For example - I have no drama saying that God could be the universe. But that is pure supposition on my part, and on the part of any Christian - for it is not anywhere in the Bible,
It's axiomatic in the principle of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The universe is conceivable as a single unified whole because of monotheism. Otherwise you just have different gods for different aspects, such as one of the heavens, one of the oceans, one of the land, one of the wind, one for wisdom, one for spring, etc. etc.
and by implication of 'created the heavens and the earth' - his being had to exist before hand, so it is extremely unlikely that this world is the being of God. That said, I don't know of any Christian that truly believes in this 'definition' though I do know ones who have considered it a possibility.
Well, that's just it: there is always further antecedent causation. So if you recognize that, then you just have to recognize the impossibility of humans reaching an ultimate perspective/authority/perfection; so there you have the reason to look beyond humanity to something higher, more powerful, and more perfect. In fact, once you recognize that the human imagination has the capacity to imagine ideals that can't actually happen in practice, then you realize that there is this capacity of the universe to know itself in a more perfect form.
So now you can say that the capacity to imagine humanity in a form that is beyond its ability to achieve in practice doesn't prove that such a level of perfection actually exists, but that just depends on how you understand what it means to exist. You may be thinking, for example, that things outside the mind are more real than things you can imagine within your mind; but then you have the problem that the brain is a complex pattern of molecules and energy the same as the external universe is made up of complex patterns of molecules and energy, so the things we experience happening from inside our brains are not really different from the thing that we experience from outside through our senses. It's hard to grasp that from a materialist perspective, but it is similar to the fact that you can experience the same thing or better listening to audio through headphones as you can be listening to sound coming through the air from farther away. You just have to analyze more carefully what it means for things to exist and interact, without bias toward external or internal events.
This is a discussion we could have, but it is not what the discussion was about - it was about the differences between Maths & God.
No, that was just an example. If you want to go back into that one, explain your point, but my point was that what's true is true and you can't make a lie true by telling yourself it is true in a different context (unless of course it truly is true in that context).
E.g. let's say you want to have a Dionysian orgy so you tell yourself that ancient Greek polytheism legitimated that. The question then becomes whether you actually believe in that ancient Greek theology or whether you are just embracing it pragmatically to rationalize pursuing an indulgence that you know is wrong on another level. Some people are honestly deceived that their morality is right, and they are just in a process of figuring out a higher truth, but if you are picking and choosing religions and gods and shirking your deeper awareness that there is right and wrong beyond what you can rationalize due to desire, then that is something different.
To go back to the math example, sometimes you do a problem and you honestly think you did it right until you get it back from the teacher and see that you did it wrong. That's different than if you just make up some rationalization to claim that something is right when you don't really believe it's right, but you just think you can BS your way through it. Sophism or sophistry is what it's called, I believe.
define what constitutes an entity
And yet we are talking about a being. An entity includes anything that is not a being. The use of the word entity obfuscates.[/quote]
Ok, then first you have to unpack your definition of what is and is not a 'being,' and why. As soon as you find out your definition biases you in a certain way, you can look beyond your bias.
And even if you want this sort of supposition to be the being of God (which again is very dubious at best according to the Bible, seeing he created it, meaning his being existed beforehand), the literal fact is that nature cannot physically talk to you with the voice of God...so stretch your supposition as far as you like...There still exists in this area, a difference between God & maths.
It's not stretching. All you have to do is ask yourself what the people who wrote the Bible were doing in order to receive the information they wrote. Were they just thinking in whatever way they wanted, or were they struggling to figure out the truest things to say and explain from their best efforts to do so? In order to communicate with God, or rather to allow God to communicate with you, you have to really struggle with holiness. It's not the same as just BSing yourself that whatever you write you can attribute that to Holy Spirit and thus claim it is God speaking through you. It is about sincerely seeking truth and then wanting to share it with others when you discover it. To return to the math example, when you figure out that math renders true answers, you have confidence/faith that you have discovered something that is true so how can you imagine that something that is really true could be in conflict with any authority in the universe. If the sky really is blue, why would God disagree with you that it's blue?
But using your example - it relies on supposition (even with it's flaws - ie. your supposition can't speak with the voice of God), while maths does not rely on supposition to be true.
When you submit your solution to a math problem to the teacher for grading without really knowing if it's true, you might supposed you got it right but you don't really know. If, on the other hand, you know what you're doing, then you're not supposing it's true because you really know, for example, that 211+39=250. There's no supposition there because you are totally convinced you have the right answer.
You should know these things. It should not be something that causes you to avoid & object so persistently. It is just deluding yourself.
Most things you say like this in your posts are just fluff. Stringing together a bunch of words like, "should" "avoid," 'object," "persistently," "deluding yourself," etc. just sounds like generic attack rhetoric you would throw at anyone you're trying to push into a defensive reaction.