It is BECAUSE I believe in God that I reject Jesus and Jehovah-Allah, and not due to Atheism

[Kalinago]

wether you are Atheist,agnostic or theist,the God of the bible(and koran)is not possibely real .aswell as Shiva,Vishnu or Enki.

Most people who leave see the harsh,tyrannical God of abrahamic religions and reject the divine altogether,it is because of this that they can finally be free from such opressive nonsense.more power to them!

I have taken the opposite route,precisely due to my certainty of the divine,I have rejected all religions in favor of metaphysics,and am finally free from such shackles!

I believe in a unconditioned reality,the conditioner of all existance.

I am a neoplatonist.

It is precisely because of this that I reject notions of christianity like the following:

1.The Trinity

2.God's wrath

3.Temporal creation

4.God's temporal action

5.multiple actions or multiple proximate effects of God

Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.

If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.

So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.

There is also another argument used by the peripatetic philosophers using individuation in contrast to compsition,but for brevity I may add it later but this suffices for now.

There goes the 'trinity'of Platinga and the protestants and Orthodox.

What about the Latin trinity(Modalism eternally)where the three persons are numerically one intellect and essence?well,the law of identity would mean there can be no distinction between them and they would collapse into one unified being.

To propose that 'God'can be composed of multiple ontological aspects(namely the relative relations of the latin trinity) means,he is both unconditioned and conditioned at the same time,which breaks the law of the excluded middle.any multiplicity is a aspect of contigency.

Anything that is unconditioned is absolutely one in all aspects,including in attributes,and the Catholic theological tradition affirms this in their councils as a de fide doctrine,namely 'divine simplicity'.

Because of this,God cannot 'create'the world in time,because it would mean he is both 'actual'and 'possible'in being,like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him,which means he is caused in some aspect.

However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.

The idea of libertarian free will is a non-concept to the concept of God or humans.

Time in peripatetic logic is the measurement of motion, and motion is the transition from potentiality towards actuality, potentiality is privation.Thus anything that exists within time suffers from privation ,the absence of a perfection or good. Something which lacks a perfection or good, cannot be the principle and source of every perfection because something cannot bestow what it does not have.

To posit the contrary (that it can bestow such)implies the existence of that which is nonexistent, and the possession of that which is lacking, and is a contradiction. that which is nonexistent cannot existentiate itself,thus everything imperfect is dependent upon an extraneous cause for its perfection and existance,but even the Bible says God is perfect and the source of all 'being'.

God thus cannot be in time,like the Bible says he is.

Thus Jesus and his father and spirit are not 'that ultimate principle'so to speak.

There are many more logical and mutually coherent arguments in peripatetic philosophy to prove the above premises,but this should suffice I think.

What about theologian Dr.Ryan mullins idea that the 3 beings of the trinity are mutually dependant and caused?

Circular causation entails the conjuction of two contraries , as it entails that the preponderant agent and the actualised agent is same at the same time, that means the same things possess essential existence and does not possess essential existence at the same time given their essential contingency,that they are possible in themselves and not possible in themselves.

Neccesary in themselves and not neccesary in themselves. this kind of mutually exclusive predication is logically impossible as it violates the 1st axiom of logic,the law of identity.

It imports contradiction of potency and act.

An effect is always essentially posterior to it's cause.

Basically,for any notion of 'divinity'the abrahamic God simply cannot fit.

The idea that the ultimate and unconditioned,felt 'exhausted'and hungry like in the gospels is also more silly when you have a logical view of the divine.

So wether Theist or atheist,we can agree that jesus (and Jehova-allah)is not 'divine'.

[MrMan]

Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.

Non-sequitur.

Besides, traditional Orthodox theology includes the monarchy of the Father.... that the Spirit and Son are dependent on the Father for their existence.

If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.

You aren't explaining how to draw your concusion. Charles is 'caused' because he is composed. That's the only reasonable part of your conclusion related to the argument before it that I can see.
So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.

Anything that is unconditioned is absolutely one in all aspects,including in attributes,and the Catholic theological tradition affirms this in their councils as a de fide doctrine,namely 'divine simplicity'.

Because of this,God cannot 'create'the world in time,because it would mean he is both 'actual'and 'possible'in being,

That last sentence looks like a nonsense assertion. It doesn't follow from previous arguments.

How could you have a frame of reference to understand whether God could 'create the world in time'--whatever that is supposed to mean and if that were the case-- since you are a time-restricted being?

like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him, which means he is caused in some aspect.

There is no reason to think a being composed of parts would be continent on something for existence. Why would a being with parts be dependent on an emergent, or have to be caused? You keep throwing out jargon salad.

However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.

Your leaving words out, so the wording/grammar is a bit rough, especially that last line, which makes something so abstract hard to follow.

Your assuming some logical connections between concepts that you haven't proven.

Time in peripatetic logic is the measurement of motion, and motion is the transition from potentiality towards actuality, potentiality is privation. Thus anything that exists within time suffers from privation ,the absence of a perfection or good. Something which lacks a perfection or good, cannot be the principle and source of every perfection because something cannot bestow what it does not have.

More fuzzy logic. What reason is there to think that these assertions here are true?

To posit the contrary (that it can bestow such)implies the existence of that which is nonexistent, and the possession of that which is lacking, and is a contradiction. that which is nonexistent cannot existentiate itself,thus everything imperfect is dependent upon an extraneous cause for its perfection and existance,but even the Bible says God is perfect and the source of all 'being'.

I really can't think of anywhere that the Bible endorses neo-Platonist mumbo jumbo.

[Kalinago]

Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.

Non-sequitur.

Besides, traditional Orthodox theology includes the monarchy of the Father.... that the Spirit and Son are dependent on the Father for their existence.
the'father'is temporal(see his temporal actions in the gospel) and spatially located on the throne in the sky aka heaven,not a unconditioned reality.Daniel also saw him as a old man with a beard.lmao

asserting 'non-sequiter'means nothing,prove your objection,and being divine means to be Ase,so orthodox christology and theology is self-refuting and Nicene processionism contradicts co-equality of persons,another trinitarian orthodox belief.
something rejected by Dr.Ryan Mullins a prominent protestant theologian for that very reason,because it rejects Aseity and co-equality.
but everyone else has always known orthodox trinitarian Christian theology is incoherent garbage.

If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.

You aren't explaining how to draw your concusion. Charles is 'caused' because he is composed. That's the only reasonable part of your conclusion related to the argument before it that I can see.

anything composed of multiple parts is a effect of such composition,and dependant on such composition,and would not exist without such composition of prior parts,basic to understand dude
So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.

Anything that is unconditioned is absolutely one in all aspects,including in attributes,and the Catholic theological tradition affirms this in their councils as a de fide doctrine,namely 'divine simplicity'.

Because of this,God cannot 'create'the world in time,because it would mean he is both 'actual'and 'possible'in being,

That last sentence looks like a nonsense assertion. It doesn't follow from previous arguments.
only conditioned beings can change,acquire some state of being or lose it,gain a good or become deficient in some good not a unconditioned-perfect being

How could you have a frame of reference to understand whether God could 'create the world in time'--whatever that is supposed to mean and if that were the case-- since you are a time-restricted being?

create in time means ex-nihilo,I am not a proximate effect of God,like the nous or first intellect,which atemporally creates the world soul which creates or directs my soul from prime matter (actuality)into form(potentiality).

the answer is logic.

like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him, which means he is caused in some aspect.

There is no reason to think a being composed of parts would be continent on something for existence. Why would a being with parts be dependent on an emergent, or have to be caused? You keep throwing out jargon salad.
this is basic to understand but you are so ignorant that you say this shit because of blind dogma instead of thinking things through lmao

The composite is a whole actualized by it's consitituent parts.the parts are prior to the whole.thus the composite is not essential,and thus if God were a composite,he would be an effect and thus delimited and not self-sufficient,even if eternal.

maybe this can make you understand why the perfection of existance needs to be non-composed,but seeing how mute you are I hope I don't have to run in circles:

The Reality of Existence is a simple reality, a unity, that is devoid of composition and multiplicity, either real or conceptual; because if it is assumed that it is composed of a multiplicity of parts that are distinct from the whole (meaning the reality of being), so those parts will either be existence or something other than existence; if they are existence so it means that they are identical to the Reality of Existence and there is no real distinction between them and hence no real composition or multiplicity: and if they are other than existence so that which is other than existence is nothingness and non-existence, so either way there will be no real composition or multiplicity in the Reality of Being

https://hasnainnaqvi93.wordpress.com//? ... &search=Go

1) Any reality either exists independently or only exists due to the existence of another.

2) If it is true for all realities that they exist due to another then it is true for reality as whole that is exists due to another.

3) Reality can not exist due to another because that which is other than reality is non-real.

Conclusion: Not all realities exist due to another/There is one reality that exists in itself.

and thus there is a reality that does not depend upon 'parts'.

However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.

Your leaving words out, so the wording/grammar is a bit rough, especially that last line, which makes something so abstract hard to follow.

Your assuming some logical connections between concepts that you haven't proven.

stop it Mrman,this is easy to follow and I didn't leave any words out,as usual you cannot understand basic abstract concepts,which is why you believe in a fake copy of dionysus as your 'ultimate')

Time in peripatetic logic is the measurement of motion, and motion is the transition from potentiality towards actuality, potentiality is privation. Thus anything that exists within time suffers from privation ,the absence of a perfection or good. Something which lacks a perfection or good, cannot be the principle and source of every perfection because something cannot bestow what it does not have.

More fuzzy logic. What reason is there to think that these assertions here are true?

the same reason 2+2=4 is true ,it is deductive in nature,if you are too dimwitted to understand it,then don't attack something you are too inexperienced to understand,since some of us can use our brains to understand basic abstract concepts

To posit the contrary (that it can bestow such)implies the existence of that which is nonexistent, and the possession of that which is lacking, and is a contradiction. that which is nonexistent cannot existentiate itself,thus everything imperfect is dependent upon an extraneous cause for its perfection and existance,but even the Bible says God is perfect and the source of all 'being'.

I really can't think of anywhere that the Bible endorses neo-Platonist mumbo jumbo.

and thats why the bible is merely a book of jewish subversive lies

[Pixel--Dude]

@MrMan how do you justify the belief of Christianity through the Bible? Have you ever examined this religion with critical thinking? How can you be sure that Christianity is correct over Islam or Judaism?

[MrMan]

Let's talk about the trinity,A self-sufficient being with aseity,infinity and absolute power and life cannot be composed of ontological parts,because it would be dependant and a effect of those parts,and thus contigent and not Ase.

Non-sequitur.

Besides, traditional Orthodox theology includes the monarchy of the Father.... that the Spirit and Son are dependent on the Father for their existence.

the'father'is temporal(see his temporal actions in the gospel) and spatially located on the throne in the sky aka heaven,not a unconditioned reality.[/quote]

Prove it. Having an ability to interact in temporal realm does not disprove the ability to cause events.

Daniel also saw him as a old man with a beard.lmao

Daniel saw a vision of the 'Ancient of Days'. I think you may be confusing Daniel with the Sistine Chapel.

asserting 'non-sequiter'means nothing,prove your objection,

The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, aka, you. Throwing out a bunch of philosophical terms and ideas doesn't prove anything. Nor does God, nor reality, have to fit with your (borrowed and modified) propositions about the way God or reality must be.

and being divine means to be Ase,so orthodox christology and theology is self-refuting and Nicene processionism contradicts co-equality of persons,another trinitarian orthodox belief.

You would have to refer to something more specific than that to make an actual argument. You don't make the actual arguments. You often allude to broad concepts you think contradicts. You should look up the monarchy of the Father.

something rejected by Dr.Ryan Mullins a prominent protestant theologian for that very reason,because it rejects Aseity and co-equality.
but everyone else has always known orthodox trinitarian Christian theology is incoherent garbage.

I am not familiar with him.

If John is a man because he is John,then no other person can share in his humanity.if however he is a man because of a nature he shares in common with Charles,he is composed,namely of a shared aspect or essence and a peculiar essence which differentiates him from Charles,and the compound(John and Charles both)are effects of such a composition,and anything in this category is a restricted,limited ,caused and finite being.

You aren't explaining how to draw your concusion. Charles is 'caused' because he is composed. That's the only reasonable part of your conclusion related to the argument before it that I can see.

anything composed of multiple parts is a effect of such composition,and dependant on such composition,and would not exist without such composition of prior parts,basic to understand dude
So any unconditioned being's divine essence is peculiar to it alone,and there can be no other.[/quote]

Just philosophical mumbo jumbo. There is no reason to believe your assertions are true, here. The one way your argument could be valid is if by composition you mean that something was composed of parts at a certain point in time-- as in put together by another agent.

Otherwise, your argument gets a big 'meh'--- or less than that.

create in time means ex-nihilo,

ex-nihilo means out of nothing.

I am not a proximate effect of God,like the nous or first intellect,which atemporally creates the world soul which creates or directs my soul from prime matter (actuality)into form(potentiality).

I don't see how your theory would have any less of the imagined problem you wrote about regarding God creating 'in time'.

the answer is logic.

Or just throwing a bunch of philosophical words on a page with a loosely connected argument on a page and pretending that you've proved something.

like contigent beings,and thus composed of parts.he would be dependant on a emergent will that is not essential to him, which means he is caused in some aspect.

There is no reason to think a being composed of parts would be continent on something for existence. Why would a being with parts be dependent on an emergent, or have to be caused? You keep throwing out jargon salad.
this is basic to understand but you are so ignorant that you say this shit because of blind dogma instead of thinking things through lmao

The composite is a whole actualized by it's consitituent parts.the parts are prior to the whole.thus the composite is not essential,and thus if God were a composite,he would be an effect and thus delimited and not self-sufficient,even if eternal.

maybe this can make you understand why the perfection of existance needs to be non-composed,but seeing how mute you are I hope I don't have to run in circles:

The Reality of Existence is a simple reality, a unity, that is devoid of composition and multiplicity, either real or conceptual; because if it is assumed that it is composed of a multiplicity of parts that are distinct from the whole (meaning the reality of being), so those parts will either be existence or something other than existence; if they are existence so it means that they are identical to the Reality of Existence and there is no real distinction between them and hence no real composition or multiplicity: and if they are other than existence so that which is other than existence is nothingness and non-existence, so either way there will be no real composition or multiplicity in the Reality of Being

https://hasnainnaqvi93.wordpress.com//? ... &search=Go

Philosophy, and the intersection between philosophy and religion, can be really stupid sometimes. I remember talking with the chair of my dissertation about Sociology, how the hard and social sciences can use statistics to verify something in the natural world. But sociology literature is a lot of 'bla bla bla'-- theory you can't really prove. And there is no reason to believe various assertions in your quote, above, are true. Your link also didn't load.

Aristotle's argument that there must be an uncaused cause makes sense. Your posting fluffy, vague, loose idea salad and acting like you've proven something.

1) Any reality either exists independently or only exists due to the existence of another.

2) If it is true for all realities that they exist due to another then it is true for reality as whole that is exists due to another.

3) Reality can not exist due to another because that which is other than reality is non-real.

What is your experience bouncing around in realities that exist independent of other realities? What is your basis for making such assertions?

We do not have experience being God. We can know about God through what God has revealed about Himself. Do you think your fuzzily-argued philosophy is prophetic revelation?


Conclusion: Not all realities exist due to another/There is one reality that exists in itself.

and thus there is a reality that does not depend upon 'parts'.

However since,the will of God to create is essential to him,since he is wholly essential and not possible in being,he has created the creation pre-eternally,as a neccessary effect of his very being,and thus the world is a neccesary effect of his,though through another and not itself like God alone.

stop it Mrman,this is easy to follow and I didn't leave any words out,as usual you cannot understand basic abstract concepts,which is why you believe in a fake copy of dionysus as your 'ultimate')

I can recognize word salad and BS (bad sophistry.) You are making assumptions without realizing it, and you aren't making cogent arguments.

There is no fake copy of Dionysus.

More fuzzy logic. What reason is there to think that these assertions here are true?

the same reason 2+2=4 is true ,it is deductive in nature,if you are too dimwitted to understand it,then don't attack something you are too inexperienced to understand,since some of us can use our brains to understand basic abstract concepts

It may be you are not intellectually developed enough to recognize assertions that are just assertions.

[MrMan]

@MrMan how do you justify the belief of Christianity through the Bible? Have you ever examined this religion with critical thinking? How can you be sure that Christianity is correct over Islam or Judaism?

I'm not sure if you mean to ask what you are asking. Of course, the Bible teaches Christianity.

The Old Testament also teaches that the 'Arm of the Lord' was despised and rejected, and that He would bear 'the iniquity of us all.' His crucifixion was also described... though unbelieving Jews later modified the vowel points to be different from how the words were interpreted at the time of the translation of the LXX, to do away with the part about His hands and feet being pierced.

Islam endorses the Gospel, the Torah, and Psalms, but doesn't teach the same doctrine. According to the Al Qur'an, I'm supposed to follow these inspired writings. If other parts of the Al-Qur'an contradict that, that's not my problem.

[Kalinago]

@MrMan,I am not going to go in circles,because you have a vested interest in neoplatonic thought not being true,due to your dogmatic adherence to christ-isanity.

if someone doesn't want to believe in something,they will not believe in it due to defense walls in their mind.

you are also debating in bad faith.

Yes,Yeshua is dionysus/serapis/osirus..this is a fact of history.even the semitic pagans called dionysus 'yeshu'before christianity.

dionysus is 'satan',and jews openly say jesus is a reincarnation of satan in kabbalah.

the jews openly boast about how they created christianity to subvert and destroy the goyim,I recommend adam green from knowmorenews if you're interested in the facts.

and a prophecy being fuflilled means nothing,since jews orchestrate events based on their prophecies,there are also many many failed prophecies in the bible.

[Kalinago]

@MrMan how do you justify the belief of Christianity through the Bible? Have you ever examined this religion with critical thinking? How can you be sure that Christianity is correct over Islam or Judaism?

I'm not sure if you mean to ask what you are asking. Of course, the Bible teaches Christianity.

The Old Testament also teaches that the 'Arm of the Lord' was despised and rejected, and that He would bear 'the iniquity of us all.' His crucifixion was also described... though unbelieving Jews later modified the vowel points to be different from how the words were interpreted at the time of the translation of the LXX, to do away with the part about His hands and feet being pierced.

Islam endorses the Gospel, the Torah, and Psalms, but doesn't teach the same doctrine. According to the Al Qur'an, I'm supposed to follow these inspired writings. If other parts of the Al-Qur'an contradict that, that's not my problem.

Proto-masoretic texts like from masada are more authentic than the DDS and septuagint,and do not have this christian reading.the Essenes were proto-christians,basically they created christianity,being kabbalist mystics.

the old testament refutes original sin,it says we can overcome sin,without some holy ghost .

Blood sacrifice also never atoned for intentional sins,like charity.

incense,charity,sincere prayer and grains also atoned for sins and even people's souls,in contrast to christianity's blood atonement absolutism.

[MrMan]

@MrMan how do you justify the belief of Christianity through the Bible? Have you ever examined this religion with critical thinking? How can you be sure that Christianity is correct over Islam or Judaism?

I'm not sure if you mean to ask what you are asking. Of course, the Bible teaches Christianity.

The Old Testament also teaches that the 'Arm of the Lord' was despised and rejected, and that He would bear 'the iniquity of us all.' His crucifixion was also described... though unbelieving Jews later modified the vowel points to be different from how the words were interpreted at the time of the translation of the LXX, to do away with the part about His hands and feet being pierced.

Islam endorses the Gospel, the Torah, and Psalms, but doesn't teach the same doctrine. According to the Al Qur'an, I'm supposed to follow these inspired writings. If other parts of the Al-Qur'an contradict that, that's not my problem.

Proto-masoretic texts like from masada are more authentic than the DDS and septuagint,and do not have this christian reading.the Essenes were proto-christians,basically they created christianity,being kabbalist mystics.

Throwing out random pseudo-facts and assertions doesn't really prove much. Was Psalm 22 even among the Masada texts? The vowel pointing system was created after 300 AD, so how is that relevant. Essenes creating Christianity? You'd have a lot of proving to do.

the old testament refutes original sin,it says we can overcome sin,without some holy ghost .

Blood sacrifice also never atoned for intentional sins,like charity.

Why would charity be a sin? Solomon said all men sin.

Under the Old Testament, sacrifices were made for sin every year. There was a constant remembrance of it, and the blood of bulls and goats could not purge man's conscience from sin.

[Kalinago]

@MrMan how do you justify the belief of Christianity through the Bible? Have you ever examined this religion with critical thinking? How can you be sure that Christianity is correct over Islam or Judaism?

I'm not sure if you mean to ask what you are asking. Of course, the Bible teaches Christianity.

The Old Testament also teaches that the 'Arm of the Lord' was despised and rejected, and that He would bear 'the iniquity of us all.' His crucifixion was also described... though unbelieving Jews later modified the vowel points to be different from how the words were interpreted at the time of the translation of the LXX, to do away with the part about His hands and feet being pierced.

Islam endorses the Gospel, the Torah, and Psalms, but doesn't teach the same doctrine. According to the Al Qur'an, I'm supposed to follow these inspired writings. If other parts of the Al-Qur'an contradict that, that's not my problem.

Proto-masoretic texts like from masada are more authentic than the DDS and septuagint,and do not have this christian reading.the Essenes were proto-christians,basically they created christianity,being kabbalist mystics.

Throwing out random pseudo-facts and assertions doesn't really prove much. Was Psalm 22 even among the Masada texts? The vowel pointing system was created after 300 AD, so how is that relevant. Essenes creating Christianity? You'd have a lot of proving to do.

the old testament refutes original sin,it says we can overcome sin,without some holy ghost .

Blood sacrifice also never atoned for intentional sins,like charity.

Why would charity be a sin? Solomon said all men sin.

Under the Old Testament, sacrifices were made for sin every year. There was a constant remembrance of it, and the blood of bulls and goats could not purge man's conscience from sin.

Charity atones for sin in the bible,as does prayer and incense.

blood sacrifice of jesus is not needed .

https://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/sophiee ... r-the-soul

also,a man can rule over his sin without the 'holy ghost' see genesis 4:7

also you are presenting the bible as a coherent book,when its a concoction of different and opposing narratrives by different people.

John says christians cannot sin at all,solomon says everyone sins.that is just a contradiction .

using one verse to refute another just shows that the bible is wrong and not inspired.

[Cornfed]

This all makes no sense. We have a manifest ordered universe, it takes a unified creator God for there to be such a universe and it so happens that Christianity via the Israelites was how this God was revealed to us.

[Kalinago]

This all makes no sense. We have a manifest ordered universe, it takes a unified creator God for there to be such a universe and it so happens that Christianity via the Israelites was how this God was revealed to us.

a a being unified in totality cannot create multiple effects.

the demiurge is not unfied in all aspects ontologically and is the cause of the cosmos,and directing prime matter into forms.

also the universe is pre-eternal.

[MrMan]

This all makes no sense. We have a manifest ordered universe, it takes a unified creator God for there to be such a universe and it so happens that Christianity via the Israelites was how this God was revealed to us.

a a being unified in totality cannot create multiple effects.

I have to guess a bit in how you define terms. But what you write is not intuitively obvious and you give no reason at all to accept your assertions.