Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes or planes of existence for example, and these entities may have played no part in their creation. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives, these gods, may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not subject to our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes or planes of existence for example, and these entities may have played no part in their creation. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not subject to our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes or planes of existence for example, and these entities may have played no part in their creation. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not a part of our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes for example, and these entities may have played no part in them. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not a part of our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes for example, and these entities my have played no part in them. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular and eternal (not a part of our likely false perception of time). Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes for example, and these entities my have played no part in them. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular. Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error in rhetoric to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes for example, and these entities my have played no part in them. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular. Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.

Does this statement apply to itself?

Does it actually matter? Can't you just appreciate the argument as it is intended without needing to find some potential error to set up a red herring that distracts from the intent?

Would you mind me asking if you adhere to some form of Pantheism?

I "adhere" to exactly nothing. I have no "system of beliefs." Everything I think is mutable based on the evidence.

If you are asking me what I think. I think, based on the evidence that I have seen so far, that there is a single Source of All Things, and that there are entities (real or imagined) that people call "God" or "the gods" that are not the Source of All Things, but pretend to be.

For example, there are several cosmologies (or if you prefer, "religions") from the past that make explicit claims that the creators of humanity, which they call "god" are aliens, or extra-dimensional beings (depending on which cosmology you are asking). Those aliens or extra-dimensional beings would not be the Source of All Things, but themselves derivative of it.

Because they have more power than humans, they can claim any godhood they desire. They may have even been the actual creators of humanity. They may have created not just humanity, but all life on earth. They may have created the earth itself. They may have created the whole of what we call "the universe," but that doesn't make them the Source of ALL Things.

There are many possible universes for example, and these entities my have played no part in them. There is whatever came before what we call "the universe" (what we can see or imagine is there in the "physical world") and again, these possible derivatives may have not existed then.

The Source of All Things is singular. Any entity with sufficient power (relative to us) can make the claim that they hold that title and we would never know, unless we appreciate what the Source is. But their claim doesn't make it so. If they are not actually the Source of All Things, then they themselves must be derivative. More of a sibling than the Source, even if they created us.

Again, I am not stating any beliefs here. I am giving you my thoughts. I think there is a single Source, from which All Other Things are derivative. I think from there, it is possible that there may have been other entities, also derivative, that have fraudulently laid claim to that title.