Imperefct God

[Immanuel Can]

...unless we return to the oblivion from whence we came, then you will know nothing of having been a theist; I will know nothing of having been an atheist because NO ONE will know of ever having existed. Why would nature's clean-up routines allow for anything more!

You are quite correct. If you were right, then when we die, we'd both be nothing.

But then, we'd also be nothing now, too: just a cosmic accident, doomed to glow briefly and wink out for no reason.

Why is that the only other alternative you go to?

It's not "where I go." It's where the logic of the position inevitably has to go , if it's to be consistent.

If we are the accidental products of an indifferent universe, as Atheism must believe, then we can be no more than cosmic dust. There is no "higher" story that is not merely a self-deception, in that case. Mankind means nothing, came from nothing special, for no purpose, and goes to the grave as worm food...and the universe to heat-death and infinite extinction.

Lovely.

Of course, Atheism is wrong about that. But it's what Atheism itself rationally has to insist is true. I can't help it if most Atheist are too horrified by the inevitable consequences of their own belief even to follow it through logically and admit it to themselves.

I can point out the truth about their worldview; I can't give them the courage to face it.

[Immanuel Can]

Does is not occur to you that you can never know death?

You really don't know anything about Christianity, do you?

Christians believe in God. What I do not know, He does.

What do you think my pseudonym implies?

[Immanuel Can]

You are quite correct. If you were right, then when we die, we'd both be nothing.

But then, we'd also be nothing now, too: just a cosmic accident, doomed to glow briefly and wink out for no reason.

But then what is wrong with that?

Animals are having it far worse ..

What should you care, then? Animals, like humans, are just a cosmic accident stuck in a bloody blender, then. There's no "injustice" in suffering, then; it's just how things are. Why cry?

But you DO sense something "is wrong with that." You feel it in your bones, and you're too empathetic to let it go.

But why? In an impersonal, indifferent universe, there's no point in lying to yourself about that. There's no possibility of justice, no basis for your complaint, and nobody to care how you feel about it.

But I suggest that you don't actually believe your own words. You think there SHOULD be justice, and an answer to the meaning of suffering, and Someone to care if you complain...because you keep doing it. You have not given up hope the way you want us to think. You hold out hope for an answer, despite your own doubts.

Your objection shows that you cannot live with your own allegations. And it probably says good things about you, that you can't.

[RCSaunders]

You feel it in your bones, and you're too empathetic to let it go.

Oh well, of course. If you, "feel it in your bones," it must be right. Everyone knows feelings and sentimentality beat reason every time. Who need evidence or reason when you've got the right feeling.

[jayjacobus]

You feel it in your bones, and you're too empathetic to let it go.

Oh well, of course. If you, "feel it in your bones," it must be right. Everyone knows feelings and sentimentality beat reason every time. Who need evidence or reason when you've got the right feeling.

The mind feels. The bones don't.

Feelings are like sensations but they relate to the awareness of the mind to positive and negative perceptions.

But different people have different fears. Some people fear snakes while other people don't fear snakes. Most likely all people fear sharks except people who never swim in the ocean.

[Belinda]

You are quite correct. If you were right, then when we die, we'd both be nothing.

But then, we'd also be nothing now, too: just a cosmic accident, doomed to glow briefly and wink out for no reason.

Why is that the only other alternative you go to?

It's not "where I go." It's where the logic of the position inevitably has to go , if it's to be consistent.

If we are the accidental products of an indifferent universe, as Atheism must believe, then we can be no more than cosmic dust. There is no "higher" story that is not merely a self-deception, in that case. Mankind means nothing, came from nothing special, for no purpose, and goes to the grave as worm food...and the universe to heat-death and infinite extinction.

Lovely.

Of course, Atheism is wrong about that. But it's what Atheism itself rationally has to insist is true. I can't help it if most Atheist are too horrified by the inevitable consequences of their own belief even to follow it through logically and admit it to themselves.

I can point out the truth about their worldview; I can't give them the courage to face it.

But men are saved from meaninglessness by their aspiring to be good. Men's aspirations towards the good are subsumed under absolute mind.

[Immanuel Can]

You feel it in your bones, and you're too empathetic to let it go.

Oh well, of course. If you, "feel it in your bones," it must be right.

Did I say anything like that? You'll have to show me where.

No, I said that DAM intuitively recognizes what her cognitions have not yet properly explained to her.

To say that somebody understands something "intuitively" is to say just that: like a person stretching across a gap slightly longer than her arm, she can touch with the tips of her fingers what her mind has not yet "closed its grasp" around. Such experiences are very normal.

On the other hand, you will insist she's not even touching anything. Which you're free to believe. I don't offer intuition as a conclusion of any kind.

[Immanuel Can]

But men are saved from meaninglessness by their aspiring to be good.

Why?

There is no entity but themselves that has any stake in their "apirations." The Godless universe does not want them to "aspire": it "wants" nothing at all. And they are not "saved," because they are not "lost" either. They are born, they live very briefly, and then they die...and there's the end of it all.

Again, those Atheists who say otherwise are manifestly just fooling themselves -- trying to console themselves, perhaps, with tales of meaning, whereas the deep truth as they know it is that there is no inherent dignity in "aspiration" for anything, and nothing is higher or lower than anything else.

What is, simply is. And that's all one can say, in an Atheist universe. One cannot say it's "good" or "bad," except by invoking delusions. Nietzsche saw that, and even Dawkins sees that. It's only the craven Humanist Atheist, the one who lacks their nerve, who cannot face that fact. It's what their worldview entails.

[Lacewing]

Why is that the only other alternative you go to?

It's not "where I go." It's where the logic of the position inevitably has to go , if it's to be consistent.

Consistent with what?

If we are the accidental products of an indifferent universe, as Atheism must believe,

So if there is no god, there can be no order or reason for anything?

Would order and reason throughout a Universe need to be understood/known by humans and be on human terms?

Why do you project your limited views about atheists onto atheists?

There is no "higher" story that is not merely a self-deception

Exactly. Who, here, believes in a higher story?

Many people, including myself, do not think there has to be a story.

in that case. Mankind means nothing, came from nothing special, for no purpose, and goes to the grave as worm food

I guess it depends on the value, expectations, and demands you place on life.

Is it not enough to awaken to a glorious sunrise, make love with your beloved, spend the day creating a masterpiece, then go to sleep? Why must you be more? Why must there be more for you?

Of course, Atheism is wrong about that.

You are wrong about that... and you project it onto people who don't believe in your god.

But it's what Atheism itself rationally has to insist is true.

No, it's your irrational claims and limitations that you are projecting onto others.

I can't help it if most Atheist are too horrified by the inevitable consequences of their own belief even to follow it through logically and admit it to themselves.

How do you not bust out laughing at the things you think and say? Do you really not see yourself in these projections?

I can point out the truth about their worldview; I can't give them the courage to face it.

How can you point out the truth about any view that you clearly misunderstand or misrepresent because not only do you not have it, but it is also at odds with the thou-shalt-have-no-other-beliefs-but-mine position that you hold? Are you so righteous and grand to know the vast range of other views, and the truth about them? Is any view that is not yours lumped into the category of "all other views", and you and God and the Bible proclaim the error and demise of all those 'others'? How logical does that sound?

[Immanuel Can]

Why is that the only other alternative you go to?

It's not "where I go." It's where the logic of the position inevitably has to go , if it's to be consistent.

Consistent with what?

Itself.

If we are the accidental products of an indifferent universe, as Atheism must believe,

So if there is no god, there can be no order or reason for anything?

Order? Well, there logically should be none of that, if there's no God -- but there is, and it's one very obvious evidence Atheism is wrong. But "reason for things"? No, in Atheism there can be no "reason" why things happen one way and not another, and no meaning to it all. Just "causes and effects."

Would order and reason throughout a Universe need to be understood/known by humans and be on human terms?

We observe order every day. As for reason, the Theistic view is that God has indeed told us the reasons. But one can choose not to listen, of course.

There is no "higher" story that is not merely a self-deception

Exactly. Who, here, believes in a higher story? Many people, including myself, do not think there has to be a story.

Right. And either you're right, or I am. Because there's no third alternative in that dilemma. If there's a story, there's a story. If there's not, then there's none.

in that case. Mankind means nothing, came from nothing special, for no purpose, and goes to the grave as worm food

I guess it depends on the value, expectations, and demands you place on life.

Not at all. For what does it matter what one ambulatory pile of accidental cells, a human "values, expects or demands"? And isn't it Atheistically inexplicable that man "values, expects or demands" anything at all, since he's just an accidental pile of shambling cells?

But it's what Atheism itself rationally has to insist is true.

No, it's your irrational claims and limitations that you are projecting onto others.

Actually, it's not. Take Atheism's premises, and turn them into rigorous logical syllogisms, and you'll see I'm precisely correct. Atheism rationalizes no morals, meaning or values.

You're late to the party on that, I'm afraid. Guys like Nietzsche and Dawkins get it. And they're no friends of mine, of course.

I can point out the truth about their worldview; I can't give them the courage to face it.

How can you point out the truth about any view that you clearly misunderstand or misrepresent

Show me how I "misrepresent" Atheism. Let's have a go right now.

Here's a puzzle for you. Fill in the missing premise in the syllogism:

Premise 1: There is no God. (Atheism)
Premise 2: ______________________ ?
Conclusion: Therefore, my existence has value/meaning. (or some other assertion of meaning or value: you can pick one)

Let's see what you think glues those two ideas together. I'll be intrigued to find out.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

Well since there's absolutely no proof that a god exists, it can neither be said to be perfect, nor imperfect. All one can truly say is that the stories of a god is either perfect or imperfect. That is with any real degree of certainty.

[attofishpi]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

Well since there's absolutely no proof that a god exists, it can neither be said to be perfect, nor imperfect. All one can truly say is that the stories of a god is either perfect or imperfect. That is with any real degree of certainty.

There is proof of God/'God' beyond a reasonable doubt - here:- viewtopic.php?t=33214

Yet, within this thread pertaining to some 'perfection' - not once has the term perfection been defined, and more importantly has it been defined in relation to GOD.

So until that is ascertained for this discussion, this thread is pretty much null and void.

[DPMartin]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

what God are you talking about? if it be the God of Israel then you might not understand the use of "perfect" bibilcaly, here the God of Israel has declared Job perfect.

Job_1:8  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

hence if Job is perfect then is he like God or do you have to be God to be perfect?

also God has created that which is evil

1Sa_16:23  And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.


so what is perfect in your judgement of what is good and evil, isn't the same as the Almighty's, is it?

[attofishpi]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

what God are you talking about? if it be the God of Israel then you might not understand the use of "perfect" bibilcaly, here the God of Israel has declared Job perfect.

Job_1:8  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

hence if Job is perfect then is he like God or do you have to be God to be perfect?

also God has created that which is evil

1Sa_16:23  And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.


so what is perfect in your judgement of what is good and evil, isn't the same as the Almighty's, is it?

..FFS. ...this site has gone to shite since US inflicted via short sighted Evangelistical "Christian" muppets took hold. Do we really need to hear little proverbs from the metaphorical metaphor of the buy_bull to somehow make some RATIONAL point?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

Well since there's absolutely no proof that a god exists, it can neither be said to be perfect, nor imperfect. All one can truly say is that the stories of a god is either perfect or imperfect. That is with any real degree of certainty.

There is proof of God/'God' beyond a reasonable doubt - here:- viewtopic.php?t=33214

Yet, within this thread pertaining to some 'perfection' - not once has the term perfection been defined, and more importantly has it been defined in relation to GOD.

So until that is ascertained for this discussion, this thread is pretty much null and void.

That a human states that there is a god then ascribes their definitions of what a god is/does or that they find hidden meanings in human concepts/art/words/etc only speaks of the human, and not necessarily a god.

The "ONLY" "PROOF"of a god would be for it to present itself to all peoples of the earth simultaneously, such that all could see others witnessing it simultaneously, or some impossible feat witnessed as outlined.

Any particular human/group saying it exists that cannot provide proof other than their word or so called experience, is probably either a liar/schizophrenic/or otherwise deranged. To say something is true, based only upon ones word is not empirical in any way, shape or form. To believe in a book or written text of any kind that approximately dates back 2000 years, is a trip down antiquated lane, to a time that no one can actually realize as it truly was in that time, such that they can honestly judge it's credibility.