Is God personal or Impersonal?

[Anonymous No.11541746]

It is of no doubt at this point in humanities understanding of reality and nature that there exists a single GOD that is the source of all things. The question of the aeon thus is whether the GOD is personal (has a personality, is 'conscious', has opinion and moves about the reality according to a will and does things according to its thoughts) or is impersonal (is the "eternal law of all", the "absolute", more like Brahman in Hinduism rather than the God of Abraham).
Which is more likely?

[Anonymous No.11541751]

Impersonal. I know that because I did some drugs and it was revealed to me.

[Anonymous No.11541773]

God is a fucking cunt prick that wants to put life through eternal hell in the name of progress. Welcome to existence. Fuck God. We have power to shape reality now.

[Anonymous No.11541793]

>>11541746
>It is of no doubt at this point in humanities understanding of reality and nature that there exists a single GOD that is the source of all things.

Got a source for that?

[Anonymous No.11541796]

>>11541751
>I did drugs and it was revealed to me

Drugs reveal literally nothing, you just confused your brain and were stupid enough to believe the delusions experienced were genuine.

[Anonymous No.11541799]

>>11541796

[Anonymous No.11541814]

>>11541796
So do you think the GOD is personal or impersonal?

[Anonymous No.11541817]

>>11541814
fuck your labels

[Anonymous No.11541820]

>>11541814
>So do you think the GOD is personal or impersonal?

I don’t believe in whatever vague “God” you’re babbling about. Prove such a thing exists.

[Anonymous No.11541845]

>>11541746
>No doubt.
You lost me there. Our tools of comprehension fall apart once we understand that objectivity can't be objectively reached and even mathematical truths are tautological. We apply science to work with what seems consistently reliably true but it's pure masturbation to insist one has a privileged understanding of anything which preceeds, includes, accounds for, or transcends the seemingly mathematical behavior of what we can label and observe. No answer exists to your question because no evidence any which way is even imaginable. The question itself is incoherent. You aren't even referring to anything.

[Anonymous No.11541849]

>>11541746
>Comprehend comprehension and anything and everything which underlies it.
No U.

[Anonymous No.11541872]

>>11541820
It is proven quite trivially but just accepting that reality exists.
What you're claiming is that you think the GOD is impersonal.

[Anonymous No.11541876]

>>11541845
You are claiming that the GOD is a personal one, specifically your mind (you are essentially arguing solipsism). This still falls into the two camps that are outlined in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11541879]

>>11541872
shut the fuck up stupid self-obsessed cunt

[Anonymous No.11541880]

>>11541876

[Anonymous No.11541881]

>>11541879
Not self obsessed anon, just looking to see what different anons think about the question.
If you're claiming a purely material/physical metaphysics, you are claiming that the GOD is impersonal and is the laws of physics. This still completely falls into the two schools outlined in the OP
>>11541880
No

[Anonymous No.11541884]

>>11541881
>Not self obsessed anon, just looking to see what different anons think about the question.
then stop putting your own narcissistic interpretation onto other peoples' posts stupid fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.11541885]

>>11541872
>It is proven quite trivially but just accepting that reality exists

Do elaborate how reality existing means there’s a god.

[Anonymous No.11541887]

>>11541881
>you are claiming that the GOD is impersonal and is the laws of physics

So God is man-made approximations of apparent consistent observations?

Why not just say “laws of physics”?

[Anonymous No.11541892]

>>11541746
Personal by the amount of miracles registered by the catholic church of which one converted a nobel prize winner of medicine when the prize still meant something
https://aleteia.org/2018/11/06/the-lourdes-miracle-that-brought-a-nobel-prize-winning-doctor-to-faith/

[Anonymous No.11541898]

>>11541884
I'm not putting any interpretation, logical inferences aren't interpretations.
>>11541885
If your claim are physical/material, the GOD is the impersonal laws of physics. It still is completely encapsulated in the two schools outlined in the OP.
>>11541887
The laws of physics are not actually consistent yet (maybe they will be found to be later, maybe it will be found that material reality is fundamentally non-consistent) but in either case the observation of behavior that allows you to think about the underlying law is not the same as the underlying law which is in itself the idea of an impersonal GOD as outlined in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11541902]

>>11541898
>logical inferences aren't interpretations.
yes they are you stupid fucking twit jesus christ you are seriously high on your own shit

[Anonymous No.11541924]

>>11541876
I am claiming that you and I both are existentially uncertain and that your terms tools and techniques of pursuing certainty are out of their league.

Whatever omniprinciple/omniconscious you are looking for need be neither.

[Anonymous No.11542019]

>>11541746
not science or math
fuck off back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11542022]

>>11541924
Then you are asserting the God is impersonal. Uncertainty to whether or not the god is personal or impersonal is the whole point of this thread.
>>11542019
It is both

[Anonymous No.11542089]

The universe is a conscious being and galaxies are its atoms. That's God right there.

[Anonymous No.11542095]

>>11542022
now this is shitposting

[Anonymous No.11542128]

>>11541793
His ass

[Anonymous No.11542143]

>>11541746
OP, what is your definition of the term “God” in its most generic sense? What are its essential attributes?