Elsewhere, I made a claim that believing in "memes" the way Richard Dawkins intended, meant a person believed in the supernatural, non-physical things that can become physical, or simply non-physical things. I was asked two questions in response: "Are you really saying that simply using a conceptual construct like 'memes' counts as believing in the supernatural?" and "Do you extend that to all ideas/conceptualizations/etc?"

If my redefinitions of supernatural are correct, my answer to the first question is yes, but I may need to add "paranormal" to this claim, as many of the things I considered to be "supernatural things", may actually be paranormal things. If "yes" to the previous question, I have to say yes to the second.

If I tell someone, "Imagine you're looking at a red apple.", but they've never seen an apple or the color red before, I wouldn't expect them to be naturally capable of doing that, because they have no physical information to draw on.

If they've seen red during a sunset, a green apple, or a red apple before, but they don't know what I mean by "red" or "apple", I wouldn't expect them to naturally connect the dots through intelligence, unless one or more requirements and/or disqualifiers had been defined beforehand (or during the process).

If I were an outside observer instead of the instructor, I could view the two's interaction as a natural transfer of info from one to another, but on the receiving end the source is still "not natural", as they "were given" definitions before or during the process.

If Heaven is limited to the 5 senses, or what can be humanly measured to put it broadly, an individual's "five" senses determine what their personal heaven is. The best sights "according to them", what they "prefer" to hear, the best tastes, smells, tactile sensations, "in their personal opinion."

According to Christian theology, a multiverse doesn't exist, or at least travel between verses is impossible, because that would mean a person who goes from one universe to another possibly went to "Heaven" or "Hell" while alive. If Heaven also exists on a personal level though, this doesn't clash with that theology: It's possible that you could "walk" to your personal heaven, on Earth or elsewhere, the same as if you replaced the word "heaven" with "hell".

For example, I'd say I want my personal heaven to have no swearing, but what I really want is to be someone who doesn't even think of swearing.

I believe I've evolved from calling myself a "God seeker" to "Truth seeker", so I've stopped looking for "what I think God is", though that might sound like a paradox. If I never ate from the tree of knowledge, I'd be in "Eden" right now, and I probably wouldn't be talking to you. But I didn't eat from the tree of "intellectual" knowledge, I ate from the tree of "experiential" knowledge. I'm not going to call my memories what they aren't, or try to forget them, I'm going to use them as a personal compass to see where I want to go, and I'll go farther, as far as I need to go.

If I had to diagnose myself with "main character syndrome", it wouldn't be because I think I'm as "omnipotent" as "I AM", though I can get stronger, as omniscient as "I AM", though I can become more knowledgeable, as omnibenelovent as "I AM", though I can become more loving, but because "I think, therefore I am."

Elsewhere, I made a claim that believing in "memes" the way Richard Dawkins intended, meant a person believed in the supernatural, non-physical things that can become physical, or simply non-physical things. I was asked two questions in response: "Are you really saying that simply using a conceptual construct like 'memes' counts as believing in the supernatural?" and "Do you extend that to all ideas/conceptualizations/etc?"

If my redefinitions of supernatural are correct, my answer to the first question is yes. If "yes" to the previous question, I have to say yes to the second.

If I tell someone, "Imagine you're looking at a red apple.", but they've never seen an apple or the color red before, I wouldn't expect them to be naturally capable of doing that, because they have no physical information to draw on.

If they've seen red during a sunset, a green apple, or a red apple before, but they don't know what I mean by "red" or "apple", I wouldn't expect them to naturally connect the dots through intelligence, unless one or more requirements and/or disqualifiers had been defined beforehand (or during the process).

If I were an outside observer instead of the instructor, I could view the two's interaction as a natural transfer of info from one to another, but on the receiving end the source is still "not natural", as they "were given" definitions before or during the process.

Edit: The Hebrew word used for "day" specially refers to a 24 hour period of time, so my theory is invalid. Leaving the post up to finish tangential reply discussions.

I'm an ametuer at old earth theory throwing my hat in the ring, please let me know how sound this comes out.

In regards to the proposal that day lengths in creation were not 24 hours, I've heard the basics of the framework view, and its subset the day-age view. The day-age view claims that days should be read metaphorically as "each day was a number of days", but it's unpopular because reading the account literally is backed by God in Exodus, when he references the account to declare the Sabbath holy. That being said, there may be a way to see the ages of day-age as single "mornings and evenings", in alignment with literal readings, which I'm calling the "slow day" view.

Evidence: 1-The relativity of time on Earth.

Forbes: Earth Is Spiraling Away From The Sun For Now, But Will Eventually Crash Into It;

The Earth’s rotation is changing speed: should we be worried? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

The claim "Time is relative", is backed by the Bible, which says the passage of time can be seen as shorter or longer from God's perspective, in 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. According to human science, the earth's distance from the sun, which affects year length, and the earth's rotation speed, which affects day length, has changed from past to present.

2-The 2024 New Jersey meteorite's arrival

In 2024, a meteorite crashed into a New Jersey home, where it was quickly preserved and eventually studied. The results were that the former meteor had once been soaked in brine, and that it contained molecules crucial to life of earth. Thus in theory, a much larger asteroid with a similar/the same composition could have traveled to the Earth's current orbit, and if the Earth wasn't there when it arrived, it would later be named "The Earth" by its residents.

Hypothesis: The Earth previously spun at a much slower speed than it does at present, possibly from further away. Thus, an "Earth day" could have been long enough to meet the age requirements of the scientific Earth timeline, eventually increasing to its present speed.

This is theoretical, so the Earth's future discovered positional and spin history may prove this false, if factors unknown to me have not already done so. Just because the meteorite evidence arrived "here", does not mean "the earth arrived" at the Goldilocks zone in a similar fashion, especially if you ignore the effect the Earth's gravity is having on said meteorite, or that the earth's recorded increase in spin speed means the earth was spinning "that much slower" in the past, it's just proof of concept in both cases.

Doubts: The first one is the effects such prolonged sunlight would have on the planet, without the extrapolation that the earth was closer to the sun at least 4.5 billion years ago. I doubt water would hold that history, but I don't know if the effects on rock would line up with current geology. At the least, if a problem would be "too hot", it would align with slow cooling.

The second is the effects this would have on life itself. Would plants survive such long stretches with and without light, especially if the atmosphere went from greenhouse conditions to "clear" skies? And what of more advanced life forms, like "fish", dinosaurs, and birds from day 5? Would day 5 have sped up enough for them to survive?

These doubts encouraged me to submit the meteorite as evidence, that the Earth could have moved from a "colder" location to its "hotter" position at present, so someone smarter than me can make use of that potential variance.

This concludes my slow day theory. Are there any format changes I can make to improve future presentations?

I made a handcrafted, non-Gospel contradicting Trinity, but the requirements are as gnostic as "The Gospel".

1. God is good.

The Bible claims that humans are made of both physical materials and the immaterial concept of "the image of God", both of which are called "good" together. If an immaterial concept can be "good", "good" can be an immaterial concept.

The Bible claims that Jesus both retained his divine identity as "the image of God", and became a physical human. If God is not both a good being and the concept of "goodness" itself, he isn't God.

2. God is.

Existence is not a sin. Good is not a sin. Thus, if God is not a sin, because he's good, God has to exist to be God.

3. God is the exception.

An exception to a rule is a rule in and of itself. Therefore, the exception to "the rules" is "the rule" in and of itself, or "the exception" for short. In accordance with claim 1, the exception has to be "good" for the exception to be God, but by nature of "the exception", an exception can be made for what "good" is.

As an exception to claim 1, God can be a good being _or_ the concept of "goodness" itself, _if_ the case being made for God being either is "exceptional".

As an exception to claim 2, if an exceptional case of non-existence is "good", that case of non-existence is God.

I made a handcrafted, non-Gospel contradicting Trinity, but the requirements are as gnostic as "The Gospel".

# 1. God is good.

The Bible claims that humans are made of both physical materials and the immaterial concept of "the image of God", both of which are called "good" together. If an immaterial concept can be "good", "good" can be an immaterial concept.

The Bible claims that Jesus both retained his divine identity as "the image of God", and became a physical human. If God is not both a good being and the concept of "goodness" itself, he isn't God.

# 2. God is.

Existence is not a sin. Good is not a sin. Thus, if God is not a sin, because he's good, God has to exist to be God.

# 3. God is the exception.

An exception to a rule is a rule in and of itself. Therefore, the exception to "the rules" is "the rule" in and of itself, or "the exception" for short. In accordance with claim 1, the exception has to be "good" for the exception to be God, but by nature of "the exception", an exception can be made for what "good" is.

As an exception to claim 1, God can be a good being *or* the concept of "goodness" itself, *if* the case being made for God being either is "exceptional".

As an exception to claim 2, if an exceptional case of non-existence is "good", that case of non-existence is God.

I made a handcrafted, non-Gospel contradicting Trinity, but the requirements are as gnostic as "The Gospel".

1. God is good.

The Bible claims that humans are made of both physical materials and the immaterial concept of "the image of God", both of which are called "good" together. If an immaterial concept can be "good", "good" can be an immaterial concept.

The Bible claims that Jesus both retained his divine identity as "the image of God", and became a physical human. If God is not both a good being and the concept of "goodness" itself, he isn't God.

2. God is.

Existence is not a sin. Good is not a sin. Thus, if God is not a sin, because he's good, God has to exist to be God.

3. God is the exception.

An exception to a rule is a rule in and of itself. Therefore, the exception to "the rules" is "the rule" in and of itself, or "the exception" for short. In accordance with claim 1, the exception has to be "good" for the exception to be God, but by nature of "the exception", an exception can be made for what "good" is.

As an exception to claim 1, God can be a good being _or_ the concept of "goodness" itself, _if_ the case being made for God being either is "exceptional".

As an exception to claim 2, if an exceptional case of non-existence is "good", that case of non-existence is God.

I'm claiming that they can. To heavily summarize Buddhist enlightenment, two realizations need to be achieved: 1) Recognition of the impermanence of all things, and 2) Dissolution of the illusion of self. The Christian Bible can provide these realizations.

For the first insight, the Bible repeatedly talks about the impermanence of people and the world, the most famous example being Ecclesiasties. The obvious counter-point is the Bible's claim that "God" is eternal, but Buddhism also acknowledges "eternal" concepts, though there, those concepts are considered "deathless" or "unconditioned". As for the second insight, the New Testament tells believers to "deny themselves and follow 'Christos'", so the "self" will need to be dissolved at some point in the journey.

I'd also like to know if there are any other major enlightenment requirements, or if one or both of the above are not requirements.

Edit: It's been over 12 hours, and the top comment looks like an objective counter to my claim. After reading its reply thread, I've decided to adopt it going forward. Feel free to support that stance or counter it.

After reading the faq on /atheism, I had a question regarding the definition of atheism and the part on ghosts and other supernatural things. I talked to a representative of the subredditors, (or someone who said "we were not misspelling" when referencing the subreddit's faq, at the very least) and while they didn't deny my rephrasing the section as "scientifically unprovable", the biggest takeaway was that Apollo and Artemis were not mentioned in the "capital G" god examples given to me, like Zeus, Jesus, Thor, etc. When I asked for clarification on whether Apollo and Artemis were part of the "god" examples or just "vampires", I didn't get a response, leaving me to believe they were intentionally excluded.

I went to /askanatheist next, and before I asked in the post body if I was told wrong, I combined terms and reasoning from the prior conversation, with the reasoning a random YouTube commentor gave me. "If someone believes Apollo and Artemis are real, but they don't believe Zeus (or God) is real, I was told that they would be an atheist. Was I told wrong?" The response (that I couldn't reply to,) was that atheism is a negative response to a belief in god and gods. I would have accepted that as including Apollo and Artemis, but they also said "other mythical beings are okay", and I felt like I was sent back to square one, as neither Apollo nor Artemis were directly mentioned in the reply, if at all.

I don't want to go by my assumptions and assume that believing Apollo or Artemis is real disqualifies someone from being atheist, and I also believe that "reading between the lines" in this case would be making an assumption about the responses I got, so I'm going to "claim" the thesis instead.

Personal doubt: As an ametuer Norse mythology scholar, I thought Odin was the Norse equivalent to "God" or "Zeus", not Thor, so maybe clarification on that will be enough to prove my claim wrong.