IS and OUGHT

[bobmax]

I mean yeah a real unicorn would be greater and more perfect than an imaginary unicorn, but only if unicorns existed in the first place. This is a non-problem. Chances are the concept is just an imaginary composition of other real things.... horses, wings and horns and stuff. Just like 'god' is an imaginary composition of other real things... body, intelligence, awareness, choice, foresight, and other human characteristics.

Anselm just got carried away in the argument and tried to slide one in on us.

God is the negation of the negation.

It's that simple.

And so hard to grasp...

[Age]

Age wrote:

Could 'arbitrary' just refer to 'that' what one CHOOSES, for example; the 'values' or 'views' one has?

As I remarked to Harbal, that definition of 'arbitrary' is fine in the context of everyday conversations but is not precise enough for philosophical analysis.

Age wrote:

WHY do you propose some are more free than others are? Are you more free than others?

And, HOW are some more free than others?

To me, 'free will' just refers to; 'the ABILITY to choose'.

So, to me, ALL human beings have 'free will'.

Again this is probably the most popular definition of free will. The philosophical and theological definition of Free Will is stronger than "ability to choose". Sure you can choose, but you cannot choose what you want to choose. In other words we are not the ORIGINS of our choices
Age wrote:

However, what EVERY human being is ABLE TO 'choose' from is limited, and this is because ALL choices can only come from what PRE-EXISTING 'thoughts' lay within.

I agree.

And, EVERY 'thought' has come from a PREVIOUS bodily experience. Meaning EVERY 'thought' was PRE-DETERMINED, by a PREVIOUS experience.

I agree.

Which then ALSO means that what is TO OCCUR was PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED, or in other words 'determinism' EXISTS. EQUALLY with 'free will', I will add.

Impossible! Free Will , philosophical version, is absolutely free. This must be a real headache for God who, before he granted humans Free Will, had been in control of everything.

Age wrote:

But this is 'self-contradictory'. HOW could ANY 'education', logically, be so-called 'helping' people to be a CERTAIN WAY, like 'being free as one can be' IS?

Just changing the 'teach' word, to the 'help' word, as you have done here, after the 'education' word, does NOT mean that what is 'being taught' is to 'produce a particular outcome', which, by definition, means to CREATE 'that', which was previously DETERMINED.

People are BORN FREE, absolutely Naturally.

Not so. The newborn baby is not free to choose whether or not he has been born with a hare lip and cleft palate, or how much pigment is in his skin, and so forth. What I think you mean to say is that people are born free of preconceived ideas, and teachers fill their minds with other people's ideas.

This used to be how children in schools were taught. However modern teachers in liberal democracies who have been properly educated as teachers teach children some facts and old stories, but are very careful not to indoctrinate the children in their care. Education, training, and indoctrination are three different approaches to learning. I did initial teacher training and to me and others like me, to indoctrinate children, and adults too, is like a sin.

Age wrote:

And, absolutely NO one 'needs' 'help' "to be as free as they can be". They are ALL absolutely FREE to begin with. And, UNFORTUNATELY, it is because of the Wrongly termed 'education' and its 'system' WHY you once absolutely FREE people 'grow up' to NOT be absolutely FREE, ANYMORE.

See, the word 'educate' ONCE used to mean; To draw out. Like, to draw out the POTENTIAL within. But, sadly and very unfortunately, the word 'educate' became to MEAN; We WILL 'teach' you what we WANT you to learn, AND you will ACCEPT and repeat what we TEACH you UNTIL you copy us, verbatim. And, if you do NOT, then we WILL judge, punish, and ridicule you for NOT "knowing" what we do, AND TEACH.

I am sorry this is your experience and I credit you with the hindsight, intelligence, and good intention to object to that system. Believe me, you are not alone and have the backing of the best intellectuals and all properly educated teachers in your intention to object to that system.

The human body, and thus the genetics, are ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED by PREVIOUS past events.

ALL past events are experienced, and sensed, by genetically made up bodies. 'you', the person, however, are NOT 'the body'. 'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE absolutely ANY thing you like, or WANT to CHOOSE. The ONLY 'limit' here is that 'you' only have a limited selection of 'thoughts' to CHOOSE FROM. BUT, 'you' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN ABSOLUTELY FREE, TO CHOOSE.

My choices are and always have been limited by circumstances. Circumstances limit me in my body and in my mind. I am not free to choose to be an athlete, and I am not free to choose to be a religious bigot.


I, the person, am a body/mind, all one unit.

Your predilection for capital letters is a caused predilection.

I apologise for my post being shown as all one highlighted quote. I have not quite got to grips with how to format my replies when I want to quote several times.

[/quote]

Firstly, what you claimed here that I wrote is incorrect, and the way you presented the above makes it more difficult to respond to your replies, individually.

If the so-called 'philosophical and theological definition of Free Will' is, supposedly, 'stronger' than "ability to choose", then what does this actually mean, or refer to, EXACTLY? How, EXACTLY, can one definition be 'stronger' than another definition?

Sure you can choose, but you cannot choose what you want to choose.

Did you CHOOSE to write this sentence of YOURS here?

If yes, then you CHOSE what words that you wanted to CHOOSE, to put forth.

But if no, then WHO CHOSE to write THOSE words here?

Also, WHY 'free will' discussions have NEVER been resolved among 'you', human beings, in 'philosophical' or 'theological' discussions is because if that definition, which you just provide here, is what 'you' are discussing/trying to resolve, then that EXPLAINS ALL and EVERY thing as to WHY 'you' are ALL STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED, in the days when are being written.

To me, 'free will' just refers to the ABILITY TO CHOOSE. Adding ANY thing else to this just CREATES CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDING.

EVERY human being has the ABILITY TO CHOOSE. So, in other words, EVERY human being has 'free will'. End of story.

In other words we are not the ORIGINS of our choices

How about 'you' come back WHEN 'you' are ABLE TO answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correct?

If 'you' are NOT the ORIGINS of 'your' choices, then WHO, or WHAT, IS, EXACTLY?

Or, will the 'thing' that IS the ORIGINS of 'your' choices, NOT ALLOW 'you' to choose the True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER and RESPONSE here?

Impossible!

NOT AT ALL, REALLY.

Free Will , philosophical version, is absolutely free.

'Free will', the philosophical version, is NOT possible. Thus the reason WHY absolutely NOTHING has EVER been RESOLVED regarding this version of 'free will'.

This must be a real headache for God who, before he granted humans Free Will, had been in control of everything.

The VERY REASON WHY human beings have 'free will', that is; the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, is BECAUSE to ACHIEVE the, PRE-DETERMINED, 'outcome' human beings HAD TO HAVE 'free will', FIRST. Human beings learn BEST by their MISTAKES. So, to REACH and ACHIEVE the, desired and predetermined, 'outcome', which human beings WILL and DO CREATE, human beings HAVING 'free will' was and is NECESSARY.

To be FREELY ABLE TO CHOOSE, to MAKE MISTAKES, ALLOWS human beings to CONTINUALLY LEARN, how to do and make 'things/life' BETTER.

Not so. The newborn baby is not free to choose whether or not he has been born with a hare lip and cleft palate, or how much pigment is in his skin, and so forth.

LOL I NEVER SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, which you are responding to.

I NEVER said absolutely ANY thing about newborn babies being free to choose absolutely ANY thing.

So, I suggest you read the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY, WRITE, and USE here, and NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, AT ALL.

What I think you mean to say is that people are born free of preconceived ideas, and teachers fill their minds with other people's ideas.

1. I JUST SAID; People are BORN FREE, ONLY, as well as, absolutely Naturally. AND, that is EXACTLY what I MEAN.

2. I do NOT mean what you think above here.

3. I would NEVER use those words, the way you have here, by the way.

This used to be how children in schools were taught. However modern teachers in liberal democracies who have been properly educated as teachers teach children some facts and old stories, but are very careful not to indoctrinate the children in their care. Education, training, and indoctrination are three different approaches to learning. I did initial teacher training and to me and others like me, to indoctrinate children, and adults too, is like a sin.

Is this what you were TAUGHT, to BELIEVE is true?

If yes, then some SEE this as INDOCTRINATION, itself.

But if no, then were you TAUGHT, to BELIEVE that 'it' is NOT true?

I am sorry this is your experience and I credit you with the hindsight, intelligence, and good intention to object to that system.

Have you NEVER experienced what I wrote, which you replied to here?

Believe me, you are not alone and have the backing of the best intellectuals and all properly educated teachers in your intention to object to that system.

YET, they ARE the VERY teachers IN, and CREATING, 'the system'.

My choices are and always have been limited by circumstances.

OF COURSE, and I KNOW. I SAID the EXACT SAME thing.

Circumstances limit me in my body and in my mind.

EXCEPT 'you' do NOT 'have' a mind.

I am not free to choose to be an athlete, and I am not free to choose to be a religious bigot.

Is this what 'you' CHOOSE to BELIEVE is true?

Or, are you saying that you have absolutely NO choice AT ALL here, including whether to BELIEVE 'this' or NOT?

I, the person, am a body/mind, all one unit.

So, if that body has an arm or leg missing, then 'you' are LESS OF 'a person', correct?

Your predilection for capital letters is a caused predilection.

Those letters are CREATED or CAUSED that way, because 'I' CHOOSE to MAKE them, THAT WAY. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE is doing the choosing FOR me. Even with the AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS, FROM "others", and REQUESTS to CHANGE the way I capitalize, 'I' STILL CHOOSE to WRITE the way I DO, and WANT TO.

Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that some OTHER thing is CAUSING them?

I apologise for my post being shown as all one highlighted quote. I have not quite got to grips with how to format my replies when I want to quote several times.

Becaue that 'want', when you 'want' to quote several times, you can NOT choose, and so MUST BE be chosen by some thing ELSE, might be the reason WHY you are NOT YET able to quote correctly have "NOT quite got to grips" YET.

That is; the THING that is MAKING the CHOICE, for you, to 'want' to quote several times, ITSELF may NOT HAVE YET "got to grips" the ability to quote properly.

[Immanuel Can]

The possibility that any truth will turn out to be false in the future is at the heart of modern science.

Both Falsificationism and Verificationism have their problems. You can read about them, simply by looking up "the critiques of..." and each term. So we needn't spend time debating that.

Freed from the bonds of religious dogmas, science was finally able to progress.

That's a myth, actually. It's a simplistic white-had-black-hat version of pseudohistory. Any time we see one of those, we ought to be suspicious.

Here's a better claim. There are some "religions" that do put "bonds" on science, it's true. Hinduism, for example, really inhibits science and technology. So did Confucianism, and polytheism. Those are historically verifiable. But there are other "religions" that actively contributed to the rise of science. Monotheism was key to the rise of science, because it gave scientists a reason to suppose that such a thing as "scientific laws" would exist, even before they found them, because of their expectation that a rational Creator would organize creation rationally. And the fact that the Biblical text invites scientific inquiry was very useful in incentivizing that sort of search.

There's much more to that story. The philosopher A.N. Whitehead is the guy you want to consult on this one.

And it progresses because it has faith in the Truth, aware that it can never fully possess it.

"Fully"? Well, science is inductive. Its findings are all probabilistic. But successive approximation of the truth is its goal.

For "fully, "you want mathematical proofs, not science.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can'e ears:

God is simple, but not easy.

I gave up word games long ago. You'll have to excuse me.

Anselm's argument is word games.

The development of science was possible because Bacon discovered a method.

But you don't know that history?

Yep, gotta throw in the condescension. All the more ironic since Bacon didn't discover a method; he described the method used by the likes of Thales, Anaximander and particularly Aristarchus, Eratosthenes and Archimedes in antiquity, Alhazen in Europe's 'dark' ages as well as Bacon's contemporary Galileo. That's just the empirical bent of science; for the maths you can bung in Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Euclid, Ptolemy, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Jayyani - dozens, perhaps hundreds of scholars with whose work Bacon was acquainted.

But Mr Can doesn't know that history.

I don't "despise Nietzsche." I never knew the man.

I find what he said about God fundamentally based on nothing.

I wouldn't knock it; that's precisely what many of us find what you say about God to be based on.

I like a great deal of what he said about Atheism.

And what do you think that was based on?

Popper's an old story. He died back in the early Nineties.

Remind us when Jesus pegged it, Mr Can.

Now you contest Popper, so you have no idea what science is.

I'm supposing you don't know what the critiques of his critiques were.

That's why your epistemology needs updating.

Time to slip in a bit more condescension.

Falsificationism doesn't even pass the test of falsification. It's kind of obviously self-defeating.

This is Mr Can confusing verificationism and falsification. Popper's falsification criterion is not self-referential in the way that the logical positivist verification principle about meaningfulness is. The issue with falsification is that scientists don't abandon theories known to be false, if they remain useful. Newton's law of universal gravitation remains part of mainstream science even though Einstein's general relativity is more accurate.

[Astro Cat]

As a moral noncognitivist I have a lot to say about this, but alas I’m going to sleep and leaving town when I wake up. I’ll try to get back to it Monday or Tuesday.

Well, hello again, Cat. Nice to see you back.

Didn't I say we'd find something to chew over here relatively quickly?

Do I get a cookie for being right?

You get a s’more, which I just had for the first time in years and oh my god so good

Ha correction, *a* year

[bobmax]

But there are other "religions" that actively contributed to the rise of science. Monotheism was key to the rise of science, because it gave scientists a reason to suppose that such a thing as "scientific laws" would exist, even before they found them, because of their expectation that a rational Creator would organize creation rationally. And the fact that the Biblical text invites scientific inquiry was very useful in incentivizing that sort of search.

Faith in the Truth obliges you to constantly search for the truth.

This means being willing to suffer.

And we suffer, for example, when we realize that we have affirmed a falsehood.
Maybe even sensing that it was a falsehood...

That Christianity has favored the development of science is an absurdity.

An example above all.
How Galileo was treated. Which he had to retract in order not to go to the stake.
And only because his findings contradicted what is written in the Bible!

Obscurantism.

The one at that time could have some excuse.
But now there are no more possible excuses.

No dialogue is possible with those who do not have faith in the Truth.
Have a good time.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But there are other "religions" that actively contributed to the rise of science. Monotheism was key to the rise of science, because it gave scientists a reason to suppose that such a thing as "scientific laws" would exist, even before they found them, because of their expectation that a rational Creator would organize creation rationally. And the fact that the Biblical text invites scientific inquiry was very useful in incentivizing that sort of search.

I agree "a rational Creator would organize creation rationally". This is the basis of faith in the existence of God the Creator. However each god or goddess of polytheism is a personification of an aspect of orderly creation and the entire pantheon represents cosmic and ontic orderliness same as as monotheists' god.

What you choose to not mention, Immanuel, is that you also believe the Christian God to be a Person Who experiences wants and desires like the persons we know in the world. Simple -minded polytheists too , mistake personifications for persons.

Immanuel Can never mentions and perhaps does not understand Trinitarianism which besides being incorporated in nearly all Xian doctrines is a very clever way to avoid the error of mistaking personifications for persons. Jesus Christ who is part of the Trinity is an actual person and is also in necessary relationship with the Pancreator.

Let's remember also that Islam includes that Allah is inscrutable, and attempts to describe Allah are idolatrous. Moslems could and can worship Allah by means of getting to know Allah's creation. From this faith stance Islamic scientists legitimised their scientific work which as Immanuel knows was more advanced than that of Christians of the same historical period. If medieval Xians had paid more attention to Aristotle and less to Plato they may have been up to the scientific strength of medieval Moslems.

[Immanuel Can]

Faith in the Truth obliges you to constantly search for the truth.

This means being willing to suffer.

And we suffer, for example, when we realize that we have affirmed a falsehood.
Maybe even sensing that it was a falsehood...

What do you want me to say about this?

That Christianity has favored the development of science is an absurdity.

No, it's a fact. And anybody who knows the history knows it, too.

In fact, Francis Bacon, who invented the Scientific Method itself was a devout Christian theologian. Most of the scientists in history, in fact, prior to the 20th Century, were Christians and Jews. And any history book will tell you that. Check it out.

How Galileo was treated.

Myth.

You need to read the actual history of that event, instead of the Atheist retelling, which is minus all the important facts. I'm sure the Atheists have told you all sorts of rubbish about that. Ironically, they're very addicted to their own secular myth-making.

Galileo's chief opponents, in fact, were the Aristotelian scientific community. The Catholic hierarchy's interest in the controversy -- and in fact, their knowledge of it at all, was minimal until they jumped in. Galileo himself was a provocateur about it, and pushed the limits of good sense and being politic, refusing even to allow the Catholics time to consider his proposals through their normal mechanisms. He was like that. Galileo was not mistreated, even though the Aristotelians succeeded in getting the Catholics to silence him. And there's no evidence that many of the particulars in the Atheist retelling of the story ever happened, in fact.

But I'm not a Catholic, and have no particular interest in defending them at all. So you should find out the truth for yourself, independent of me. Let me recommend to your attention this book. There are tons more like it, too. https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Myths-Chr ... 083082281X.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree "a rational Creator would organize creation rationally". This is the basis of faith in the existence of God the Creator. However each god or goddess of polytheism is a personification of an aspect of orderly creation and the entire pantheon represents cosmic and ontic orderliness same as as monotheists' god.

You'll find that's not the case. In fact, the polytheistic gods "organize" reality not into one coherent whole governed by laws, but rather into a chaotic arrangment of their own idiosyncracies.

You see this very clearly in old polytheistic writings like, for example, The Odyssey. Odysseus is beloved by Athena, hated by Poseidon, and Zeus is indifferent to him. He is cast adrift amid the warring and bickering of this soap-opera of "gods," each one alternately trying to help him, kill him, or ignore him, as their relative moods strike them.

This paints a very different sort of universe. It's one in which there is no reason to expect any certainties at all. As Socrates noted, what one Greek god loved, another hated. What one did, another tried to undo. For the Greeks, their pantheon as a cacophony of clashing cosmic wills, ungoverned by any general principles at all, and, as Socrates also noted, a landscape in which it was impossible to say for sure what "the (greatest moral) Good" would ever turn out to be.

As Whitehead noted, such a worldview is antithetical to any conception basic to science. Instead, survival depends on the sagacity of priests and witch-doctors to tell people things they could never, on their own, have deduced. For there are no regularities in the polytheistic gods...they lie, squabble, cheat, sleep with mortals, kill on a whim, and legendarily have both an origin and an expiry date. They are not the Supreme Being, but a bunch of superhuman contingent ones.

That's what the Greeks firmly believed. And if you know Greek mythology, you know that's true.

What you choose to not mention, Immanuel, is that you also believe the Christian God to be a Person Who experiences wants and desires like the persons we know in the world.

I don't "choose not to mention" that, B. It's simply false. God, conceived in the Judeo-Christian way, is not idiosycrnatic, and is not blown about by wants and desires. He is absolutely true to His own basic nature. He is absolutely morally consistent and stable in regard to His character and wishes. The whole Bible is very, very explicit about that.

So that's why I don't "mention" it: why would I lie, or even think that?

So you've just got that dead wrong. Sorry.

[Harbal]

God, conceived in the Judeo-Christian way, is not idiosycrnatic, and is not blown about by wants and desires. He is absolutely true to His own basic nature. He is absolutely morally consistent and stable in regard to His character and wishes. The whole Bible is very, very explicit about that.

The Bible is bound to be biased though, isn't it. Even if our belief in God's existence is firm, we can never be sure the Bible gives us a true impression of him, can we? If the Bible is purely the work of men, we cannot know their reliability. If it is the word of God himself, dictated to men, well he is not going to admit to his shortomings, is he?

[Belinda]

Age asked me:

If the so-called 'philosophical and theological definition of Free Will' is, supposedly, 'stronger' than "ability to choose", then what does this actually mean, or refer to, EXACTLY? How, EXACTLY, can one definition be 'stronger' than another definition?

If you believe you have free will in the philosophical sense then you believe you originate your choices. To originate means to be the only source or cause of existence.

People who do not believe in philosophical free will are called determinists. Determinists believe there are causes for all a man's choices and feelings.

[Belinda]

I agree "a rational Creator would organize creation rationally". This is the basis of faith in the existence of God the Creator. However each god or goddess of polytheism is a personification of an aspect of orderly creation and the entire pantheon represents cosmic and ontic orderliness same as as monotheists' god.

You'll find that's not the case. In fact, the polytheistic gods "organize" reality not into one coherent whole governed by laws, but rather into a chaotic arrangment of their own idiosyncracies.

You see this very clearly in old polytheistic writings like, for example, The Odyssey. Odysseus is beloved by Athena, hated by Poseidon, and Zeus is indifferent to him. He is cast adrift amid the warring and bickering of this soap-opera of "gods," each one alternately trying to help him, kill him, or ignore him, as their relative moods strike them.

This paints a very different sort of universe. It's one in which there is no reason to expect any certainties at all. As Socrates noted, what one Greek god loved, another hated. What one did, another tried to undo. For the Greeks, their pantheon as a cacophony of clashing cosmic wills, ungoverned by any general principles at all, and, as Socrates also noted, a landscape in which it was impossible to say for sure what "the (greatest moral) Good" would ever turn out to be.

As Whitehead noted, such a worldview is antithetical to any conception basic to science. Instead, survival depends on the sagacity of priests and witch-doctors to tell people things they could never, on their own, have deduced. For there are no regularities in the polytheistic gods...they lie, squabble, cheat, sleep with mortals, kill on a whim, and legendarily have both an origin and an expiry date. They are not the Supreme Being, but a bunch of superhuman contingent ones.

That's what the Greeks firmly believed. And if you know Greek mythology, you know that's true.

What you choose to not mention, Immanuel, is that you also believe the Christian God to be a Person Who experiences wants and desires like the persons we know in the world.

I don't "choose not to mention" that, B. It's simply false. God, conceived in the Judeo-Christian way, is not idiosycrnatic, and is not blown about by wants and desires. He is absolutely true to His own basic nature. He is absolutely morally consistent and stable in regard to His character and wishes. The whole Bible is very, very explicit about that.

So that's why I don't "mention" it: why would I lie, or even think that?

So you've just got that dead wrong. Sorry.

Your explanation of polytheism is better than mine so I accept yours.

I don't intend or want to misrepresent you and am sorry if I have done so. However as to whether or not God is a person ,according to The Bible or Trinitarian doctrine, I take issue.

"The Lord your God is a jealous God"

"The first person of the Trinity".

"God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son."

_________________________

Impersonal forces don't feel jealous : persons do.

As soon as you see God in His aspect of three persons you cease to see Him as the unique and self -existant impersonal force.

This would indeed be an enormous sacrifice if God had feelings like a person has feelings.

[Immanuel Can]

God, conceived in the Judeo-Christian way, is not idiosycrnatic, and is not blown about by wants and desires. He is absolutely true to His own basic nature. He is absolutely morally consistent and stable in regard to His character and wishes. The whole Bible is very, very explicit about that.

The Bible is bound to be biased though, isn't it. Even if our belief in God's existence is firm, we can never be sure the Bible gives us a true impression of him, can we? If the Bible is purely the work of men, we cannot know their reliability. If it is the word of God himself, dictated to men, well he is not going to admit to his shortomings, is he?

The Supreme Being "admit" shortcomings he can't, by definition, possibly have?

That would seem rather unlikely. More important is the question, "Do we have any 'word from God,' or do we only have various words from men?"

If it's the latter, then you're right; everybody would be equally clueless as to what the truth about God would be. But if it's the former, then the situation is quite different. The God who invented the very possibility of communication itself would hardly be expected to be having difficulties making Himself understood.

[Immanuel Can]

However as to whether or not God is a person ,according to The Bible or Trinitarian doctrine, I take issue.

Well, who would one think invented "personhood"?

If "personhood" itself is a gift of God, one would hardly expect the Supreme Being to lack that feature.

"The Lord your God is a jealous God"

"Jealousy" is contextual, of course. There are things about which one should have no zeal at all (an alternate translation of "jealousy"), and situations about which one always ought to have the strongest sort of reaction. The rightness of such zeal, or "jealousy" depends on the circumstances.

If somebody tries to steal your spouse, and you are not at all jealous about that, I would suspect that maybe you didn't have the love for your spouse that you say you do.

Likewise, as God is the ultimate good of all human existence, one would think something was quite wrong with Him if He had no strong opinion about which "god" you ended up with. It would imply that it really didn't matter, and God really didn't care what you did, or where you ended up.

"The first person of the Trinity". As soon as you see God in His aspect of three persons you cease to see Him as the unique and self -existant impersonal force.

Actually, that's only half right.

One ceases to see Him as "impersonal," it's true. But one has to realize that Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." And, of course, the Supreme Being is always, by definition, "unique."

"God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son."

Yep.

This would indeed be an enormous sacrifice if God had feelings like a person has feelings.

Yes. And it would be a cosmic-scale proof of sincere good intentions toward humankind.

No wonder, then that the angels at the annunciation are reported to have declared, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." It would be the ultimate evidence of His goodwill, to send His son to deal with our sin and make our "peace" with God. No one, after that, could possibly declare God indifferent to our sufferings and struggles, or unwilling to grapple with our situation.

It would mean that God Himself was taking hold of the human dilemma.

[Harbal]

The Supreme Being "admit" shortcomings he can't, by definition, possibly have?

But this is my point. How could anyone be sure that the definition is accurate?

I can understand how someone could look at the world and conclude that it could not have possibly come about other than by intelligent design, and then go on to further conclude that it must be the work of God. An argument could be made for that. But the Bible, or any other religious text, is just something that was produced by men. There is absolutely nothing by which to judge how seriously to take it. There is nothing intrinsic in the concept of a god that insists on his being all pwerful and all knowing. It's just that if you are inventing him from scratch, what the hell, let's make him ultimate in every respect.