Evolution, God made or an accident

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, if imperfect it could be an inferior, cheapskate God, worthless but not totally worthless in the eyes of the believers.
There are many gods in polytheism that are recognized as imperfect [with some worth]. In many cases, these inferior gods are ruled by an ultimate perfect God, e.g. Brahman in Hinduism.

A theist who claims his God is imperfect which will then be inferior to another theist who claim his God is absolutely perfect, i.e. "a being than which no greater can be conceived" giving him greater confidence and a sense of superiority.
In this sense a theist with a perfect God can pray to his God to summon the inferior God to kiss its ass or do other derogatory vulgar acts or even kill the inferior God.

Even after years of repetitions this is confused.
1) If the two groups were both monotheist, then the first group would think the second group was confused about the nature of God. If they weren't, well, a similar reaction would be in place.
2) Of course people can, and they do, say anything about each other's deities. The fact that someone could say something about one's deity, doesn't demonstrate anything.
3) You are writing as if both groups grant the existence and description of the other group's deity.
Team A member 1: We believe in God but not an absolutely perfect one.
Team B: We believe in an absolutely perfect God so our God is better.
Team A: Oh, no, they can call our God inferior because their God is more powerful and perfect. [as if he or she believes in the other God also]
Team A member 2: Um, sure they can say anything, but we don't believe they are correct about the characteristics of God. In fact, they believe things about God that we think are impossible. Sure, they can make fun of us. But we can make fun of them for thinking logically impossible things. Or for believing a God that doesn't exist.
Team A member 1: Of course, I feel for their bullshit.
Team A member 2: Not only that, they are conflating what might, but doesn't actually, mean one would have to be dominated by another religious group WITH ontology. "Your God can't exist because we attribute more power/perfection/whatever to our God." Duh
Thus 4)
A possible inter-group, dominance-focused social behavior is being conflated with a demonstration in ontology.

I've pointed this out before and received again and again merely re-wordings of VA's original idea. He conflates, also, reasserting his position with responding to other people's posts and arguments, so I have little interest, now, in his response.

He does adjust his arguments over time in response to other people, but admits little and some core arguments live on, despite their obvious flaws.

His arguement makes as much sense as if someone said VA's idealism can't be true because people can just say________________________.

Yup, people can say things.

[Age]

Yes. But that does not mean that an imperfect God cannot exist.

An imperfect God can exist, but how valuable would that be?

Whatever exists as real by default, is true, factual and objective is conditioned upon a specific human based [intersubjective] FSK [model] of which the scientific FSK is the most real and objective.

As such, the claim God exists as real must be verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK, which mean bringing forth the evidences to be verified and justified by Science.

This has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Generally God is claimed to exists based on faith [belief without any possibility of proof].
Thus it is impossible for God to exists as real, i.e. scientifically real.

BUT the ACTUAL REAL God, which does exist as REAL by the way, has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and thus has ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED , and JUSTIFIED, through and by 'science'.

It is just some of 'you' are NOT YET SAVVY TO this Fact

So, whether God [based on faith] is claimed to be perfect or imperfect, it cannot be real in the most real sense like scientific realities, e.g. the Sun exists as real at present.

How "veritas aequitas" 'TRIES TO' argue here is based solely on 'faith', which quite self-contradictory and/or very absurdly, ALSO is CLAIMING that what is based on 'faith' is just A BELIEF WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY POSSIBLITY OF PROOF.

Therefore, "veritas aequitas's" OWN BELIEF that God can NOT exist as real, has ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF AT ALL BEHIND 'IT'. Which MEANS, 'the claim God does NOT exist as real can NEVER be verifiable and justifiable within 'science',

When theists claimed their God is absolutely perfect which is the ultimate claim [especially the Abrahamic religions], that claim of absolute perfection evidently reinforces the impossibility for God to exists as real.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Besides, OF COURSE, because 'your' OWN BELIEF states otherwise?

[Age]

An imperfect doctor can exist, but how valuable would that be?
An imperfect antibiotic, boat, solar system, cook, job, water source, shelter, superpower, brain, body.........

That’s what I mean, bro.

I don't understand. No doctor is perfect, but I find occasional use for them. My brain isn't perfect but it's a marvel. And so on.
Superman isn't perfect - kryptonite - but hey if he was around I'd consider it pretty darn potentially useful.
A deity that made some mistakes but had made the universe and so no. Hey, could be pretty useful.

Things that aren't perfect can't be useful? Then there's no useful tool I've ever used.

But the 'Deity', which IS CREATING the Universe, did NOT make ANY MISTAKES.

[Age]

Whatever exists as real by default, is true, factual and objective is conditioned upon a specific human based [intersubjective] FSK [model] of which the scientific FSK is the most real and objective.

As such, the claim God exists as real must be verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK, which mean bringing forth the evidences to be verified and justified by Science.
Generally God is claimed to exists based on faith [belief without any possibility of proof].
Thus it is impossible for God to exists as real, i.e. scientifically real.

So, whether God [based on faith] is claimed to be perfect or imperfect, it cannot be real in the most real sense like scientific realities, e.g. the Sun exists as real at present.

When theists claimed their God is absolutely perfect which is the ultimate claim [especially the Abrahamic religions], that claim of absolute perfection evidently reinforces the impossibility for God to exists as real.

Well said.
And if there are any theists who accept an imperfect God by faith, they are worshiping a worthless God.

Yes, if imperfect it could be an inferior, cheapskate God, worthless but not totally worthless in the eyes of the believers.
There are many gods in polytheism that are recognized as imperfect [with some worth]. In many cases, these inferior gods are ruled by an ultimate perfect God, e.g. Brahman in Hinduism.

A theist who claims his God is imperfect which will then be inferior to another theist who claim his God is absolutely perfect, i.e. "a being than which no greater can be conceived" giving him greater confidence and a sense of superiority.
In this sense a theist with a perfect God can pray to his God to summon the inferior God to kiss its ass or do other derogatory vulgar acts or even kill the inferior God.

It is so rational and easy for any theists to claim the God is absolutely perfect so no other God can dominate their absolutely perfect God, there is nothing to stop him for doing so.
And this is why the majority of theists claim their God is absolutely perfect or omni-perfect.
This is in line with the one-up instinct that is so common in children's playground and with many adults as well.

Is 'this' in line with the so-called 'one-up instinct', which can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN, FROM WITHIN the human being known here as "veritas aequitas"?

Or, is 'your' 'one-up instinct' "veritas aequitas" DIFFERENT in SOME WAY?

[commonsense]

Well said.

And if there are any theists who accept an imperfect God by faith, they are worshiping a worthless God.

So, imperfect = worthless.
What do you find of value in your life?
Any people?
Any things?
Any education?
Any relationship?
Any place?

A better choice of words on my part would have been “of less than utmost value “.

[Iwannaplato]

A better choice of words on my part would have been “of less than utmost value “.

Ah, OK. Sure. Though I think there's a limit on the value we can absorb anyway. I don't know who would need a deity who could make a stone so heavy the deity couldn't lift it and yet could lift it. Or even omniscience. Power and wisdom beyond our ken, but not absolute and complete, seems ok. Perhaps even learning itself, evolving.

[commonsense]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=687494 time=1703574616 user_id=

This is in line with the one-up instinct that is so common in children's playground and with many adults as well.
[/quote]

What do you mean by “one-up instinct”?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is in line with the one-up instinct that is so common in children's playground and with many adults as well.

What do you mean by “one-up instinct”?

• one-upmanship
  the technique or practice of gaining an advantage or feeling of superiority over another person. Google-Dict
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship

I believe [easily inferred] "one-upmanship" is an evolutionary default and an instinct that has driven humans to progress from being "nearly-animal" to what humans [knowledge, technology, every aspects] are being today [lesser 'animal'].

In the primitive days, they started with animism, then with progress in intellectual capacity, it progress one-up from idols, sophistical deities, gods, the monotheistic God and the Absolute perfect God.

At each stage of claims of god, there is the weakness of one's god being inferior to another, thus the progressive one-upsmanship till the absolute perfect God with no more possibility of being one-up'ed.

As such for any theist, since it just a belief, it would be rather stupid to restrict one's claim and settle for a god that is not absolutely perfect and leaving room for one's god to be owned by another greater god.

Historically, theists would have instinctually contrasted and compared their God to other gods and mocked those gods which are inferior to theirs making them insecure [with terrible anxieties and fears] of their salvation with eternal life in heaven or paradise.
To avoid being mocked and feel insecure, they have to go one-up to maintain their security.
The one-upping continue and fortunately there is an end to it.

This is why there is the ultimate ontological God, i.e.
"God is that entity than which no greater can be conceived" i.e. that is absolute perfect, which leave no room for any other to be superior.

But the dilemma, a very necessary absolute perfect God is impossible to be real.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Ultimately, the question of God is a psychological issue and can only be resolved psychologically, not an epistemology or ontological one.

[Iwannaplato]

Ultimately, the question of God is a psychological issue and can only be resolved psychologically, not an epistemology or ontological one.

Yup, doesn't deal with the arguments against your position. As usual. A reiteration, somewhat cleaned up, of your position.

The demonstration you link to purports to counter the absolute perfect God. So, you have to have this description of God as THE description of God. So, your ontological proof is based on your speculations about what theists must believe, thus psychology. And even when theists tell you they don't believe in the form of absolute perfection you claim must be the definition of God, you continue to present your version of God as THE version of God.
You present yourself as the expert in the beliefs of other people and, yup, despite your denial here you conflate ontology with the psychology of some people.

[Iwannaplato]

This is in line with the one-up instinct that is so common in children's playground and with many adults as well.

What do you mean by “one-up instinct”?

• one-upmanship
  the technique or practice of gaining an advantage or feeling of superiority over another person. Google-Dict

Adults such as you. Every time you tell people they are stuck in an evolutionary default
or
tell them they are philosophical gnats
or
tell them what they need to read
and so on.

[Walker]

You present yourself as the expert in the beliefs of other people and, yup, despite ...

But that's what you do. If you want an example, I'll wait until you do it again, and remind you. I imagine you have your self-justifications for doing so, but even so, it sure smells like a hypocrite.

[Iwannaplato]

You present yourself as the expert in the beliefs of other people and, yup, despite ...

But that's what you do. If you want an example, I'll wait until you do it again, and remind you. I imagine you have your self-justifications for doing so, but even so, it sure smells like a hypocrite.

You seem to be reporting what I do to other people. This means you are petty and I guess you have reported me. I mean, at least according to your logic. Me, I don't know. Should I follow your logic?

[Walker]

You present yourself as the expert in the beliefs of other people and, yup, despite ...

But that's what you do. If you want an example, I'll wait until you do it again, and remind you. I imagine you have your self-justifications for doing so, but even so, it sure smells like a hypocrite.

You seem to be reporting what I do to other people. This means you are petty and I guess you have reported me. I mean, at least according to your logic. Me, I don't know. Should I follow your logic?

That's right.

I don't care what you do, but I'm going to point out your hypocrisy.
To do so will require pettiness, hypocrisy, and creative ignorance.
It will require looking away from principles, and making you the topic.
Just like you do to folks.

Hope you enjoy it.

Why should you get a pass?

[Iwannaplato]

But that's what you do. If you want an example, I'll wait until you do it again, and remind you. I imagine you have your self-justifications for doing so, but even so, it sure smells like a hypocrite.

You seem to be reporting what I do to other people. This means you are petty and I guess you have reported me. I mean, at least according to your logic. Me, I don't know. Should I follow your logic?

That's right.

I don't care what you do, but I'm going to point out your hypocrisy.
To do so will require pettiness, hypocrisy, and creative ignorance.
It will require looking away from principles, and making you the topic.
Just like you do.

Hope you enjoy it.

Why should you get a pass?

I shouldn't, of course. But now you are presenting it as if you haven't been doing this before, and with other people. It's as if, in your version, I finally drove you to do this, but you've done this before going way back in time.

Further, just like in the other thread, you jumped into a situation you didn't understand.

I was pointing out that VA tell theists what they believe. And then he makes an argument against what he tells them they believe. All of them. Not what is entailed by their beliefs. Not what is show by their behavior in contrast to what they say are their beliefs. He tells a vast group of people, the majority of the world, what they believe.

Then he pretends he didn't just conflate psychology with ontology. And spurious psychology.

What is entailed by suppressing the expression of emotions? Perhaps I am wrong, but I work from specific arguments based on behavior and statements.

VA just tells people what they believe and for a very clear goal: because if they don't believe what he is saying, then his disproof of God applies only to some theists.

[Walker]

You're making me the topic, like you do with lots of folks.
Like you're doing right now with VA.
And then justifying yourself.

That's probably why that other fella told you, what he told you.

Like I'm doing with you, you Hypocrite.