🕯️ Traditions What is atheism - a common misconception

[Black T Poison]

I think Atheism worshiped no god but not anti.

 

[Black T Poison]

Logic

Spoiler

Spoiler contents are visible only to Established Members.

 

[Agellos]

Atheist is the lack of knowledge about God..

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.Sep 24, 2018 -google

 

[JackFrost10]

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.Sep 24, 2018 -google

Atheist doesn't believe in the god claim, the word god is subjective, you can call a very advance civilization gods if they fit in your description of a god.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

Atheist doesn't believe in the god claim, the word god is subjective, you can call a very advance civilization gods if they fit in your description of a god.

it's not subjective since the original meaning of god means creator or supreme being. only these past few century when the word god was used in a different form or meaning. just like the word p*ssy the word itself wasn't held back then as indecent. there are people who wants to change things words,etc,values just to for there own benefit or for there entertainment even a clown can be called the most intelligent man if all the people in this world believes it. we live in a society that is structured like that and I can see many examples of that, just look at our senate and the whole (mostly) people in power in government or non-government.

heres a example of a word that wasn't indecent or vulgar back then. (auto correct)

I'm preparing for an upcoming presentation for a class on Richard Nixon and Watergate. Nixon was given the name "You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.." The name "D*ck" as a nickname for someone named Richard was very common. I happened to mention this to a younger teacher in my office and they thought I was joking.

The word "d*ck" nowadays refers to male *******ia in a negative way. The use of the word "d*ck" in "Private d*ck" (a detective) does not seem related...at least I couldn't see any connection.

When and why did the word "d*ck" change from a common nickname to an almost exclusive reference to male *******ia?

Please note, I am not interested in the etymology of the word. I want to know why the word has almost completely shifted meaning. Was there a popular event or phrase that shifted the meaning? The only other word that comes to mind in this way is "gay," which the dictionary still defines as "happy" and used to be used a lot but is now almost completely relegated to the meaning "homosexual." A quick search under "Nixon campaign button" on Google provides many results

other facts about the word d*ck

the word d*ck was first used by a farmer to insult king Richard in the early 1600's

The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the *****. For example, in the 1665 You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. The English Rogue by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., an unsavory character is referred to as a "****":

just thinking about it that's the first name calling that became the standard of what a slang for p*nis is called today
the world d*ck is created via bullying and name calling ahaha..

maybe few years from now the word god will mean like a person who has many winning streak and kill in games we may never know.

 

[JackFrost10]

it's not subjective since the original meaning of god means creator or supreme being. only these past few century when the word god was used in a different form or meaning. just like the word p*ssy the word itself wasn't held back then as indecent. there are people who wants to change things words,etc,values just to for there own benefit or for there entertainment even a clown can be called the most intelligent man if all the people in this world believes it. we live in a society that is structured like that and I can see many examples of that, just look at our senate and the whole (mostly) people in power in government or non-government.

heres a example of a word that wasn't indecent or vulgar back then. (auto correct)

I'm preparing for an upcoming presentation for a class on Richard Nixon and Watergate. Nixon was given the name "You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.." The name "D*ck" as a nickname for someone named Richard was very common. I happened to mention this to a younger teacher in my office and they thought I was joking.

The word "d*ck" nowadays refers to male *******ia in a negative way. The use of the word "d*ck" in "Private d*ck" (a detective) does not seem related...at least I couldn't see any connection.

When and why did the word "d*ck" change from a common nickname to an almost exclusive reference to male *******ia?

Please note, I am not interested in the etymology of the word. I want to know why the word has almost completely shifted meaning. Was there a popular event or phrase that shifted the meaning? The only other word that comes to mind in this way is "gay," which the dictionary still defines as "happy" and used to be used a lot but is now almost completely relegated to the meaning "homosexual." A quick search under "Nixon campaign button" on Google provides many results

other facts about the word d*ck

the word d*ck was first used by a farmer to insult king Richard in the early 1600's

The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the *****. For example, in the 1665 You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. The English Rogue by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., an unsavory character is referred to as a "****":

just thinking about it that's the first name calling that became the standard of what a slang for p*nis is called today
the world d*ck is created via bullying and name calling ahaha..

maybe few years from now the word god will mean like a person who has many winning streak and kill in games we may never know.

well yes, let me rephrase it, the word god became subjective. before god is a supreme being, like zues and odin, now it depends on where you are, if you are in a christian community god is from the bible, and if you are on a muslim community god is allah.

before you can say my god is stronger than your god, today my god is the real god, quiboloy has even declared himself god.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

well yes, let me rephrase it, the word god became subjective. before god is a supreme being, like zues and odin, now it depends on where you are, if you are in a christian community god is from the bible, and if you are on a muslim community god is allah.

before you can say my god is stronger than your god, today my god is the real god, quiboloy has even declared himself god.

so you believe quiboloy is a god? it seems you are misunderstanding something.
for example if someone says he is a pencil would you believe that?
of course not. but for me I'll try first to examine his/her claim if it's true or not if I found out he/she is really human or a pencil then I'll declare my findings and claims.
my logic: is quiboloy a god?

is he a supreme being? -no
is he the creator of the world? -no

conclusion: quiboloy is crazy and a sociopath.

 

[JackFrost10]

so you believe quiboloy is a god? it seems you are misunderstanding something.
for example if someone says he is a pencil would you believe that?
of course not. but for me I'll try first to examine his/her claim if it's true or not if I found out he/she is really human or a pencil then I'll declare my findings and claims.
my logic: is quiboloy a god?

is he a supreme being? -no
is he the creator of the world? -no

conclusion: quiboloy is crazy and a sociopath.

thats what I'm saying, the word god is subjective, he doesn't meet your description of god, but on his side he is god.

also please refrain from asserting something I didn't say.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

thats what I'm saying, the word god is subjective, he doesn't meet your description of god, but on his side he is god.

also please refrain from asserting something I didn't say.

like I said, the word God isn't subjective people are making the word God subjective. just like the example I said before about the word D*ck it was a proper name before and was denounced as vulgar by twisting and bending it's meaning I find it very manipulative and dangerous since what if people say years later that the word Christina is the new V*gina? or the word Henry is the new D*ck now? and a pencil is called a pen? lol. or the word god means dog? we live in a society where what is right is wrong and what collective hive mind says is right even if it's wrong really scary if you ask me. it's like we're going back in the days of witch persecution get labeled as a D*ck even if your name is Johnny then proceed to say that D*ck and Johnny is the same.

God is me I am God therefore what you say is wrong because I declare I am God anyone can be a God I'm a God you a God that pencil is a God that Shrine is a God that Temple is a God that Dog is a God that Singer is a God that celebrity is a God. this idea seem pretty crazy to me. and what insane people would say since it lacks backing and evidence declaring something what isn't is madness and illogical.

god
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. \
Definition of god
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

nothing else nothing more.

 

[JackFrost10]

like I said, the word God isn't subjective people are making the word God subjective. just like the example I said before about the word D*ck it was a proper name before and was denounced as vulgar by twisting and bending it's meaning I find it very manipulative and dangerous since what if people say years later that the word Christina is the new V*gina? or the word Henry is the new D*ck now? and a pencil is called a pen? lol. or the word god means dog? we live in a society where what is right is wrong and what collective hive mind says is right even if it's wrong really scary if you ask me. it's like we're going back in the days of witch persecution get labeled as a D*ck even if your name is Johnny then proceed to say that D*ck and Johnny is the same.

God is me I am God therefore what you say is wrong because I declare I am God anyone can be a God I'm a God you a God that pencil is a God that Shrine is a God that Temple is a God that Dog is a God that Singer is a God that celebrity is a God. this idea seem pretty crazy to me. and what insane people would say since it lacks backing and evidence declaring something what isn't is madness and illogical.

god
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. \
Definition of god
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

nothing else nothing more.

yes thats what I said.

well yes, let me rephrase it, the word god became subjective. before god is a supreme being, like zues and odin, now it depends on where you are, if you are in a christian community god is from the bible, and if you are on a muslim community god is allah.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

yes thats what I said.

yes thats what I said.

so meaning to say you're with the people who says that god = pencil?

let me share you my logic to define a god.

god in the bible is it a god?
description in the bible:

1.eternal -yes
2.does miracles -yes
3.creator of universe? -yes


god in the bible is it a god?
answer: yes
is god in the bible real god?
answer: maybe, not so sure


bible book is it a god?
examining.....

1.eternal -no, made in paper and writings
2.does miracles -no
3.creator of universe? -no

conclusion: not god
matching more to: books

statue is it a god?

1.eternal -no, has cr@cks and etc.
2.does miracles - maybe?
3.creator of universe? -no

conclusion: must be possessed by a spirit or a hoax maybe science can explain it.

is arianna grande a god?

1.eternal -no
2.does miracles - no
3.creator of universe? -no
4. illuminati - maybe?
5. human girl/boy - maybe?

conclusion: not god.

it's simple as math 1+1=2 as long as you use the right method. but if you change the value of 2 and declare 2 has the same value as 1 then that's the time we will have a problem..
1+2 =2 seems illogically to me personally and that's what I believe you want to do with the word God.
God = quiboloy

 

[JackFrost10]

so meaning to say you're with the people who says that god = pencil?

let me share you my logic to define a god.

god in the bible is it a god?
description in the bible:

1.eternal -yes
2.does miracles -yes
3.creator of universe? -yes


god in the bible is it a god?
answer: yes
is god in the bible real god?
answer: maybe, not so sure


bible book is it a god?
examining.....

1.eternal -no, made in paper and writings
2.does miracles -no
3.creator of universe? -no

conclusion: not god
matching more to: books

statue is it a god?

1.eternal -no, has cr@cks and etc.
2.does miracles - maybe?
3.creator of universe? -no

conclusion: must be possessed by a spirit or a hoax maybe science can explain it.

is arianna grande a god?

1.eternal -no
2.does miracles - no
3.creator of universe? -no
4. illuminati - maybe?
5. human girl/boy - maybe?

conclusion: not god.

it's simple as math 1+1=2 as long as you use the right method. but if you change the value of 2 and declare 2 has the same value as 1 then that's the time we will have a problem..
1+2 =2 seems illogically to me personally and that's what I believe you want to do with the word God.
God = quiboloy

so Thor, Odin and Zues aren't gods in your definition.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

so Thor, Odin and Zues aren't gods in your definition.

Zeus the son of Cronus the god of time.
Cronus Description on Greek myth:

is Cronus immortal? -yes,celestial being (Titan). only sleeps after killed.
makes miracles? - yes,can destroy anything and eat gods
creator of universe? -son of Gaea creator of earth. -related

is Cronus a god? -yes due to relation with the creator (accurately not god but son of a goddess)

is Zeus a god?
Zeus description on Greek myth:

is Zeus immortal? -yes as long people worship him.
makes miracles? -yes lighting and natural disasters
creator of universe? -son of Cronus who is son of Gaea creator of earth -related

is Zeus a god? -yes due to relation with the creator (accurately not god but son of a god that is a son of the a goddess that created of world)

is Jesus a god?
description in the bible:

is Jesus immortal? -yes, resurrected after died
makes miracles? -yes,unli fish and bread
creator of universe? -son of god who created the world

is Jesus a god? -yes due to relation with the creator. (accurately son of god)

is quiboloy a god?
description in the bible:

-no description in the bible
-self proclaim son of god of the bible but doesn't use the bible for references. hmmmmm...
-related with creator? -hmmm..(self proclaim with no basis or facts..) -no

is quiboloy immortal? -no, Aging in TV while singing
makes miracles? -no, just sings
creator of universe - no.

is quiboloy a god? -not god more of a singer.

simple just connect the dots. you won't be lost, simple as math. every words has a meaning and value just like math if you change the value of a word your calculation will be very very inaccurate.

 

[JackFrost10]

J. K. Rowling

immortal? - yes, immortalized by her work
makes miracles? - yes, created magic
creator of universe? - yes, created the harry potter universe

Big bang

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

Aurelion Sol

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

notch

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

quiboloy could declare himself god and his followers will believe it because he subjectively defined the word god.

quiboloy

immortal? - yes, he will go back to heaven when he dies and return to its original form
make miracles? - yes, hes followers could testify
creator of universe? - yes, hes god

its easy to subjectively define the word god, as long as you have faith on the definer.

in the subject of mythology god is objective you need to have godlike feat to be defined as god, as you said if you are mortal you cant be god.
but in religion its subjective you only need faith to be defined as god.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

J. K. Rowling

immortal? - yes, immortalized by her work
makes miracles? - yes, created magic
creator of universe? - yes, created the harry potter universe

Big bang

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

Aurelion Sol

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

notch

immortal? - yes
makes miracles? - yes
creator of universe? - yes

quiboloy could declare himself god and his followers will believe it because he subjectively defined the word god.

quiboloy

immortal? - yes, he will go back to heaven when he dies and return to its original form
make miracles? - yes, hes followers could testify
creator of universe? - yes, hes god

its easy to subjectively define the word god, as long as you have faith on the definer.

in the subject of mythology god is objective you need to have godlike feat to be defined as god, as you said if you are mortal you cant be god.
but in religion its subjective you only need faith to be defined as god.

let me debunk your seemingly sarcastic answers easily.

is J. K. Rowling a god?

immortal? - (still alive) maybe
counter argument: will wait for any updates.

makes miracles? - no
hasn't raise the dead or any miracles.
counter argument: what is a miracles? an event or doing of a person that cannot be done by humans or explained.

creator of universe? - no , created a fantasy book yes.
counter argument: she is a writer not the creator of this universe a sane person can see that you cannot compare a writer to a god it's like comparing a human to a god ahaha

counter argument
1.you seem have tried to combine J.K Rowling's works to herself which is illogical since the person is not his/her work
2. harry potter is a book created by Rowling which can be proved as fiction
3.the bible cannot be proven as fiction since no one has been alive to tell if it's real or not
4. you cannot compare bible to harry potter since we know the origins of harry potter and who created it.


is big bang a god?
immortal - no
makes miracles? -no
is it the creator of the world - no
is it the cause why the world is created? -yes

conclusion: big bang is a process to create a world not a god. and other than that it is a Theory and hasn't been proven as fact

Aurelion Sol a god?

immortal? -no created by riot games
makes miracles? -no
creator of the universe? -no
a character from a fictional game? -yes

conclusion: not god but just a character created by riot games

who is notch?

about the quiboloy ahaha okay let's have a open mind to entertain you a bit. let's just say:

immortal - maybe? (alive)
makes miracles? - no because he said hell kill people but can't do it lol. debunked as a god
creator of universe? - maybe? (self proclaim) hmmmm leaning to no.

conclusion: hmmm not a god more like another entity

again. we go back to hive mind and mob mentality even if people says it's right it's wrong it's like saying 1=2 which is illogical .

nope you are wrong in mythology in the greek mythology to be a god you need to be a creator of the world so being a god isn't subjective.
to be a son/daughter of god you need to be the son/daughter of that god. to be a demigod you need to be a son/daughter of a god/goddess with a human parent. in all Greek mythology no god has ever been declared a god without being related to a certain god. I've read Greek mythology so I can go on details to really debunk your strawman claims.

there's a hierarchy or value and you need to understand it just like math.
just like in word you need to stick to one meaning the original meaning. other meanings is invalid for me personally since it creates chaos which i think what some people want to do i think.
who the hell even thought that was a great idea to begin with? i believe only people who is evil does something like that and it's really scary. just think about it. the word nurse might become a slang of prostit*te or any other words like playtime might become a vulgar word. or your name may become the next slang for p*nis. so crazy if you ask me.

god- 1
son of god. -2
daughter of god -3
demigod -4
human - 5
dog -20012
harry -23238938493
quiboloy - 342543950839582432401904141
me - 32423423423235593485938593
you - -9324290349230952305903259
pencil -2333991
pen-1223249
book-222212
harry potter - 43243253444324325345353
harry potter book - 43242353534534345346544546456
hair -32424324567567567
your hair -4324325346540967955687950687950687506875068705687058705870954
my eyes -454353453465465460984069846804986094869043896043
name - 9430593045

etc. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

like in quiboloy's standing you have a weak argument since there is facts that says quiboloy is a person.

another is you try to put fictional works that has proof that is really fictional like harry potter which is pretty lame, childish and stupid.

using a game character pretty much says something about your character.
you seem to think that the bible is the same as other fictional work.
which you utterly believe, which makes you a close minded person.
this is why you cannot compare the bible to fresh fictional books of today and later century.
the bible's author is unknown as long as there is no facts that can prove that the bible is created by a person or persons it will stay as a holy book. unlike any other books that has authors it's easy to track if that work is fiction or non fiction.

please counter my argument.

 

[Agellos]

Ang atheist eto ung mga d naniniwala sa mga religion god tulad nila jesus alah saka buddha.

 

[JackFrost10]

let me debunk your seemingly sarcastic answers easily.

is J. K. Rowling a god?

immortal? - (still alive) maybe
counter argument: will wait for any updates.

makes miracles? - no
hasn't raise the dead or any miracles.
counter argument: what is a miracles? an event or doing of a person that cannot be done by humans or explained.

creator of universe? - no , created a fantasy book yes.
counter argument: she is a writer not the creator of this universe a sane person can see that you cannot compare a writer to a god it's like comparing a human to a god ahaha

counter argument
1.you seem have tried to combine J.K Rowling's works to herself which is illogical since the person is not his/her work
2. harry potter is a book created by Rowling which can be proved as fiction
3.the bible cannot be proven as fiction since no one has been alive to tell if it's real or not
4. you cannot compare bible to harry potter since we know the origins of harry potter and who created it.


is big bang a god?
immortal - no
makes miracles? -no
is it the creator of the world - no
is it the cause why the world is created? -yes

conclusion: big bang is a process to create a world not a god. and other than that it is a Theory and hasn't been proven as fact

Aurelion Sol a god?

immortal? -no created by riot games
makes miracles? -no
creator of the universe? -no
a character from a fictional game? -yes

conclusion: not god but just a character created by riot games

who is notch?

about the quiboloy ahaha okay let's have a open mind to entertain you a bit. let's just say:

immortal - maybe? (alive)
makes miracles? - no because he said hell kill people but can't do it lol. debunked as a god
creator of universe? - maybe? (self proclaim) hmmmm leaning to no.

conclusion: hmmm not a god more like another entity

again. we go back to hive mind and mob mentality even if people says it's right it's wrong it's like saying 1=2 which is illogical .

nope you are wrong in mythology in the greek mythology to be a god you need to be a creator of the world so being a god isn't subjective.
to be a son/daughter of god you need to be the son/daughter of that god. to be a demigod you need to be a son/daughter of a god/goddess with a human parent. in all Greek mythology no god has ever been declared a god without being related to a certain god. I've read Greek mythology so I can go on details to really debunk your strawman claims.

there's a hierarchy or value and you need to understand it just like math.
just like in word you need to stick to one meaning the original meaning. other meanings is invalid for me personally since it creates chaos which i think what some people want to do i think.
who the hell even thought that was a great idea to begin with? i believe only people who is evil does something like that and it's really scary. just think about it. the word nurse might become a slang of prostit*te or any other words like playtime might become a vulgar word. or your name may become the next slang for p*nis. so crazy if you ask me.

god- 1
son of god. -2
daughter of god -3
demigod -4
human - 5
dog -20012
harry -23238938493
quiboloy - 342543950839582432401904141
me - 32423423423235593485938593
you - -9324290349230952305903259
pencil -2333991
pen-1223249
book-222212
harry potter - 43243253444324325345353
harry potter book - 43242353534534345346544546456
hair -32424324567567567
your hair -4324325346540967955687950687950687506875068705687058705870954
my eyes -454353453465465460984069846804986094869043896043
name - 9430593045

etc. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

like in quiboloy's standing you have a weak argument since there is facts that says quiboloy is a person.

another is you try to put fictional works that has proof that is really fictional like harry potter which is pretty lame, childish and stupid.

using a game character pretty much says something about your character.
you seem to think that the bible is the same as other fictional work.
which you utterly believe, which makes you a close minded person.
this is why you cannot compare the bible to fresh fictional books of today and later century.
the bible's author is unknown as long as there is no facts that can prove that the bible is created by a person or persons it will stay as a holy book. unlike any other books that has authors it's easy to track if that work is fiction or non fiction.

please counter my argument.

I could argue that Zues is not a god if you disregarded the godliness of the big bang because its just a theory and just a process, I could say Zues is just created by greeks just as you rejected Aurelion Sol as a god because its created by riot.

its inconsistent and its subjective, all depends on someones opinion and could be declared as god or not god by defining it. also the bible is written by humans, everyone agrees with that.

P.S.: you can personify big bang and create a god.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

I could argue that Zues is not a god if you disregarded the godliness of the big bang because its just a theory and just a process, I could say Zues is just created by greeks just as you rejected Aurelion Sol as a god because its created by riot.

its inconsistent and its subjective, all depends on someones opinion and could be declared as god or not god by defining it. also the bible is written by humans, everyone agrees with that.

P.S.: you can personify big bang and create a god.

your logic is inconsistent and has so many flaws.

1. Zues has a description and writings that undeniably says that Zues is a son of god
2. There is no writings or any study that says that Big Bang is a God which will I believe is only your own self claim without backing and such which makes me not trust what you say. if you have one please put the link here.
3. can you please give me proof that the bible was all written by humans?
4. All I can see on your counter argument are all self claims and with no proof. which seem makes discussion with you fruitless.
5. again, words isn't subjective people just makes it subjective.
6. can you personify the Big Bang in real life? will it talk to you? as in tell you it's a god and no mere drawing of some artist or such? it's seems that you're bringing reality and fantasy together which makes me question your sanity.
7. remember, even scientist and highly intelligent people acknowledges that there is a god with proof and backing.
example: physicist michio kaku , Dr. John lennox , Albert Einstein and etc.
I would rather believe them than your self claims without any backing or proof at a heartbeat.
8. seems like you have some god complex in the way you bring up that you can create a god. what you are proposing is to break the rules and do what you want attitude which seems feel like your beliefs promotes elitism and anarchy.
9. so like subjecting things like for example I will subjectify you as a person who is christian,Buddhist,female,male,gay person will you agree on that?
or your name stands for D*ck? are you alright with that?

if you don't have any strong arguments, then this might be my last reply to your thread.

 

[JackFrost10]

Zues has a description and writings that undeniably says that Zues is a son of god

then Aurelion Sol is God because of the description and writings

can you please give me proof that the bible was all written by humans?

There is no writings or any study that says that Big Bang is a God which will I believe is only your own self claim without backing and such which makes me not trust what you say. if you have one please put the link here.

I know, would this conclude that all written gods are gods? regardless if its fiction or mythology?

All I can see on your counter argument are all self claims and with no proof. which seem makes discussion with you fruitless.

I used your math to fictional gods, yet I was wrong because you added a new variable that we know its fiction therefore not god.

then I used it on the big bang, yet I was still wrong because you added a new variable that it has no writings or any study that says it is god, therefore not god.

you presented 3 variables

immortal,
makes miracles,
creator of the universe,

now you added, fictional character and not written. I dont know anymore if your just making things up just to make something god and not god. and you call me out for inconsistency.

Aurelion Sol a god?

immortal? -no created by riot games
makes miracles? -no
creator of the universe? -no
a character from a fictional game? -yes

conclusion: not god but just a character created by riot games

Im clueless here and I'm starting to think that my hypothesis that the word god is subjective, I mean if I used the previous 3 variables you gave fictional characters can be defined as gods like greek mythology characters.