God is not intelligent

I just love psychobabble BS like that!

 

Sounds like an effort to avoid accountability to me.

 

Accountable to whom? Why? And for what purpose?

 

If you don't know why do you care?

 

Why does that matter?

You made the claim. Why can't you answer the question?

 

I don't see the value in answering it. Explain yourself better and I might consider it.

 

If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. Otherwise, there's no substance or merit to your claim, which explains why you won't answer my question.

 

Whether the idea is comforting or not is irrelevant. It's simply the 'physics' of reality, and is based on the full spectrum of knowledge acquired/available to us----eg, observation of nature/the universe, scientific inquiry, individual experiences & parapsychology, the paranormal, ancient beliefs/myths/stories, and simple logic.

Do I believe in 'reincarnation' (ie, 'other lives') because I wish it to be true or because it's comforting? No, but because of the preponderance & weight of the evidence.

Likewise, the logic of Oneness should pass the scrutiny of any logic test, as well as observational analysis. Essentially, it explains all that we experience.

What it cannot explain is why/how any-thing (including Oneness) even exists. Nor can it explain how it's possible for the illusion of separation to emerge from Oneness. But these questions can't be answered regardless. Still, these two questions are far more profound than the standard inquiry regarding the existence of a 'God/Creator/deity'.

Existence itself is the only truth we can know and agree on. Our philosophies & theories beyond that is just philosophy & theory. Nevertheless, just as every-thing observed leaves a trace of its existence, logic suggests there should likewise be clues to the nature of reality. To this we must be careful with our questioning.

For example, if reincarnation is a real phenomenon, one should first ask: What kind of evidence should we expect to find? If the 'after-life' is real, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? If alien visitation is real, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? And so on.

Then we ask, does the kind of evidence one would expect to find if these phenomenon were true and that would provide confirmation (on an evidentiary level) exist? The answer is YES. Does it constitute absolute proof? No. Does it constitute scientific evidence? Most certainly.

Imagine if we could actually know everything. How would we know we knew everything? And if we could even ask that question, then obviously we don't know everything.

So the issue with 'not knowing' is a moot point, as it would apply to any form of self-aware consciousness that cannot escape, and, therefore, never know it-self absolutely. Likewise, people who hold a belief in the existence of a 'higher power' or deity must understand that this higher power/deity will be subject to the same eternal mystery of never knowing it-self.

I have stated the same with Oneness. Although it cannot know it-self absolutely, it can experience it-self through the illusion of separation. The result of this is the emergence of:

* awareness
* sense of existence
* sense of identity (self)
* self-awareness, and awareness of self-awareness
* infinite awareness (consciousness is in & of every-thing)
* infinite-ness (inability to escape it-self means inability to know it-self which means it can experience it-self in infinite ways)

Oneness can be every-thing because it is no-thing. It is no-thing because it is every-thing.

The Genesis verse in the bible is most logically a reference to ET visitation & genetic meddling. This, in addition to numerous other bible references to what seems very descriptive of interactions with ET's (or some advanced race). Such a conclusion is a simple matter from today's modern perspective brought to us by technology, archeology, anthropology, and the ongoing UFO phenomenon. But such a notion would've seemed unfathomable in most cultures prior to the industrial age.

With that said, when the bible speaks of a 'vengeful, angry, jealous' God that demands to be worshiped & obeyed and imposes threats of death, destruction, and even eternal damnation, one cannot help but ask: Is the bible describing an all-knowing omnipotent 'God', or is it describing an advanced race of ET's? Which makes more sense?

The cells work in concert to support the well-being of the body. The body is merely a vehicle used to navigate & journey the material world. The driver is merely an experiencer and cannot be harmed or destroyed, and can also choose to drive infinite types of other vehicles in infinite types of worlds.

The driver is not only the driver of the vehicle, but also the creator of the vehicle & the worlds it exists in. In other words, we are both the Dreamer AND the Dream.

Oneness is not only replete with paradoxes, but is its own paradox. It's very existence is based on separation----ie, the illusion of separation. That which exists can only exist by virtue of that which IT gives existence to. Eg, X exists by virtue of its absence (non-X), and vice versa.

Thus Oneness and separation are fundamentally two sides of the same coin. Each gives birth to the other. Oneness is not possible without its absence----separation (non-Oneness), for awareness itself (and thus, existence) is not possible without separation. Likewise, separation is not possible without its absence----Oneness (non-separation).

Logically AND paradoxically, NO-thing should exist, yet EVERY-thing exists.

These are further philosophies describing illusory manifestations of separation, out of which awareness & existence itself emerge. Fundamentally, the Oneness of All lies at the heart of all existence.

The Oneness of All is not a mere generalization. It could easily become THE 'T.O.E.' that theoretical physicists have sought as a starting point for explaining everything.

Oneness is a closed system, which means it can only 'return' to it-self (ie, experience it-self). In nature, what follows this pattern? A torus does, which is why we find torus patterns everywhere in nature & the universe itself. We see torus patterns in blood, biological tissue, hair patterns, water, air/gases, tornadoes & hurricanes, galaxies, solar systems, planetary movements, black holes, magnetic fields, current flow, flower/plant patterns, fractal patterns, Fibonacci patterns, and so on. We also observe cyclical patterns in frequencies, vibrations, sound/music, time, ancient calendars/'great cycles', moon phases, seasons, crop sewing/harvests, astronomical movements, astrological charts, female & hormonal cycles, sleep cycles, dream/REM patterns, metabolic cycles, animal behavior (mating, migration, etc.), and so on.



As above, so below.



We can observe a simple torus/vortex pattern when we stir a glass of water. This pattern is a wonderful analogy for Oneness. When the water is stirred, a vortex forms. Notice how the vortex is a self-feeding closed system, and requires no additional water. The water is pulled in at the top and exits at the bottom. The flow of water is continuous, with no discernible beginning or end. Notice how the velocity of the water doesn't change, but the frequency continuously changes and is different throughout any point in the vortex (cyclic frequency of the water increases as it nears the central region, and lessens the further away it gets from the central region). Does this mean that the central/black hole region of a spiral galaxy represents a region of higher frequency/energy? Does it also mean that the central/Sun region of a solar system represents a region of higher frequency/energy? Notice also that as soon as the water is stirred, every single point in the water is set in motion in unison (ie, the water in the glass does not move in parts, but always in unison at different frequencies).

Based on the concept of Oneness & torus patterns, what can we conclude about the nature of 'black holes'? Simple: They must be regions where the universe is 'recycled'. Older material is pulled into its center which gives birth to new stars/worlds as it exits the other end. Hence, there's no beginning or end to any universe. Only continuous 'change'/recycling.

 

Why?

Then I guess the discussion is over.

 

Why make a claim if you won't discuss or address it?

I believe it was over as soon as you realized the nature of your claim lacked merit & logic.

 

I see no value in revealing my reason. It's more fun to watch you guess

So why are you so desperate to continue it?

 

Your reason is obvious. You have no means of backing up your claim. Perhaps you're not used to being called out on your logic.

Please...

 

Then why are you asking

Assume whatever you wish

Here you are still stroking your ego.

 

I must point out-- as this is the example which you have chosen-- that many, including the scientific community, writ large, disagree with your assessment. So, once again, my original analogy is proven, by your argument: i.e., you are going to trust no one other than yourself, to decide the verdict of "the preponderance and weight of the evidence." Are you not aware, that Christians, for instance, will tell you that, in their view, the weight of the evidence, supports their own religious convictions? But what, will you not accept their own "evidence" as credible? While that is very understandable, what isn't, is that you would reject all of those, who would say that your "evidence" of reincarnation is not credible. Yet, you will try to claim that your judgements of what "the evidence" shows, is not completely subjective? You are making yourself, the sole arbiter of what evidence is credible, and which is not. How is this "scientific," or objective? And how does it differentiate your view, from that of the devotee, of any other faith?

But just saying that "all is One," does not explain all experience. How does it explain cancer? How does it "explain" Putin's invasion of Ukraine, with all its bombing of civilians, and other atrocities? If all is One, that should imply a reason for cooperation. Yet animals eat other animals. Humans exploit other humans. We can come up, very easily, with reasons for these things, but they are certainly not explained by all being One. Your catch phrase offers a definition to a relationship, without supplying any sort of understanding of that relationship.

It would be akin to saying that the Earth is our Mother, without defining what kind of mother, she is. The mothers of some creatures, are not what we might consider, very maternal. Some abandon their young, let the stronger kill the weaker one; or may eat the weaker one, herself. IOW, simply saying that we are all part of One Wholeness, does not really speak to either our limited perspective-- not that it is, limited, but giving any helpful insight, to better deal with that limitation-- or provide us any real emotional or even intellectual touchstone to rely upon, or to which to turn, throughout the trials & tribulations of life.

 

Sorry for not replying sooner. I tend to get too bogged down in the 'political' forums (and am sometimes away). But I made sure to return to address your excellent questions.

Does that include all scientists?

And are you claiming there exists no evidence to support 'reincarnation'? If so, what kind of evidence would you expect or believe should exist if reincarnation is in fact a reality?

Note: I put the term 'reincarnation' in quotes because the term is somewhat misleading and bit of a misnomer. Reincarnation denotes a linear or successive string of life-times lived from older to more modern times. In truth, all life-times, including future lives, exist simultaneously (in the eternal 'NOW'), not linearly. So it's more accurate to use the term 'other lives'.

What specific argument(s) from Christians are you referring to? The existence of 'God', Jesus & his 'miracles', Satan/the devil & angels, Garden of Eden/Adam & Eve, Noah's arc/the flood, eternal damnation & heaven, original sin, Creation vs Evolution, or what?

I've heard their arguments & also their so-called 'evidence', which is severely lacking and the reason why they resort to the same defense----"Faith needs no evidence." Thus, often Christians (and Muslims & Jews) discredit their own central arguments by the use of circular reasoning. Eg, "It's true because the Bible/Quran/Talmud says so."

Are you also aware that there are Christians that subscribe to a belief in reincarnation? The current Bible does indeed make several references to reincarnation. Perhaps this is why some Christian minorities believe in reincarnation, but I can't say. Still, research suggests that not only did the Bible once contain many more references to reincarnation, but that the belief in reincarnation was standard among early Christians prior to ~500 AD----which would hardly be surprising considering that such a belief has been a standard among millions of Buddhists, Hindus & other ancient religions since day one, not to mention numerous indigenous cultures.

A YouTube documentary – posted by Alltime Conspiracies in January 2018 – reveals shocking claims that reincarnation may have been removed from the holy text.
Increasing evidence brought to light from various historians and skeptics show that there was a lot of information that was not only left out of the Bible, but disinformation that was deliberately added after the New Testament was released. The narrator claims: “Reincarnation goes against the orthodox church doctrine.” The YouTube clip refers to religious author Geddes MacGregor’s comment in his book, “Reincarnation in Christianity” published in 1978. Mr MacGregor argues that "Christians did believe in reincarnation". However, he adds: “All written evidence of reincarnation in early Christian teachings and in the Bible was deliberately suppressed by the Catholic church.” It must be noted that there is a lot of evidence that points towards a large percentage of early Christians who did accept the idea of a cycle and rebirth. This was around the period of 0 AD to 500 AD and it was during this time period that the stories of Jesus Christ were written down by hand and passed down to future generations. During this time, the Bible as we know it had not been written and put together in full. As the story goes it was 367 AD that the Church Father, Athanasius, designated 66 books that together formed the Christian biblical canons. These were, in essence, the only books included and recognised by Christian teachings. Upon the discovery of these crucial and important documents, scholars have been able to confirm that Gnostic Christians also believed in reincarnation. At this time they did not have the label of Gnostics at all, they were just Christians who followed the message of Christ and just so happened to believe in reincarnation. Many people claim that a certain council took the teaching of reincarnation out of the Bible. Although the majority cannot name the specific council, they most frequently refer to the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) and the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). At that time there were already many manuscripts in existence spread throughout the Roman Empire. New age believers say the church translated the Bible to expunge all evidence for reincarnation but it "did not do a complete job."

My girlfriend is a Catholic who believes in reincarnation. She was raised a Catholic and adheres devoutly to that faith (but does not imprison herself to the strict/orthodox doctrine). Yet she believes in reincarnation only because she literally recalls several of her 'past-lives' (including one on another planet) in great detail. She's had such memories since she was only a few years old. She was also born very psychic and has had alien encounters/abductions since childhood, so she strongly believes in ET's too. She was born very psychic/sensitive, so I guess it comes with the territory.

Reincarnation, the endless cycle of re-birth, also fits with the torus metaphor of cyclical change.

Most, I would say, are not aware of, or well-read on the available evidence & arguments. Often people will reject an idea or theory without doing their due diligence in reviewing the research material. Would you say that most Christians, scientists, atheists & others that reject the idea of reincarnation are well educated on the subject?

Whether I accept the prevailing belief or that of a minority or that of one person/guru, either way, I (the individual) must be the arbiter of my own truth. Each individual lives in THEIR respective bubble experiencing THEIR version of others & reality itself. (Eg, I see Trump as a clown & dictator. Another person will see him as a good, honest man & even idolize him). Nevertheless, we all still share essential/common aspects of reality (because we're all humans living on the same planet), which allows us to share common experiences.

Getting back to reincarnation:

Make me a list of the TYPES of evidence you would deem credible enough to support the idea of 'reincarnation'. Then we'll go from there. I am asking this because I can provide you a simple list of existing sources of evidence and we can compare notes. If scientists can agree on what constitutes credible evidence to support a theory, why can't we do the same? We're all humans living on the same planet in a similar world sharing similar experiences & traits. Obviously there is common ground to work with here.

Just so you know, I base my conclusions only on the evidence, of which I can present and conduct a logical defense of. I welcome any challenging arguments and have heard most, if not all, of the arguments by skeptics/debunkers. But none holds up to scrutiny. I do acknowledge that, despite the weight of evidence for reincarnation, it doesn't constitute absolute proof. (That proof, if it exists, will be revealed only to those who have passed on.) By contrast, a devotee typically doesn't have room for debate and is not open to alternative views, for their mind is made up.

With that said, I hope you're aware there are many scientists who believe the evidence for reincarnation is scientifically credible & valid, while most others probably reject the idea based solely on their complete reliance on the modern scientific paradigm (ie, if science can't prove it, it ain't real or even worth investigating).

Cancer, like any other disease, represents the antithesis of Oneness----ie, separation. Separation resists Oneness. So it resists unity, balance, integrity, harmony, etc.

When our words, thoughts, and deeds are not aligned with Oneness, we experience the loss of integrity, connectedness and balance.

If you look at the causes of cancer you will see how they are borne from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

EXAMPLE: A greedy & controlling person wishes to start a company that makes toxic chemical pesticides for profit. When the consumer uses these chemicals they partake of the same energy that was used to produce the product. The result is they may (depending on their own energy & mental state) become ill with cancer/other diseases. Also, the soil, plants, and wildlife suffer because the chemicals were conceived & produced with no regard for keeping in balance & harmony with nature (Oneness)----ie, both the company & the chemicals were conceived & produced with no regard for how it would impact everything else, but with only one goal in mind, profit/control/power. This is the energy of separation/dis-unity, which works against (not with) Oneness and will have its traditionally not-so-pleasant results.

Continued............

 

Entering the illusory world of separation with a self-imposed 'amnesia' of our true nature & origins would naturally draw us into material activities that facilitate some kind of re-connection with Oneness. As such, we feel urged to 'connect' in some way with that which is greater than our material self.

When we're born into the material/earth world we experience the illusion of separation at a very dense level. This experience is very convincing because we're born with no memory of our true, infinite nature. We typically then set out looking for ways to 'connect' with others and the world itself in order to re-experience the Oneness we left----not really realizing why we do so, but only knowing it feels 'good' to do so. And we will do this in different ways depending on our life plan/programming.

EXAMPLES: We may want to start a family, adopt pets, make/entertain a lot of friends, frequently attend parties/bars/night clubs/concerts, go on forums <wink> & social media, become famous/well-known, become rich, pursue creative interests (write books, make movies, make music/art, etc.), join an organization/cult/club/religion, join the military, go to church, become a leader/manager, help others/volunteer, establish an organization, start & grow a business, dominate/control others, surround ourselves with collectables, purchase/conquer/invade large territories, outdo the 'Joneses', do a lot of reading, go to school, indulge in science, indulge in nature, travel/explore, and so on.

Of course there are exceptions to this. Some people will actively pursue a solitary life. They wish to live completely alone and not be bothered by anyone. Their individual reasons can be analyzed via hypnotic regression, and can include an inability to move on from some kind of emotional or physical trauma or setback. Another cause could be a brain or mental disorder. Or, they're simply 'done' with earth/material life and wish to 'go home', and so they'll live a relatively mundane life just to bide their time.

It's easy to become entrapped in the dramas of earth/material life. And so we then tend to take life TOO seriously. However, if there's no memory loss at birth, the material world wouldn't be very believable and we'd never play our individual 'roles' convincingly----which would defeat the purpose of being here. One could say that part of what motivates us through life is to 'remember' again, and thus we might pursue various interests that help us towards this end (eg, religion, meditation, the occult, following gurus, reading philosophy, exploring science & history, using psychedelics, etc.).

A common result of becoming too entrapped in the dramas of our fake earthly/material world is the development of some kind of material/earthly 'attachment'. Attachments can be anything, like people, places, emotions/trauma, wealth/status, power/control, reputation, self pride, physical appearance, jealousy, hate, victimhood, entitlement, etc. This can lead to harm towards oneself and/or others if the attachment becomes too strong or persists.

So does PUTIN make more sense now? Putin's choice in how to 'connect' with a 'greater reality' so that he can feel like he is 'more' than himself is through domination. However, his attachment to domination is so strong that he's willing to place others (and himself) in harm's way to achieve it, and at any cost. He is not thinking or behaving in a way that works in harmony with the needs & desires of others, but rather at the expense of others. Thus his actions promote separation (division, violence/ware, parasitic, etc.) rather than Oneness (unity, peace, giving, etc.). And, as a result of his strong resistance to Oneness, his endeavor for power/control will be one of great struggle. Those that support him also have a need to 'connect' with a 'greater reality' (eg, Russia's 'glory/greatness'), and so they willingly follow Putin's propaganda.

From the illusion of separation & forgetting, meaning emerges. Our sense of morals, for example, originate from the inner urgings (our lost memory) of Oneness as we journey through a life of separation. So, there's nothing 'wrong' or 'right' about what Putin's doing, for Oneness is a law unto itself. But on an earthly/material level, there can be dire consequences. Putin's life is one of constant struggle because freedom is aligned with Oneness and he resists freedom for all. He has no idea that his goals (like that of any other despot) is futile. They may succeed for a period of time, but their 'vision' will always be one of failure. Oneness cannot be resisted indefinitely unless one can endure the struggle that comes with it.

One could say that the real difference between the 'wise man' and the 'fool' is that the 'wise man' has learned to struggle less. However, this doesn't mean the fool's life, though one of struggle, is not enjoyable to him/her. Many criminals actually enjoy what they do. You think the mafia bosses & their soldiers hated their positions? They lived for the adrenaline-pounding dangers, the unpredictability of life, the games of danger they played, the hits, the flow of money, the women, the parties, the gambling, the wheeling & dealing, etc. (Note: tons of attachments going on here.) It's in their programming, which ties in perfectly with the parasitic nature of the monetary/capitalist system.

You will note, however, that at the heart of even organized crime, the core of what all its members sought was that strong connection they had with their own members (their 'family'). Hence they tended to be extremely loyal. The same can be said of street gangs. They all seek & embrace that sense of 'brotherhood' & 'comradery'----just like soldiers feel when at war, or athletes feel when competing against other teams. And they even develop initiation rituals for new members as a means to solidify their loyalty. That 'us vs them' in times of danger strengthens their bond with one another further.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In summary:

If we choose to fully cooperate with one another & live in harmony with nature, we are actively embracing Oneness. Struggle will therefore be virtually nonexistent, which then paves the way for the creation of paradise on earth----ie, 'heaven on earth'.

If we choose to be selfish with no regard for our impact upon the greater whole (society, nature, planet), we create division & disharmony and align ourselves with the illusion of separation. We will then be resisting Oneness and thereby struggle will be persistent.

Yes, because cooperation is an act that's in line with Oneness. But such acts demand great struggle, as they resist the ever-present 'pull' of Oneness. I suppose you could call this 'pull' the source/force behind what we call our 'morals'.

Anything that promotes separation resists Oneness, so logically we should expect that great effort is required to maintain separation. Thus war, violence, divisive thoughts/words/actions, hate, fear, jealousy, suspicion, distrust, etc. are synonymous with struggle because they are the antithesis of Oneness.

By contrast, cooperation promotes unity which promotes Oneness, which lessens struggle and thus requires little effort.

Are there not efforts to promote cooperation? Don't groups exist that are based largely on cooperation (eg, indigenous groups, Amish, Mennonites, liberal democracies, co-ops, collectives, communes, non-profits, charitable organizations, social programs, etc.)?

Don't we also see this in the animal kingdom?

Is it not true that those who seek & promote war/violence are in the minority? Naturally they would be a minority because most people are not given to such strong ambitions & material attachments as to wish to continue a relentless struggle against the pull of Oneness.

Cooperation is a product of love. What is love? Love = Oneness.

Oneness is a self-feeding, self-sustaining closed system, so you could say it 'consumes' it-self. Recall the vortex created by stirring the glass of water. Like Oneness, the vortex is a closed, self-feeding system. A closed system cannot obtain energy outside of itself. It can draw only from itself and return to itself. See the following ancient image. A good analogy of what I'm describing:



As the snake devours itself, it becomes transformed. It knows nothing but itself, but can taste (experience) itself. And, it has no discernible beginning or end.

As above, so below. Thus, every-thing must 'consume' some-thing else in order to sustain itself. The consecutively bigger fish eating the smaller fishes is another good analogy. The biggest fish eats the smaller, the smaller eats the tiny fish, and so on. We can look at the universe as the biggest fish eating everything, the galaxies eating the solar systems, the solar systems eating the planets, the planets eating the moons & asteroids. And living organisms on the planets & moons that eat whatever they need to sustain themselves, and so on.



We eat food, drink water, breathe air, and exchange energy with others each time we interact with one another. When the body dies it returns to earth to give birth to new life in the form of new microorganisms, plants & animals. Earth transforms life on it and also becomes transformed by it. Ultimately it's all an exchange of energy. And each exchange is transformative. Think of earth as a living biotope.

That which is consumed transforms that which consumes it. The cycle of birth & death exists throughout nature & the universe. From death comes re-birth, a transformation of that which existed before.

All that you describe forms the foundation upon which we develop meaning in life. It matters not if they are pleasant or unpleasant experiences (on a spiritual level). They are all experiences from the illusion of separation out of which meaning emerges.

 

What is long long overdue is for Christians to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is feminine.


'Gender-neutral God to be considered by Church of England'


"For decades, the gender of God has prompted debate within the Church, with many calling for male pronouns He and Him, as well as reference to Our Father, to be scrapped in favour of either gender neutral or female alternatives.

Now, in what would mark a departure from centuries of tradition, bishops are to launch a project “on gendered language” referencing God in church services later this year.

The move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that “male and female imagery is not interchangeable”. However, liberal Christians have welcomed it, claiming that “a theological misreading of God as exclusively male is a driver of much continuing discrimination and sexism against women”.

Details of the plans emerged in a written question to the Liturgical Commission, which prepares and promotes forms of service and religious worship in the Church, at General Synod, the Church’s lawmaking body, which is sitting this week.'

cont:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gender-neutral-god-considered-by-church-of-england/ar-AA17cFTD



Is the Holy Spirit a “He,” “She,” or “It,” male, female, or neuter?
https://www.gotquestions.org › Holy-Spirit-gender
Sep 12, 2022 — God is never given a feminine name, or referred to using feminine pronouns. The Holy Spirit is referred to in the masculine throughout the ...


The Holy Spirit as feminine: Early Christian testimonies and ...
http://www.scielo.org.za › scielo
by J van Oort · 2016 · Cited by 14 — Wisdom is equated with the Holy Spirit and both are considered to be feminine. ... Hence one understands how in early Christian tradition Christ is so often ...


Is the Holy Spirit a She? | billmounce.com
https://www.billmounce.com › monday-with-mounce
The basis of this claim was that the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruach) is feminine. The short answer is that if this is true, then the Spirit is also an “it” ...




I

 

Your faith is based on a falsehood --- the claim "God is not an intelligence" is false.

Proof of claim -- I am intelligent Har har har

No .. I mean really get it ?? how can we say it ... perhaps Monty can be of some help " I drink therefor I am"

 

Since all Gods are imaginary they can be whatever you want them to be.

 

I don't know if god is intelligent or not, but he/she is certainly not listening - thousands of pious people praying for salvation and then the earthquake hits and they're all dead. Maybe a couple of hours warning would have been nice, but then, nobody has heard from this god for 1400 years, and then that was second hand.