To add, if God exists, it is omnipotent, and it's fair to say, egotistical.

You'll probably need to elaborate on that so people can understand what you mean.

God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness.

In theory God is above reality, not simply the face of it if he is as powerful as what being ultimately good would mean.

God is the empirical footprint.

God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness. — Barkon

Perhaps it might be helpful to delve into the history of nominalism and its manifestations in theological (religious) thought.

Nominalism (the practice of human static labeling and categorization) was most likely a human cognition survival mechanism for instantaneous decision-making. Different cultures injected nominalism into their religious beliefs in various ways, ultimately defining what they saw as divine and omnipotent. Afterall, nominalism did 'provide' in many ways when it cognitively assisted in survival. However, once the system that is 'humanity' multiplied and became more complex, nominalism started revealing its house-of-cards nature, as its static applications do not apply to complex systems. We, our biosphere, and all of 'life' are a process that is constantly and autopoietically folding and unfolding as the system processes the interactions (as 'mind'). .... We are not within a digital matrix consisting of individual, static objects. Reality (existence) is analog, fluidly morphing as Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, generating more manifestations as it processes. ... This is what Charles Sanders Peirce meant when he referred to a 'Neglected Argument for God'. .... So, I think a discussion like this first needs to identify a starting point of where in this process are we beginning to investigate together. Otherwise, it just becomes a cluster of wherever various inquirers placements within the process happen to be right now.

In my opinion, the face of "God", can be warped and have future effect, I believe this understanding of it is important for human prosperity and evolution, the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness).

the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness). — Barkon

We each stand in placement within a morphing process and see what is available to our senses in that current placement of time and space (consider Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Once Occurrent Ought'), but it's important to remember that we each are within and manifested by what we examine and investigate. ... There is no 'I' without the 'Not I'.

There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not.

That's a metaphor but I don't know what it's a metaphor for. What's the non-metaphorical version?

it is conclusive that God is synonymous with reality because it is an empirical footprint that leaves a trace. The face of reality is not God but it is in so much his likeness the face of reality shows God, and is a trace of God.

There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not. — Barkon

Because of my understanding of the inherent analog nature of Thirdness, I cannot haphazardly abstract and apply the word 'matrix' to it. Here again, good dialogue demands that we clarify what definition of 'matrix' we are using to approach this investigation. Are we using a more embodied type of definition, such as a 'medium' or 'framework'? I can go forward in our discussion if that is the definition we agree upon. However, if we are using 'matrix' in the mathematical, digital columns and rows definition, I cannot go forward in a scenario that fragments and reduces the 'medium', slicing and dicing its analog necessity for creation.

a framework is fine.

That even the most maddest minds were captivated by some saintly force.

a framework is fine. — Barkon

Then, 'framework' it is. :wink:

I cannot stay on here at the moment, but I look forward to an ongoing dialogue. Thank you.

God has neither a face nor feet. If he did, we could see him, and sell him pumice stone and moisturiser. He can't leave footprints.

Like any subjective entity, in this case intersubjective, gods carry whichever attributes and qualities an observer chooses to imbue them with. Which is fine but makes arguing between observers essentially meaningless.

If reality means what's authentic, a truth value, then the face of God would be reality since the answer points to him. If his face is anywhere, it's only here. — Barkon

You are conflating the belief in an imaginary, supernatural being with the sum total of all cause-and-effect manifestations in existence.

You are conflating the belief in an imaginary, supernatural being with the sum total of all cause-and-effect manifestations in existence. — Questioner

I found the science educator. :razz:

Sorry, leaving you alone now.

That even the most maddest minds were captivated by some saintly force. — Barkon

I am done with all of my holiday juggling and now back to a more 'typical' work routine. I should have a little more time to delve into some of this, if you still want to.

Will you tell me more about why you posted what I quoted from you above?

I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats.

Amen to that. But hey, it's fun :smile:
Just like how you spend your money only shows your viewpoint on money, how you choose (or not choose) your god only shows your viewpoint on your existence.

I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats. — Barkon

No doubt that life is full of constraints, and we each deal with different ones from where and when we stand. ... It can be frustrating at times, but looking back on our lives might help us see why we experienced those constraints in different times and places. For me, it makes me realize that I too am influential in that my handling of those constraints encouraged or freed constraints on whatever or whomever surrounded me. ... So, I agree with you that we are personally prevented from becoming too mad or in control. What we need to worry about is how autopoiesis might set in and create a combined force that is much larger than any one person. It then becomes extremely unlikely that we can break that momentum in time for a correction.