Imperefct God

[attofishpi]

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.

Sure - I provided the link to the empirical evidence that we can ALL observe, care to take me on within that thread?
:--- viewtopic.php?t=33214

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.

1. Can you comprehend that there could be a reason that IT did not makle itself apparent to all?

2. Surely you can comprehend that such an individual (me included) that aspired to the one thing that this "God" entity requested - Faith - at the outset could be a requirement 1st and foremost.

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.

I provided the link to the evidence, upon which we can continue a discussion as to whether - it constitutes evidence or lies, or schizo or 'other_wise'.

Please do, if your certainty in atheism is worth your salt.

To say something is true, based only upon ones word is not empirical in any way, shape or form.

Agreed.
But to dismiss the opportunity to listen to someone that claims their own empirical evidence, and then provide the evidence they deduced within a 'philosophical' forum for all to judge, is rather weak.

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.

I agree. Yet, it does not discount the fact that there were a lot of people at that point in time that were inflicted by what people did or said, and one in particular that went to his death insisting on it, that we treat each other with this thing called love.

[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?

..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?

well if you were paying any kind of attention to what you are responding to you'd realize there is no evangelical preaching involved, is there boy genius?

i have simply informed the OP'er should that person be asking about the God of Israel. it would seem wise to be specific about what god one is talking about, there are many gods. that have many origins and claims by their believers. and i do believe this is the section on religion correct? maybe you're in the wrong section if you don't want to discuss or see discussions on the subject at hand, that you may not agree with.

[Lacewing]

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

According to who? Can't a system have order within and of itself without a god?

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.

One doesn't have to subscribe to a story. One can see the workings within the system at all kinds of levels which demonstrate awareness and a complete and evolving system. No god steps forward to claim credit for any of it except through the mouths of men who fancy themselves as the speakers and "knowers" of such.

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?

I don't see man as accidental and shambling. I just don't think there's a god involved.

I see man as creating what he values, expects, and demands for the experience of his life, and it varies for each man and his life. Anything he claims or expects beyond his life seems like imagination and folly.

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.

I see you using a very small and distorted idea of reality to serve yourself. You argue against atheism as if the label or idea can be used to make a definitive pronouncement about anyone who claims not to believe in a god -- and you dramatically declare what it can or cannot include. It's ridiculous and contrived.

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 don't need to copy or follow other people. I'm right on time and I have lots of parties!

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.

Firstly, your puzzle is faulty because you've distorted it with your thinking.

It's more like this...

Premise 1: There is no God.
Premise 2: There is awareness and order.
Premise 3: Man is creative.
Conclusion: Man creates value and meaning through awareness and order.

[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.

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

You were trying to say she was wrong?

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

I didn't think so. You were trying to say her feelings were right.

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.

They certainly are and there is no shortage of fools who are deceived by them.

"Intuition," "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," and, "gut feelings." No matter what name it is given, the meaning is always the same: something one knows by some means that does not require demonstrable evidence or reasoning from such evidence. There is no way to tell the difference between what is a purely physiological event, like a gas pain or a hormone imbalance, or a genuine emotional reaction of the autonomic nervous system to what one already thinks or believes.

Tonight one's intuitive insight gives them assurance there is a God, but in the morning they realize it was only the beef and bean burrito.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Sure - I provided the link to the empirical evidence that we can ALL observe, care to take me on within that thread?
:--- viewtopic.php?t=33214
Why do you think I responded as I did? None of your BS is empirical. At least not for anyone but you.

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.

1. Can you comprehend that there could be a reason that IT did not makle itself apparent to all?
I comprehend everything you've ever said, and find it wanting. That you could think of a reason and convey it to me, only confirms my stance. There is no rationality in an all knowing/powerful being to hide anything from anybody. Especially because an all knowing being would know that humans can't be trusted because some lie, are nuts, fools, etc. and even our newest machines can't distinguish the difference. Thus it would be foolish of it to rely on humans to spread the word. And before you say another word, I've heard all the crazy human reasoning on this topic. So save your typing.


2. Surely you can comprehend that such an individual (me included) that aspired to the one thing that this "God" entity requested - Faith - at the outset could be a requirement 1st and foremost.
Here are a few synonyms for faith: acceptance, belief, confidence, conviction, hope, loyalty. And "guess" is one for "belief". And considering the nature of the topic, it's the most accurate and telling of the truth factor.

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.

I provided the link to the evidence, upon which we can continue a discussion as to whether - it constitutes evidence or lies, or schizo or 'other_wise'.

Please do, if your certainty in atheism is worth your salt.
Fishboy, are you very old or just forgetful? As I've said many many times, I'm neither a theist nor an atheist. I'm an agnostic. Which means that I see that neither theists nor atheists can "KNOW" whether there is or is not a god. Neither you nor they has ever seen any real empirical evidence of god yet you swear there is a god, while they swear there isn't a god. There have been many things that were once thought to exist, that couldn't be seen, yet some were eventually seen, and some never, as of yet, has been seen, which doesn't mean they won't eventually be seen.

To say something is true, based only upon ones word is not empirical in any way, shape or form.

Agreed.
But to dismiss the opportunity to listen to someone that claims their own empirical evidence, and then provide the evidence they deduced within a 'philosophical' forum for all to judge, is rather weak.
I've seen all the words you've ever posted and there has never been anything that has ever been empirical in nature. Point to the specific text that you believe is empirical in nature, (I've no patience to sift through 50 pages of messages just to find what I'd call bullshit), and I'll provide my rebuttal. Which shall probably deal with your premises as being invalid, though may deal with your conclusion being a falsehood, that it does not necessarily follow.

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.

I agree. Yet, it does not discount the fact that there were a lot of people at that point in time that were inflicted by what people did or said, and one in particular that went to his death insisting on it, that we treat each other with this thing called love.

And you have either forgotten or never seen that I treat the bible as a sort of philosophy text, nothing more.

[Lacewing]

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

Maybe your own personal experience/head-space seems to be proof of something for you, but that's not proof of anything for anyone else. Are you able to keep that straight?

There could be all kinds of entities/energies/mental-blips that appear as gods to humans. I think it matters less what someone claims to know, and more what they're able to do with it. Are they all about posturing what they know, as if that's somehow convincing and impressive? Look at a person's life... and their personal mastery... and the interaction they have with other beings... and their obsessions and dependencies and limitations -- that demonstrates more about them than anything they claim.

Fantastic stories are simply theatrics on the stage. They aren't very believable or compelling in the clarity of the moment. People are going to do what they do regardless of whatever mystical realm they or anyone else claims to be in contact with in this life. Such obsessive stories are best suited (and most needed) perhaps, for sleepwalkers who want to dream.

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote: ↑
....Nietzsche, whom you so despise.

Despise? Not at all. I think much of what he said would have been right if his worldview had been right. I admire his consistency in that, and I can't help but remark that he has a certain degree of courage as well -- a courage almost entirely lacking from most of his admirers, who generally see only a cheerful Atheist, and lack the spine to face up to the darkness he also perceived to be an inevitable consequence of the alleged "death of God".

I never heard of Nietzsche described as "cheerful atheist".

This is weird! There seems to be an attempt to be objective and yet you've written...

He is dead and judged. That's the truth.
He ended it very badly, but in just the way you expect of such a man

...and yet you're ready to immediately pronounce him judged as if he were one of the world's great thought criminals, the arch-enemy of god, a second Satan, which justifies in toto how his life concluded as though it were god himself who gave the command to endure a painful decline!

Why??

You didn't think it through before hitting the hate button that millions of others have also died miserably, believing and trusting in god. A prime example of that is Nietzsche's father, Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, who was an extremely devout Lutheran pastor. What would have been God's reason to have him die so miserably at the age of 36!

Nietzsche called us "murderers," and said the killing of God was "a deed to great for us." He knew very well that we are incapable of doing it without the complete eradication of morality and meaning, and the loss of any compass of truth.

No, it does not eradicate all morality and meaning since these never wholly depended on only Christians principles as if morality didn't exist before Christians came on the scene. Most of the values you denote as Christian were long known, practiced and philosophized over and over again by the Pagans.

So, no! Morality does not fade because a belief fades. It may even be that morality is enhanced. It seems we have too much of the politically correct kind already!

Consider, for example, this passage from the famous "Madman's Parable":
"What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"

What Nietzsche referred to in that aphorism is the fading of a 2000-year-old belief and our long dependence on it. God, though mentioned, has very little to do with it. Without changing a word, it could have referred to ANY belief which subsisted for that long entrenching whole civilizations in its dogmas and beliefs. What it summarizes is the psychological effect of separation. Nietzsche, because of his brilliant style was prone to be over-dramatic and didn't mind the occasional shock therapy of over-expressing himself. One sees that abundantly in Zarathustra, which aphorism 125 is a reminder of.

They think they're going to have fun, instead of ending up the playthings of those with more power than they have. Of course, they're wrong: even if they are the Übermensch today (which, of course, is almost invariably untrue anyway), they won't be tomorrow. They don't even think about that.

The Übermensch has all kinds of connotations, most of them unfavorable, if not downright stupid. One can think of the idea - I know you won't - as an entity in the process of having its core values reassessed and recalibrated. Its prime directive is to remain true to the earth...a criterion more important than ever now that we're in the process of slowly destroying it and possibly ourselves when considering how many species have already been wiped-out.

[Dontaskme]

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?

Just answer the question properly and stop twisting it round into something I did not ask you.

I said: ''YOU'' that goes by the fictitious author ''Immanuel Can'' can never / cannot know death.


What do you think my pseudonym implies?

[Dontaskme]

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?

Yes it's just how things are. I'm not crying about it, I'm just reporting the raw basic natural truth of how things actually are. Why are you crying about what I am reporting? I do not have any expectations of how things are. But it seems you think I do, and you'd be wrong about that.

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

Sorry to disappoint you but I do not see anything wrong with how things actually are. How could life be anything other than how things are? I have no expectation, all I see is what I am able to witness with my own eyes, as and through my capacity to experience the world as and through sentience and sensation. And then be able to report that experience to myself and others.
It seems you are assuming I cannot let go of what I am merely reporting. What a dumb idea, how does that work, how can what is actually happening be let go of, as if it's not actually happening. That's basically all you are saying, which is pointless and stupid.

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.

Again, I am reporting what I see, that's all. There is no justice or reason to complain, care or feel about a life that is only ever unfolding in the immediate moment exactly how it is. I am fully aware that life is only ever in the immediate moment. It cannot be any other way. If it could ..that would be like trying to fix the problem of split milk, by believing the milk can just be returned unspoilt to it's place of origin...LIFE as it is immediately unfolding Mr Can cannot be undone... So you are barking up the wrong tree again aren't you Mr Can.

But I suggest that you don't actually believe your own words.

You like twisting ideas around don't you. Again, I'm simply reporting my surround. Save your emotional psychology for those who do not question what they have been conditioned to believe about ''how things actually are'' from cradle to grave.
Again, just allow me to remind you that I am simply reporting my surround as I see it, and not how others want me to see it.

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.

It's amusing the way you keep putting words in my mouth as if you can read what's on my mind. I NEVER once thought to myself there SHOULD be justice. That's what you believe I am thinking, but you are wrong to believe that....I already understand the futility of belief.


I have given up hope, but you refuse to see this, you think I am still in search of justice, you think I am in search of answers. In fact you do not know me at all, you just make presumptions about my mental state, when in fact you are completely and utterly wrong about my mental state. You are what's known as someone who thinks they know what other people are thinking who tries to convince other people to believe they are thinking what you think they are thinking. This is how humans interact, by second guessing what the other person is thinking. It's called gas lighting, manipulation and mental control tactics of always wanting to be right.

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

Well again, you're just plain wrong in your assessment of what I am thinking here. It's you that cannot live with what I am reporting. I'm fine here, I'm just reporting what I see with my own eyes through my own capacity to experience life. I can no more object to life than I can object to being forced to live it in the first place...do you ever think about things like that?

[Dontaskme]

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

What the heck is that supposed to imply?

Let me guess...I intuitively recognise what my cognitions are not properly explaining to me. ( oh ok, Cannie, that is really showing me something here) oh my gosh why didn't I think of that, oh that's right, I DIDN'T...you did, then you projected it as though I did.

Care to explain what that is supposed to mean, does it have a point, is it some kind of wisdom I need to understand, am I missing some important information..what the heck are you saying here Mr Can? care to elaborate? or do you just like spouting any thing that sounds remotely bamboozling in your obssession to be self righteous, and wise.


.

[attofishpi]

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.

Sure - I provided the link to the empirical evidence that we can ALL observe, care to take me on within that thread?
:--- viewtopic.php?t=33214

Why do you think I responded as I did? None of your BS is empirical. At least not for anyone but you.

This 'BS' thing needs to be countered/refuted, IT IS empirical for ALL to observe (beyond my own persomal empiricism) and I have given you the linjk within which to attept such a feat. Man up and take it on, since you insist i am full of BS.

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.

1. Can you comprehend that there could be a reason that IT did not makle itself apparent to all?

I comprehend everything you've ever said, and find it wanting.

Clearly you haven't. but I am impressed that U attempted to. btw, the answer is ENTROPY.

That you could think of a reason and convey it to me, only confirms my stance. There is no rationality in an all knowing/powerful being to hide anything from anybody. Especially because an all knowing being would know that humans can't be trusted because some lie, are nuts, fools, etc. and even our newest machines can't distinguish the difference. Thus it would be foolish of it to rely on humans to spread the word. And before you say another word, I've heard all the crazy human reasoning on this topic. So save your typing.

Sure. And I have saved you requiring to use 'color' instead of the standard quote function which appears to be beyond your grasp.

Again, and since you state you think you have 'comprehended' everything I have ever said on this forum, then certainly you, if of a rational mind would take me on within my inductive argument - the link again is here:-- viewtopic.php?t=33214

2. Surely you can comprehend that such an individual (me included) that aspired to the one thing that this "God" entity requested - Faith - at the outset could be a requirement 1st and foremost.

Here are a few synonyms for faith: acceptance, belief, confidence, conviction, hope, loyalty. And "guess" is one for "belief". And considering the nature of the topic, it's the most accurate and telling of the truth factor.

..all of which are akin to agnostic atheism and theism. What point are you attempting to make?

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.

I provided the link to the evidence, upon which we can continue a discussion as to whether - it constitutes evidence or lies, or schizo or 'other_wise'.

Please do, if your certainty in atheism is worth your salt.

FishSAGE, are you very old or just forgetful? As I've said many many times, I'm neither a theist nor an atheist. I'm an agnostic.

Unless one has gnosis, knowledge of the existence of God, there is no other form of philosophical comprehension - one is either agnostic toward atheism or agnostic toward theism.

Which means that I see that neither theists nor atheists can "KNOW" whether there is or is not a god.

Agreed, as per my above statement. Yet if God exists, one can be made fully aware of ITS existence - beyond agnosticism of theism. Gnosis.

Neither you nor they has ever seen any real empirical evidence of god yet you swear there is a god, while they swear there isn't a god.

Wot? Y am I bothering then if you are so fervent to insisist that I did not garner empirical evidence?

...and within the thread I have provided a link:- is the evidence that I can provide to agnostic atheist/theist ...so surely it is a place to challenge both our own conceptions of reality, other_wise why are you here? ...indeed, Y read my posts within threads that are pretty much redundant to what I am stating?

I've seen all the words you've ever posted and there has never been anything that has ever been empirical in nature.

I suppose I should be flattered. Yet, I have started the thread with the EMPIRICAL evidence that ALL can observe - so challenge your own doubt in there being anything - including a 3rd party intelligence behind the backbone of our reality..

Here tis again:- viewtopic.php?t=33214

Point to the specific text that you believe is empirical in nature, (I've no patience to sift through 50 pages of messages just to find what I'd call bullshit), and I'll provide my rebuttal. Which shall probably deal with your premises as being invalid, though may deal with your conclusion being a falsehood, that it does not necessarily follow

Here tis again:- viewtopic.php?t=33214

[Belinda]

Dubious wrote:

The Übermensch has all kinds of connotations, most of them unfavorable, if not downright stupid.

Ludicrous you say that whilst pictures of Olympic athletes fill TV screens! Ubermensch may have pursued his self fulfillment through a multiplicity of channels, including athleticism, academic knowledge or wisdom, stoical attention to onerous simple duties, and grand altruism. What distinguishes the Ubermensch is his ability to be all he can be without doing it under the umbrella of God.

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote:

The Übermensch has all kinds of connotations, most of them unfavorable, if not downright stupid.

Ludicrous you say that whilst pictures of Olympic athletes fill TV screens!

I don't watch the Olympics and don't care about sports to which the majority is far too addicted. There is no resemblance of a sports hero to an Übermensch without possessing the mind which goes with it; there are none in the world at present and probably none in the future.

What distinguishes the Ubermensch is his ability to be all he can be without doing it under the umbrella of God.

I agree! Within that advanced human paradigm there reigns a Promethean independence from whatever gods may exist and the resolve NOT to conquer fate, which is ludicrous, but to accept it in all its tribulations as woven into the very fabric of existence.

[Sculptor]

Dubious wrote:

The Übermensch has all kinds of connotations, most of them unfavorable, if not downright stupid.

Ludicrous you say that whilst pictures of Olympic athletes fill TV screens! Ubermensch may have pursued his self fulfillment through a multiplicity of channels, including athleticism, academic knowledge or wisdom, stoical attention to onerous simple duties, and grand altruism. What distinguishes the Ubermensch is his ability to be all he can be without doing it under the umbrella of God.

Excellence in a given field of human endeavour is a far cry from the notion of the ubermensch.
Please enjoy the paralympics when it comes on soon.
The ubermensch would inlcude Olympic fucking and DNA manipulation.

[Greatest I am]

You can, of course, just insist you have rights. But that's mere petulance, and you'll never be able to say why you do, or defend them against even the question of a child: "why?"

I have every freedom and right that I choose to defend or demand

Yes, that's a marvelous example of what I said above: asserting a right by way of nothing more than wishing it were so. So let me ask you the child's question: "What gives you that 'right'?"

Did you see "chose to defend".

I can defend any right I claim. Can't you?

I can do anything I want, within the bounds of nature. Even break some laws of men. Can't you?

Regards
DL