How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Dontaskme]

I understand your stance on good and evil as polar opposites. Would a good God see good and evil as polar opposites, or would a good God see evil as relative distance from good?

A good God just likes good and dislikes evil.

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

Nothing is either good nor bad without a sentient feeling creature to know and say to itself it is feeling bad, or that it is feeling good.

The fact that people can be aware they are feeling bad or good is bad never good.

The default position would always be unawareness….the state prior to knowing and feeling….in that prior state, nothing is good or bad….so that ends the idea of a good god for sure. And so the stateless state prior to any state is the only true state of nature.

[Immanuel Can]

You are kidding. Don't you?


By alone I mean that there was only God and nothing else.

When you say, "There was..." which "there" are you speaking of, when there was no "there" there?

I think I was clear enough. There was only God before the act of creation. That is the very meaning of creation out of nothing: It was nothing but God then God created everything.

Then there was no "there" (i.e place) for God to be "in" before creation.

Get it yet? God's the transcendent Being, not a sub-universal one.

This is totally misunderstanding of mind. Mind experiences what the other minds produce.

So now you don't believe the external world has anything to do with the production of "qualia"?

The external reality is nothing more than minds and qualia.

No, that's evidently not so.

One definition of reality might be "that thing that pushes back against my wishes, imaginings, delusions, etc."

We are minds embedded in qualia.

We are also bodies embedded in a universe. We can't forget either side of that.

The body is nothing but minds and qualia.

Ummmm...nope. Sorry. Not buying that.

That's the Gnostic error. It causes more bad questions than it answers.

So you agree that mind causes thought?

No; as I said above, I don't. I believe mind generates its pictures or "qualia" as a product of external stimuli.

So your thoughts are not yours.

They are a synthesis between what I experience from the outside world, and what I decide inwardly. They are not an either-or.

Of course, mind needs input.

From where does it get that "input," if not from the external reality?

If by external reality you mean other minds and qualia then yes.

No. I mean that when a Buick runs you over, the pain you sense in your head is coming from the fact that your pelvis has just been crushed by a real Buick.

How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

"Moral" means that which is consonant with the character and wishes of God. There is no other coherent meaning.

No. That really does not follow.

Yeah, it does.

First, prove that your God is the true one.

Yes, that will be necessary. If you believe in a different "god," you will likely have a very different morality, at least in particular ways.

Then provide moral fact which is more than what God wishes,

No such thing exists. (Assuming, of course, that you're still including God's character in that "wishes".)

God wishes different things.

No, He doesn't.

The many polytheistic "gods" wish different things. God Himself only ever wishes what is in accord with His character.

That's one of the perks of being omnipotent.

God cannot create something which is objectively true,

That's pretty obviously false.

If He created the universe, everything He creates is objectively true.

No, neutral and evil have meaning in a universe without God.

They don't, actually.

They do.

They don't. You have nowhere from which to get criteria for either one.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I mean that when a Buick runs you over, the pain you sense in your head is coming from the fact that your pelvis has just been crushed by a real Buick.

Medicine is practised on that assumption except in special cases of delusion such as false pregnancies and false labour pains. We are not here to practice medicine or common sense. We are here to be sceptical about the causes and existence of every phenomenon.

[bahman]

When you say, "There was..." which "there" are you speaking of, when there was no "there" there?

I think I was clear enough. There was only God before the act of creation. That is the very meaning of creation out of nothing: It was nothing but God then God created everything.

Then there was no "there" (i.e place) for God to be "in" before creation.

Get it yet? God's the transcendent Being, not a sub-universal one.

First, you need a proof that your God is transcendent. Second, I am not talking from God's perspective. Get it?

So now you don't believe the external world has anything to do with the production of "qualia"?

The external reality is nothing more than minds and qualia.

No, that's evidently not so.

One definition of reality might be "that thing that pushes back against my wishes, imaginings, delusions, etc."

Where did you take that definition from? Reality is simply whatever that exists.

We are also bodies embedded in a universe. We can't forget either side of that.

The body is nothing but minds and qualia.

Ummmm...nope. Sorry. Not buying that.

That's the Gnostic error. It causes more bad questions than it answers.

So, perhaps you can answer what is matter/body?

No; as I said above, I don't. I believe mind generates its pictures or "qualia" as a product of external stimuli.

So your thoughts are not yours.

They are a synthesis between what I experience from the outside world, and what I decide inwardly. They are not an either-or.

That is not a proper answer to my comment. Again, is your thought yours?

From where does it get that "input," if not from the external reality?

If by external reality you mean other minds and qualia then yes.

No. I mean that when a Buick runs you over, the pain you sense in your head is coming from the fact that your pelvis has just been crushed by a real Buick.

The sensation is nothing but what you perceive. It is caused by other minds. It is quale.

"Moral" means that which is consonant with the character and wishes of God. There is no other coherent meaning.

No. That really does not follow.

Yeah, it does.

It does not follow but I buy it for sake of argument. Please prove that your God is good, He is not neutral or evil.

First, prove that your God is the true one.

Yes, that will be necessary. If you believe in a different "god," you will likely have a very different morality, at least in particular ways.

Then provide moral fact which is more than what God wishes,

No such thing exists. (Assuming, of course, that you're still including God's character in that "wishes".)

So, you confirm that there is no moral fact. If there is no moral fact then morality according to you depends on His/Her character so the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on whether God is good, neutral, or evil. Moreover, as we agreed there is no such thing as a moral fact so no one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an action.

God wishes different things.

No, He doesn't.

I said different God wishes different things. So you need to prove that the real God is good.

The many polytheistic "gods" wish different things. God Himself only ever wishes what is in accord with His character.

That's one of the perks of being omnipotent.

Then prove that your God is good.

God cannot create something which is objectively true,

That's pretty obviously false.

If He created the universe, everything He creates is objectively true.

So apparently you don't know what objective truth is, for example, knowledge.

They don't, actually.

They do.

They don't. You have nowhere from which to get criteria for either one.

Again, the meaning of good, neutral, or evil is part of knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

I think I was clear enough. There was only God before the act of creation. That is the very meaning of creation out of nothing: It was nothing but God then God created everything.

Then there was no "there" (i.e place) for God to be "in" before creation.

Get it yet? God's the transcendent Being, not a sub-universal one.

First, you need a proof that your God is transcendent.

Well, for one thing, right off the top, any entity that is not transcendent is not the Supreme Being, and not the First Cause of anything.

The external reality is nothing more than minds and qualia.

No, that's evidently not so.

One definition of reality might be "that thing that pushes back against my wishes, imaginings, delusions, etc."

Where did you take that definition from? Reality is simply whatever that exists.

Well, there's something "out there" that is resisting your mind. You know it, and I know it.

Right now, the thing that's resisting the wishes of your mind is me. But if it's not me, it's something else, like gravity or entropy. You are not able to reshape things using your mind. Jump off a high tower, and you'll die...whether or not you want to, and whether or not you believe you will.

The body is nothing but minds and qualia.

Ummmm...nope. Sorry. Not buying that.

That's the Gnostic error. It causes more bad questions than it answers.

So, perhaps you can answer what is matter/body?

Well, there's clearly a world "out there," from which you are drawing your qualia. Right now, you are thinking that you are reading and typing at a thing called a "computer." You didn't invent your apprehension of "body," and you didn't create the computer. Both have been imposed on your mental qualia in some way.

So if there's no real external world, just how did that happen to you?

So your thoughts are not yours.

They are a synthesis between what I experience from the outside world, and what I decide inwardly. They are not an either-or.

That is not a proper answer to my comment.

It's the truth. Sorry you don't like it.

If by external reality you mean other minds and qualia then yes.

No. I mean that when a Buick runs you over, the pain you sense in your head is coming from the fact that your pelvis has just been crushed by a real Buick.

The sensation is nothing but what you perceive.

No, it' is caused by the Buick. The real Buick.

And if there weren't a real Buick, you would not feel the qualia of your crushed pelvis at all.

Please prove that your God is good, He is not neutral or evil.

Give me your criteria for "neutral" and "evil."

Then provide moral fact which is more than what God wishes,

No such thing exists. (Assuming, of course, that you're still including God's character in that "wishes".)

So, you confirm that there is no moral fact.[/quote]
No, I confirm that there is no moral fact that is not identical to the character and wishes of God.

What you're asking is like saying, "If he were a male, he would not be a husband," or "If she were a female, she could not possibly also be a daughter." It's making an either-or out of a both-and.

God wishes different things.

No, He doesn't.

I said different God wishes different things.

Define what you mean by "different." You can't mean "contradictory" or "conflicting," or you're simply wrong. So what are you trying to convey by your use of the word "different"? "Different" from what?

[Belinda]

A good God just likes good and dislikes evil.

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

So God is not a being?

No, God is not a being. God is being itself. One aspect of being itself is the myriad of beings in the relative world, however God transcends the myriad of separate beings.

[Dontaskme]

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

So God is not a being?

No, God is not a being. God is being itself. One aspect of being itself is the myriad of beings in the relative world, however God transcends the myriad of separate beings.

You cannot even say God is being without including yourself as the knower of that knowledge- - therefore making out that you are God.

Truth is, everything known is purely a concept known by that which cannot be known, because that which can be known as a concept can know nothing of it’s conception.


Known realities are like fairy stories, they are imaginative made of nothingness…appearing as something….at the end of the day, it’s all mysterious magic.


Knowledge only showed up when there was a conscious observer to witness and know it…that consciousness is YOU

.

[Belinda]

So God is not a being?

No, God is not a being. God is being itself. One aspect of being itself is the myriad of beings in the relative world, however God transcends the myriad of separate beings.

You cannot even say God is being without including yourself as the knower of that knowledge- - therefore making out that you are God.

Truth is, everything known is purely a concept known by that which cannot be known, because that which can be known as a concept can know nothing of it’s conception.


Known realities are like fairy stories, they are imaginative made of nothingness…appearing as something….at the end of the day, it’s all mysterious magic.


Knowledge only showed up when there was a conscious observer to witness and know it…that consciousness is YOU

.

I don't claim to be God, or to put it another way, I claim God exists independently of my experiences. I also claim God exists independently of the experiences of man and beast.

[Dontaskme]

No, God is not a being. God is being itself. One aspect of being itself is the myriad of beings in the relative world, however God transcends the myriad of separate beings.

You cannot even say God is being without including yourself as the knower of that knowledge- - therefore making out that you are God.

Truth is, everything known is purely a concept known by that which cannot be known, because that which can be known as a concept can know nothing of it’s conception.


Known realities are like fairy stories, they are imaginative made of nothingness…appearing as something….at the end of the day, it’s all mysterious magic.


Knowledge only showed up when there was a conscious observer to witness and know it…that consciousness is YOU

.

I don't claim to be God, or to put it another way, I claim God exists independently of my experiences. I also claim God exists independently of the experiences of man and beast.

you misinterpret what I’ve said.

You can only claim your own experiences. There is nothing outside of your own experiencing that you can claim to know.
If you claim to know there is a God, then that knowledge can only be your own knowledge. There’s nothing beyond this immediate knowing.

You cannot make the knower of knowledge into an object known.

[bahman]

Then there was no "there" (i.e place) for God to be "in" before creation.

Get it yet? God's the transcendent Being, not a sub-universal one.

First, you need a proof that your God is transcendent.

Well, for one thing, right off the top, any entity that is not transcendent is not the Supreme Being, and not the First Cause of anything.

Ok, but my argument was not directly against the existence of God. It was about the impossibility of the act of creation.

No, that's evidently not so.

One definition of reality might be "that thing that pushes back against my wishes, imaginings, delusions, etc."

Where did you take that definition from? Reality is simply whatever that exists.

Well, there's something "out there" that is resisting your mind. You know it, and I know it.

Right now, the thing that's resisting the wishes of your mind is me. But if it's not me, it's something else, like gravity or entropy. You are not able to reshape things using your mind. Jump off a high tower, and you'll die...whether or not you want to, and whether or not you believe you will.

That is one of the many features of reality.

Ummmm...nope. Sorry. Not buying that.

That's the Gnostic error. It causes more bad questions than it answers.

So, perhaps you can answer what is matter/body?

Well, there's clearly a world "out there," from which you are drawing your qualia. Right now, you are thinking that you are reading and typing at a thing called a "computer." You didn't invent your apprehension of "body," and you didn't create the computer. Both have been imposed on your mental qualia in some way.

So if there's no real external world, just how did that happen to you?

My body or my computer are objects. Assuming that they are real, they must be minds that are connected by qualia.

They are a synthesis between what I experience from the outside world, and what I decide inwardly. They are not an either-or.

That is not a proper answer to my comment.

It's the truth. Sorry you don't like it.

Not anything true is an answer to a question. So again, is your thought yours?

Please prove that your God is good, He is not neutral or evil.

Give me your criteria for "neutral" and "evil."

What do you mean? I asked for a proof that God is good.

No such thing exists. (Assuming, of course, that you're still including God's character in that "wishes".)

So, you confirm that there is no moral fact.

No, I confirm that there is no moral fact that is not identical to the character and wishes of God.

What you're asking is like saying, "If he were a male, he would not be a husband," or "If she were a female, she could not possibly also be a daughter." It's making an either-or out of a both-and.

No, I am asking for a moral fact that is obviously not identical to the character of God. Let's wait for your proof that God is good.

No, He doesn't.

I said different God wishes different things.

Define what you mean by "different." You can't mean "contradictory" or "conflicting," or you're simply wrong. So what are you trying to convey by your use of the word "different"? "Different" from what?

By different I mean, not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality. Like neutral and evil God.

[bahman]

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

So God is not a being?

No, God is not a being. God is being itself. One aspect of being itself is the myriad of beings in the relative world, however God transcends the myriad of separate beings.

Any being is being itself.

[Immanuel Can]

First, you need a proof that your God is transcendent.

Well, for one thing, right off the top, any entity that is not transcendent is not the Supreme Being, and not the First Cause of anything.

Ok, but my argument was not directly against the existence of God.

Nor was my reply about the existence of God. It was about the impossibility of any part of creation being mistaken for "god."

Where did you take that definition from? Reality is simply whatever that exists.

Well, there's something "out there" that is resisting your mind. You know it, and I know it.

Right now, the thing that's resisting the wishes of your mind is me. But if it's not me, it's something else, like gravity or entropy. You are not able to reshape things using your mind. Jump off a high tower, and you'll die...whether or not you want to, and whether or not you believe you will.

That is one of the many features of reality.

Right. And they all resist what you and I would simply wish, or would want them to be, if we could shape them with out minds.

That fact is recognized even in Hinduism and Buddhism, which are two of the most famously world-denying Gnostic sects. The whole reason for the realm of "samsara" is to explain why the world isn't what we would wish it to be, and why this "reality" thing pushes back so hard against our mental impressions of it.

So, perhaps you can answer what is matter/body?

Well, there's clearly a world "out there," from which you are drawing your qualia. Right now, you are thinking that you are reading and typing at a thing called a "computer." You didn't invent your apprehension of "body," and you didn't create the computer. Both have been imposed on your mental qualia in some way.

So if there's no real external world, just how did that happen to you?

My body or my computer are objects. Assuming that they are real, they must be minds that are connected by qualia.

But your body is clearly not your mind. And your computer is not your mind. And I, writing back to you and resisting your views, am not your mind. So you will need some reasonable explanation why and how such things exist, and why they refuse to conform to your mind.

Even the Hindus and Buddhists know they need such an explanation. How come you don't?

...is your thought yours?

You must mean something odd by this question. I don't know what it is. I thought I answered it.

"Yours"? In what sense? You mean is it an impression in me, made by the world? Or do you mean, do I generate it spontaneously and without cause?

Maybe you can put it more clearly for me.

Please prove that your God is good, He is not neutral or evil.

Give me your criteria for "neutral" and "evil."

What do you mean? I asked for a proof that God is good.

Then give me your criteria for "good."

So, you confirm that there is no moral fact.

No, I confirm that there is no moral fact that is not identical to the character and wishes of God.

What you're asking is like saying, "If he were a male, he would not be a husband," or "If she were a female, she could not possibly also be a daughter." It's making an either-or out of a both-and.

No, I am asking for a moral fact that is obviously not identical to the character of God.

Then you are asking for a "square circle" or a "married bachelor." No such things exist.

I said different God wishes different things.

Define what you mean by "different." You can't mean "contradictory" or "conflicting," or you're simply wrong. So what are you trying to convey by your use of the word "different"? "Different" from what?

By different I mean, not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality. Like neutral and evil God.

I know what the word "different" means, but it means different things in different contexts.

I want to know what you mean when you use the word there. Are you trying to say you think God says things that are "contradictory" (one use of the word "different") or "things that are compatible but pertain to varied situations" (another usage of "different")?

If you mean that God has moral wishes regarding things that are not the same, like His antipathy to both murder and lying, (one kind of "different") then you are right: God has morally right wishes about "different" issues. But if you mean that God both loves lying and hates lying (another use of "different"), then that's wrong; God is morally consistent and does not lie.

So clarify your usage there, please.

[bahman]

Well, for one thing, right off the top, any entity that is not transcendent is not the Supreme Being, and not the First Cause of anything.

Ok, but my argument was not directly against the existence of God.

Nor was my reply about the existence of God.

No. If it was so then how did we reach to this point that God is transcendent? Again, the act of creation is logically impossible.

It was about the impossibility of any part of creation being mistaken for "god."

What do you mean?

Well, there's something "out there" that is resisting your mind. You know it, and I know it.

Right now, the thing that's resisting the wishes of your mind is me. But if it's not me, it's something else, like gravity or entropy. You are not able to reshape things using your mind. Jump off a high tower, and you'll die...whether or not you want to, and whether or not you believe you will.

That is one of the many features of reality.

Right. And they all resist what you and I would simply wish, or would want them to be, if we could shape them with out minds.

That fact is recognized even in Hinduism and Buddhism, which are two of the most famously world-denying Gnostic sects. The whole reason for the realm of "samsara" is to explain why the world isn't what we would wish it to be, and why this "reality" thing pushes back so hard against our mental impressions of it.

Ok, I am not going to discuss Hindusim and Buddhism with you (off-topic). They were right on many things and right on many things.

Well, there's clearly a world "out there," from which you are drawing your qualia. Right now, you are thinking that you are reading and typing at a thing called a "computer." You didn't invent your apprehension of "body," and you didn't create the computer. Both have been imposed on your mental qualia in some way.

So if there's no real external world, just how did that happen to you?

My body or my computer are objects. Assuming that they are real, they must be minds that are connected by qualia.

But your body is clearly not your mind. And your computer is not your mind. And I, writing back to you and resisting your views, am not your mind. So you will need some reasonable explanation why and how such things exist, and why they refuse to conform to your mind.

Even the Hindus and Buddhists know they need such an explanation. How come you don't?

Ok, let me tell you how perception works: Light which is nothing more than qualia is reflected from an apple and hit the retina of your eyes. The light is absorbed by a mind. The mind then creates other qualia. There is a chain of experience and creation of qualia from your eyes to the brain, where your subconscious minds are. They then experience qualia and create what the conscious mind experience, namely the image of the apple.

...is your thought yours?

You must mean something odd by this question. I don't know what it is. I thought I answered it.

"Yours"? In what sense? You mean is it an impression in me, made by the world? Or do you mean, do I generate it spontaneously and without cause?

Maybe you can put it more clearly for me.

I mean, what causes your thought if it is not your mind.

Give me your criteria for "neutral" and "evil."

What do you mean? I asked for a proof that God is good.

Then give me your criteria for "good."

Are you looking for a definition of good? I have my own definition: The state of pleasure and clarity for example. What is your definition of good and what is your proof for God is good?

No, I confirm that there is no moral fact that is not identical to the character and wishes of God.

What you're asking is like saying, "If he were a male, he would not be a husband," or "If she were a female, she could not possibly also be a daughter." It's making an either-or out of a both-and.

No, I am asking for a moral fact that is obviously not identical to the character of God.

Then you are asking for a "square circle" or a "married bachelor." No such things exist.

Then I am done with you here. If there is no moral fact then one cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Define what you mean by "different." You can't mean "contradictory" or "conflicting," or you're simply wrong. So what are you trying to convey by your use of the word "different"? "Different" from what?

By different I mean, not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality. Like neutral and evil God.

I know what the word "different" means, but it means different things in different contexts.

I want to know what you mean when you use the word there. Are you trying to say you think God says things that are "contradictory" (one use of the word "different") or "things that are compatible but pertain to varied situations" (another usage of "different")?

If you mean that God has moral wishes regarding things that are not the same, like His antipathy to both murder and lying, (one kind of "different") then you are right: God has morally right wishes about "different" issues. But if you mean that God both loves lying and hates lying (another use of "different"), then that's wrong; God is morally consistent and does not lie.

So clarify your usage there, please.

I mean, the evil God has a different character and wishes than the good God.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, but my argument was not directly against the existence of God.

Nor was my reply about the existence of God.

No. If it was so then how did we reach to this point that God is transcendent?

There is no other legitimate meaning of the word "God." You could say "god," instead, meaning Zeus, Thor, Baal, etc. Those are not capital-G "Gods," though, because they're said to be powerful, but not unlimited, not transcendent, and not even eternal.

So if there is a "God," then by definition, He's transcendent. Nothing else IS "God."

Again, the act of creation is logically impossible.

Again, don't be silly.

It was about the impossibility of any part of creation being mistaken for "god."

What do you mean?

I mean that "God" is not perishable things.

That is one of the many features of reality.

Right. And they all resist what you and I would simply wish, or would want them to be, if we could shape them with [our] minds.

That fact is recognized even in Hinduism and Buddhism, which are two of the most famously world-denying Gnostic sects. The whole reason for the realm of "samsara" is to explain why the world isn't what we would wish it to be, and why this "reality" thing pushes back so hard against our mental impressions of it.

Ok, I am not going to discuss Hindusim and Buddhism with you (off-topic).

You should.

They clearly saw the problem that you don't see. They could give you a clue as to what you're missing from your thinking on that.

Ok, let me tell you how perception works: Light which is nothing more than qualia is reflected from an apple and hit the retina of your eyes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know all that.

The light is absorbed by a mind.

And?

The mind then creates other qualia.

No, the mind interprets the stimuli, translating them into qualia. You've missed a step there.

I mean, what causes your thought if it is not your mind.

I've said this very clearly. And I was right: I did answer your question.

The mind receives stimuli from the external world, and interprets them, translating them into qualia. That does not even remotely suggest that the mind creates the images ex nihilo, or at whim.

You might better say, "Your mind is caused (by external stimuli) to experience particular sensations and interpret them as perceptions." That's more accurate.

What do you mean? I asked for a proof that God is good.

Then give me your criteria for "good."

Are you looking for a definition of good?

No. I'm looking for what set of values, criteria, or standards of grading you are referring to when you label something "good." What makes a thing objectively "good"?

No, I am asking for a moral fact that is obviously not identical to the character of God.

Then you are asking for a "square circle" or a "married bachelor." No such things exist.

Then I am done with you here. If there is no moral fact

There is. You just don't like what actually grounds the moral facts, I guess.

I mean, the evil God has a different character and wishes than the good God.

Oh. You believe in some sort of Taoism, or some such dualistic view. I see.

No, God is only one, in the Judeo-Christian traditions. There is no "evil" or "neutral" God. So the question doesn't even make sense in that framework, and that's why I can't answer you.

I don't accept your premise that there are two Gods, one good and one evil. So you might as well ask me to explain how many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin. It's a fictitious scenario.

[bahman]

Nor was my reply about the existence of God.

No. If it was so then how did we reach to this point that God is transcendent?

There is no other legitimate meaning of the word "God." You could say "god," instead, meaning Zeus, Thor, Baal, etc. Those are not capital-G "Gods," though, because they're said to be powerful, but not unlimited, not transcendent, and not even eternal.

So if there is a "God," then by definition, He's transcendent. Nothing else IS "God."

Yes, a transcendent, unlimited, eternal God, who could not perform the act of creation since He is dealing with the regress in creation of time.

Again, the act of creation is logically impossible.

Again, don't be silly.

Well, if you want to evade my argument by insulting then that is alright to me. I am not going to discuss it with you anymore!

It was about the impossibility of any part of creation being mistaken for "god."

What do you mean?

I mean that "God" is not perishable things.

That is in fact the property of mind.

Right. And they all resist what you and I would simply wish, or would want them to be, if we could shape them with [our] minds.

That fact is recognized even in Hinduism and Buddhism, which are two of the most famously world-denying Gnostic sects. The whole reason for the realm of "samsara" is to explain why the world isn't what we would wish it to be, and why this "reality" thing pushes back so hard against our mental impressions of it.

Ok, I am not going to discuss Hindusim and Buddhism with you (off-topic).

You should.

They clearly saw the problem that you don't see. They could give you a clue as to what you're missing from your thinking on that.

Ok. What do you want to discuss?

Ok, let me tell you how perception works: Light which is nothing more than qualia is reflected from an apple and hit the retina of your eyes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know all that.

The light is absorbed by a mind.

And?

The mind then creates other qualia.

No, the mind interprets the stimuli, translating them into qualia. You've missed a step there.

No, mind does not interprets, instead, it does a process on the input depending on its all experiences.

I mean, what causes your thought if it is not your mind.

I've said this very clearly. And I was right: I did answer your question.

The mind receives stimuli from the external world, and interprets them, translating them into qualia. That does not even remotely suggest that the mind creates the images ex nihilo, or at whim.

You might better say, "Your mind is caused (by external stimuli) to experience particular sensations and interpret them as perceptions." That's more accurate.

Ok, we all know that mind needs input in order to think.

Then give me your criteria for "good."

Are you looking for a definition of good?

No. I'm looking for what set of values, criteria, or standards of grading you are referring to when you label something "good." What makes a thing objectively "good"?

I already defined what good means to me by giving you examples. What is the definition of good for you? Where is your proof that God is good?

Then you are asking for a "square circle" or a "married bachelor." No such things exist.

Then I am done with you here. If there is no moral fact

There is. You just don't like what actually grounds the moral facts, I guess.

Be my guest. I just cannot buy your world view.

I mean, the evil God has a different character and wishes than the good God.

Oh. You believe in some sort of Taoism, or some such dualistic view. I see.

No, God is only one, in the Judeo-Christian traditions. There is no "evil" or "neutral" God. So the question doesn't even make sense in that framework, and that's why I can't answer you.

I don't accept your premise that there are two Gods, one good and one evil. So you might as well ask me to explain how many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin. It's a fictitious scenario.

I didn't say that there are two Gods. I mean you take that God is good for granted without providing a justification for it while God could be neutral or evil.