or is there something else? Is there something that scripture refers to as a Spirit? It is said in the bible many times, God is a Spirit. How is a Spirit different from Consciousness? is it different at all? Though people have are conscious of their feelings and actions , even thoughts, people are unaware of themselves. How could this be? Even though people are conscious they have a subconscious that is also a part of who they are. Then are we our conscious minds? OR is there something more? Or is there ALOT more? Clearly, or maybe not so clearly (due to the obscurity of the topic), I have demonstrated that being "personable" is not something a person really knows how to "define." So yes, I believe God is personable. And certainly, logically, he must be, should he be God. However, to be clear it is not God that is a personable thing... it is people who are God-able animals. :)