Does God destroy his aura of perfection by communicating with His creations?

Does asking a question of your creations somehow blow away the spectre of perfection surrounding God? If God knows all, why communicate with us? What possible difference can our talks with God make in an unalterable plan, in which every move is known by the originator before it happens?

When God declares he is the beginnng and the end, how insignificant or unimportant are we? Would a perfect God need to make that announcement? If so why?

When God asks questions of us, again what does it really matter in the great scheme of things how we answer?

Perhaps God needs imperfection just to be perfect.

A perfect God should not be seen or heard from. In fact it might not be necessary for God to exist at all or at least give the appearance of such, once things are set in motion. If I believe in a perfect God is it necessary for Him to tell me He's perfect?

Very interesting topic.

I like to think about whether perfection really even exists. What is perfection, and can anything, including God, really ever be perfect.

For example, what if someone is the perfect golfer. What would that mean? Does it mean they literally can post a score of 18 on every golf course.

Then we can go even deeper. Did they score that 18 in a perfect way? Here's where it get's tricky, because one can score an 18 in literally infinity ways. I can hit line drives into the holes, or I can hit high fly balls into the holes. Or a mix between the two. I can the ball at a 19 degree angle, or a 20 degree angle, and so on. Which way is the best, or most perfect?

Also, one can bounce the ball off of trees into the hole. Or skip the ball off of a lake into the hole. The score is still perfect, 18, but the way it was attained can be very different each time. What does that mean? Maybe it means that perfection is like time, an illusion. A form of human perception which only exists in the mind of humans, like the color purple.

Is perfect an illusion? I'm not sure. Very interesting to think about though. I'm not totally sure I would want a perfect God yet.

Maybe God isn't perfect, because perfection doesn't really exist, like time.

I think God by communicating with us is basically inferring that He hasn't a clue as to what to expect.

If God is to be a perfect creator then He must have some ingrained imperfection because he doesn't really know what to expect. If He says He does then its either a lie or He enjoys useless banter..

Unless He knows the result before communicating.

For example, in exodus God wanted to free the Isrealites or whoever from the evil Pharoah. The only way to accomplish this goal is to communicate with Moses. In this case, God knew that Moses would respond, and did respond.

If God can tell the future, then the only reason he would communicate with any human is to get to fulfill the future result he desires. Even though he knows the result of his comminication, he still must go through the motions of communicating.

Again, this assumes that God knows exactly how a person will react if he communicates with them, which brings uo the question of free will. How can we have free will if God already knows the choice we will make in response to his communication?

What if God asked Moses to go save his people ten times. How many times out of ten would Moses choose to save the people? I don't know.

NDS

NDS

Very interesting topic.

I like to think about whether perfection really even exists. What is perfection, and can anything, including God, really ever be perfect.

For example, what if someone is the perfect golfer. What would that mean? Does it mean they literally can post a score of 18 on every golf course.

Then we can go even deeper. Did they score that 18 in a perfect way? Here's where it get's tricky, because one can score an 18 in literally infinity ways. I can hit line drives into the holes, or I can hit high fly balls into the holes. Or a mix between the two. I can the ball at a 19 degree angle, or a 20 degree angle, and so on. Which way is the best, or most perfect?



There are a quite a few ways that god lies distinct from the living entity ... and these could be surmised as perfections.

For instance one name for god is acyuta or infallible. This means he is not subject to 4 fallibilities that we are .... namely


imperfect senses - not see a snake and step on it
make mistakes - see a rope and think it is a snake
fall into illusion - scream at the rope because one thinks it is a snake
cheating propensity - tell everyone that one wasn't really scared and new it was a rope all along


Another way is to understand that god is svarat (fully independent) and abhijnah (fully cognizant) - taken together, these mean that god has no obstacles to the fulfillment of his desire

Is perfect an illusion? I'm not sure. Very interesting to think about though. I'm not totally sure I would want a perfect God yet.
perfection, in the sense of being perfect like god, is definitely an illusion for us ... either in our conditioned or liberated states. Our perfection simply lies in being connected to god. Kind of like the perfection of the hand lies in it being functional and connected to the body. If our hand got severed from our arm we would literally empty our bank balance to stick it back on again. But if our hand got severed and there was no possibility of it being surgically re-attached, we probably wouldn't even bother to keep it in a jar.
In the same way, perfection (particularly in terms of relationship) can be assessed according to how functional it is ... in the same sense, dysfunctional becomes synonymous with imperfection.

Does God destroy his aura of perfection by communicating with His creations?

Does asking a question of your creations somehow blow away the spectre of perfection surrounding God? If God knows all, why communicate with us?
are all of our issues of communication, even in the everyday sense, simply related to issues of acquiring information?
I mean what does it generally take to convice a person of something or get them to trust something? Surely sciforums is testimony that mere
provision of information alone is not sufficient.

What possible difference can our talks with God make in an unalterable plan, in which every move is known by the originator before it happens?
Depends whether those talks can result in us repositioning our values

When God declares he is the beginnng and the end, how insignificant or unimportant are we? Would a perfect God need to make that announcement? If so why?
What is the necessity for us to be significant and important?


When God asks questions of us, again what does it really matter in the great scheme of things how we answer?
in terms that our mind follows our speech and our actions follow our mind, I should think its obvious.

Perhaps God needs imperfection just to be perfect.
this is correct in the sense that a being can not lay claim to to omnipotence unless they can exhibit all potencies, including the fallible (or imperfect) potency - and that is precisely what we are - infinitesimal part and parcels of god

A perfect God should not be seen or heard from. In fact it might not be necessary for God to exist at all or at least give the appearance of such, once things are set in motion. If I believe in a perfect God is it necessary for Him to tell me He's perfect?
If we are so imperfect as to become (potentially eternally) socialized around a way of life that is bereft of his knowledge (or even knowledge of our own true selves), yes it would be an absolute necessity.

There is an aspect of perfection that you are neglecting - would a perfectly moral god simply sit back in silence while his part and parcels rot in a false concept of life?

What is the necessity for us to be significant and important?

For us to act in a certain way as opposed to another, we have to hold that we matter, that what we do matters.

If we hold that we are insignificant and unimportant, we won't care about what we do or what happens to us, we will act without rational and moral discrimination and we will sooner or later become insane.

In order to maintain a set of priorities and values in life, we have to hold that what we do matters in some way or another, but is significant enough to move us to choose one course of action over another.

Does God destroy his aura of perfection by communicating with His creations?

Does asking a question of your creations somehow blow away the spectre of perfection surrounding God? If God knows all, why communicate with us? What possible difference can our talks with God make in an unalterable plan, in which every move is known by the originator before it happens?

When God declares he is the beginnng and the end, how insignificant or unimportant are we? Would a perfect God need to make that announcement? If so why?

When God asks questions of us, again what does it really matter in the great scheme of things how we answer?

Perhaps God needs imperfection just to be perfect.

A perfect God should not be seen or heard from. In fact it might not be necessary for God to exist at all or at least give the appearance of such, once things are set in motion. If I believe in a perfect God is it necessary for Him to tell me He's perfect?
So maybe God is not perfect and makes boo boos. This seems hard for theists and non-theists to imagine.
But why not?
Daddy makes mistakes.
Kings and presidents too.
There is a lot of anxiety about a deity that makes mistakes.
Daddy must be perfect or else..........?
We've been swimming in the theologists of the monotheisms so long even atheists can feel it is sinful think there might be a fallible God.

So maybe God is not perfect and makes boo boos. This seems hard for theists and non-theists to imagine.
But why not?
Daddy makes mistakes.
Kings and presidents too.
There is a lot of anxiety about a deity that makes mistakes.
Daddy must be perfect or else..........?
We've been swimming in the theologists of the monotheisms so long even atheists can feel it is sinful think there might be a fallible God.
You could say that the essential unique quality of god is that he is the cause of all causes. IOW if god is not the cause of all causes, you have a valid reason for not worshiping god (unless it's to stick a few more feathers in your cap or whatever).
So a big distinction between god and say one's King or daddy is that they are obviously not the cause of all causes. Even in paradigms which accept certain persons as representatives of god (and thus worthy of the same respect as god since they act as a transparent medium to approaching god) there are distinctions between visaya representations of god (ie cause of all causes) and asraya representations of god (literally means those who take shelter of the cause of all causes) ... and the distinction is essentially one of determining exactly who is and isn't capable of making mistakes. It's kind of like a king who may have a diplomat working on his behalf in a foreign country. For as long as the diplomat represents the interests of the king, he is accepted as practically non-different from the king in that foreign country. But as soon as he makes a mistake, lets say of publicly switching allegiances or something (ie he abandons taking shelter of the King), then he has no capacity to represent the king. In the same way, who ever we want to accept as a reliable authority for representing the authority of god, their authority only remains valid to the degree that they continue to take shelter of god .... and even then, they can never act in the capacity of being the cause of all causes.

You could say that the essential unique quality of god is that he is the cause of all causes. IOW if god is not the cause of all causes, you have a valid reason for not worshiping god (unless it's to stick a few more feathers in your cap or whatever).
So a big distinction between god and say one's King or daddy is that they are obviously not the cause of all causes. Even in paradigms which accept certain persons as representatives of god (and thus worthy of the same respect as god since they act as a transparent medium to approaching god) there are distinctions between visaya representations of god (ie cause of all causes) and asraya representations of god (literally means those who take shelter of the cause of all causes) ... and the distinction is essentially one of determining exactly who is and isn't capable of making mistakes. It's kind of like a king who may have a diplomat working on his behalf in a foreign country. For as long as the diplomat represents the interests of the king, he is accepted as practically non-different from the king in that foreign country. But as soon as he makes a mistake, lets say of publicly switching allegiances or something (ie he abandons taking shelter of the King), then he has no capacity to represent the king. In the same way, who ever we want to accept as a reliable authority for representing the authority of god, their authority only remains valid to the degree that they continue to take shelter of god .... and even then, they can never act in the capacity of being the cause of all causes.

What I meant with Daddy and King's was that we project similar things on God. I think God made mistakes and learns from them. In this way at least some of us are made in God's image.

What I meant with Daddy and King's was that we project similar things on God.
how do you know it doesn't work the other way?
How do you know that we don't project god's potency on kings, etc?
Or more specifically, how could something be the cause of all causes and still make mistakes?

how do you know it doesn't work the other way?
How do you know that we don't project god's potency on kings, etc?
Or more specifically, how could something be the cause of all causes and still make mistakes?
Actually I do think the patterns with projections onto human figures is patterned on orginal relationships with God. But it is easy to show the kind of mechanism involved with most people by going the other way. They tend to be more conscious of a range of possible relations with other humans and their own ability to distort these. At least some people.

God is a being. Life is confusing. You believe in a perfect never making mistakes God. I don't. I don't think either of us will prove the other wrong.

Actually I do think the patterns with projections onto human figures is patterned on orginal relationships with God. But it is easy to show the kind of mechanism involved with most people by going the other way.
so because it is easy does that make it valid?
I mean I could easily show you how a chimpanzee could press the keys on a typewriter, but that doesn't mean every typed manuscript was made by a chimpanzee.

They tend to be more conscious of a range of possible relations with other humans and their own ability to distort these. At least some people.
Most people are not conscious of the range of relations with god, so its not clear at which end the distortion lies

God is a being. Life is confusing. You believe in a perfect never making mistakes God. I don't. I don't think either of us will prove the other wrong.
logic can never come to a conclusion (western philosophy is testimony to that)
....only practice that can culminate in direct perception.
The question is actually answered by examining whether either of us have recourse to a type of discipline that can culminate in direct perception ... otherwise to constantly talk of "it could be like this ... it could be like that" ... this can go on for eternity

so because it is easy does that make it valid? Well, obviously I think so. I think you are reacting, understandibly, to what I am saying as if it were an attempt at proof. My intention is to raise a possibility by reminding people of their experiences or the experiences of others they know in relation to fathers and leaders IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion of God. This is to give them or you - though I really have absolutely no hope in relation to you - a specific momentary experience. From this experience they might reevaluate the source and truth of their assumptions that God must be infallible. This re-evaluation may or may not take place.

So, again. I hoped to inspire an experience that might lead to something.

logic can never come to a conclusion (western philosophy is testimony to that)
....only practice that can culminate in direct perception. I would word it differently, but I more or less agree.

The question is actually answered by examining whether either of us have recourse to a type of discipline that can culminate in direct perception ... otherwise to constantly talk of "it could be like this ... it could be like that" ... this can go on for eternity Actually with me it cannot. On the other hand, I am not merely speculating. I would hope that others would open to the possibility that God might be fallible, but I know from my own experience how it is.

I agree with Simon here. A perfect God scares me in a way. I'm not sure I want to serve a robot.

how do you know it doesn't work the other way?
How do you know that we don't project god's potency on kings, etc?
Or more specifically, how could something be the cause of all causes and still make mistakes?

I think the projections go both ways - on the one hand, we project human qualities onto God, and on the other hand we project God's qualities onto humans. And the way we make these projections has a lot to do with our particular experiences with theism, theists, our own spiritual practice and general life experience.

For example, someone who grows up as the disadvantaged or abused party in a volatile and violent social environment where people, including those who claim to know God, are unpredictable and unreliable - such a person will possibly end up thinking God must be like that too and thus have a straining and negative relationship with God.
Whereas someone growing up in a theist family who has always been included into the Fold, seen as worthy as opposed to those in the outgroup - such a person will possibly have a positive and exclusivist relationship with God, believing that God is discriminative against those in the outgroup in the same way their family and ingroup were (e.g. the way KKK believes God hates black people the same way some white people do).

On the other hand, when a person thinks they cannot live without their spouse, parther, friend, child, or that they couldn't find happiness with anyone else but that one person, or when a battered wife believes her husband is always right, or when a hostage is convinced they must do as the assaulter demands, or when people insist that doctor so and so is the best doctor there could ever be - those are cases of projecting God's potencies onto humans.

I would hope that others would open to the possibility that God might be fallible, but I know from my own experience how it is.

From my own experience, I have never been much concerned about whether God is fallible or not. What troubles me the most is whether God is good or evil or neither and what consequences this might have for me.
If God is good, then even if he is or appears to be fallible, this fallibility is of no harmful consequence. If God is evil or neither good nor evil, then I am at a loss regardless whether he is fallible or not.

The whole fallibility of God issue has always been rather abstract to me, though. The only way I can see it was pertinent in my life was in scenarios like these where the theist would argue to the effect of: "I am a theist. I know God. God is infallible. Therefore, I am infallible, too. If I tell you, Greenberg, that you are bad and unworthy person, then this is infallibly true and you are obligated to believe it and do as I tell you."

Assuming we are talking specifically about the Abrahamic god then those who believe in him must surely be aware of his fallibility. The OT proves it.

He created everything but made a hash of the job.So he sent a flood to cvover his mistakes, and started again. It was no better second time around because his world was still permeated by sin, a fact he would have forseen in the first instance had he been infallible. Next he created a son who came to earth to redeem us all by dint of a blood sacrifice. This didn't work either because the world is still full of sinners.

But I understand he'll be back. Let's hope he finally gets it right !

simon
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so because it is easy does that make it valid?
”
Well, obviously I think so. I think you are reacting, understandibly, to what I am saying as if it were an attempt at proof.
well you dressed it up as a proof there

My intention is to raise a possibility by reminding people of their experiences or the experiences of others they know in relation to fathers and leaders IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion of God. This is to give them or you - though I really have absolutely no hope in relation to you - a specific momentary experience. From this experience they might reevaluate the source and truth of their assumptions that God must be infallible. This re-evaluation may or may not take place.
and you dress it up as a proof here
so why suggest that bringing in issues for determining the validity of proof is not valid?



“
The question is actually answered by examining whether either of us have recourse to a type of discipline that can culminate in direct perception ... otherwise to constantly talk of "it could be like this ... it could be like that" ... this can go on for eternity
”
Actually with me it cannot.
I'm not sure what you mean?
with you it cannot go on for eternity?


On the other hand, I am not merely speculating. I would hope that others would open to the possibility that God might be fallible, but I know from my own experience how it is.so you have direct perception (ie a claim) that god is fallible and methodology (a means others can apply to also determine the claim)?
Or do you simply have an array of premises to suggest god is fallible? (ie an argument of logic)

There is an aspect of perfection that you are neglecting - would a perfectly moral god simply sit back in silence while his part and parcels rot in a false concept of life?

He should. To communicate or reiterate his moral standards to us is an admission that He didn't get us right. Of course one can say He may have deliberately wanted us to not meet his level of morality but then we're right back to having God complaining about something He already knew.

The easiest thing to say is that God does not know the future. So much for prophesy and prediction if that's the case. So much for omiscience. So much for omnipotence. So much for any religious manuscript.

One reason a God might not communicate with us in dialogue form is because there are questions He can't answer or the answer requires a lie. One in particular might be "Why am I here?".

How does a perfect God answer that question? First off, He would know its going to be asked. Secondly it would be impossible for Him to make it sound sensible. How does anyone or any god explain that He created something knowing full well how it will all play out. It's as nonsensical as it can get. God's best alternative would be to not communicate.

Hey, I'm an atheist because I see more reason not to be the other choice. Half the time when I make an argument there are elements in my words that may support god's existence. It is a result of something I've always maintained but only after considerable reflection. God makes more sense if you believe He simply wants nothing to do with us, be invisible, deaf, mute and non interfering. Absolute non communicative is perfection.

All we are left with is speculation which is evident in spades in the religion subforum. I do it along with everyone else.

well you dressed it up as a proof there
I did say 'understandably' in my explanation above. I think you are reacting, understandably, to what I am saying as if it were an attempt at proof. My intention is to raise a possibility by reminding people of their experiences or the experiences of others they know in relation to fathers and leaders IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion of God. (corrected sp) I admitted that it was understandable that you might take is as a proof, then explained my intentions.

so why suggest that bringing in issues for determining the validity of proof is not valid? I haven't. However I am making choices given how I think people change and do not change their views.
I'm not sure what you mean?
with you it cannot go on for eternity? Because I would disengage. I hope you would too, but that's your business.

so you have direct perception (ie a claim) that god is fallible and methodology (a means others can apply to also determine the claim)? Given our experience of the world, the claim that God is perfect and has made no mistakes and is loving has the onus of proof. That said, I could propose a methodology and if someone is genuinely interested they can PM me.

The whole fallibility of God issue has always been rather abstract to me, though. The only way I can see it was pertinent in my life was in scenarios like these where the theist would argue to the effect of: "I am a theist. I know God. God is infallible. Therefore, I am infallible, too. If I tell you, Greenberg, that you are bad and unworthy person, then this is infallibly true and you are obligated to believe it and do as I tell you."

Yes, I think that is the pattern, at least often, with many people.

As far as the fallibility issue...
for me it is very similar to developing or regaining trust in other relationships.

If something goes wrong or something terrible is done by someone and they maintain a position of 'I have done nothing wrong' or 'I am perfect' it puts a damper on the relationship.

Also any pretending 'it REALLY has been OK' can also be a relationship breaker if it hasn't been OK.

Of course many religions have explanations for the problem of evil and so on. I have not found these convincing. I have also not found the explanations that, IMO, teach me to blame myself - though not in so many words, of course. That kind of open blame is generally left to the Abrahamic religions.

But this last paragraph is tangential to the point I wanted to focus on. Primarily in this paragraph I wanted to make it clear that I am aware of other explanations of 'past or 'apparent' problems and wrongs'.

Very few people have the courage to raise the idea that God is evil. Or acknowledge that fear. So I commend you for that openness and self-awareness. At the very least I would like to add to the spectrum of possibilties about God for others: good, evil, neutral +
evolving and fallible.

This last might seem a possible fit for people and something to be explored. If not, not, obviously.

He should. To communicate or reiterate his moral standards to us is an admission that He didn't get us right.
Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?
:rolleyes:

Of course one can say He may have deliberately wanted us to not meet his level of morality
I'm not sure why one would say that

The easiest thing to say is that God does not know the future.
actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue

So much for prophesy and prediction if that's the case. So much for omiscience. So much for omnipotence. So much for any religious manuscript.
assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue ...

One reason a God might not communicate with us in dialogue form is because there are questions He can't answer or the answer requires a lie. One in particular might be "Why am I here?".

How does a perfect God answer that question? First off, He would know its going to be asked. Secondly it would be impossible for Him to make it sound sensible.

How does anyone or any god explain that He created something knowing full well how it will all play out. It's as nonsensical as it can get. God's best alternative would be to not communicate.
its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action

Hey, I'm an atheist because I see more reason not to be the other choice. Half the time when I make an argument there are elements in my words that may support god's existence. It is a result of something I've always maintained but only after considerable reflection. God makes more sense if you believe He simply wants nothing to do with us, be invisible, deaf, mute and non interfering. Absolute non communicative is perfection.
lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with

All we are left with is speculation which is evident in spades in the religion subforum. I do it along with everyone else.
actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you

Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?:rolleyes:

No, unless you're suggesting that only He does the talking. In that case all praying is useless. God endowed us with the ability to communicate but not to Him, is that what you are saying

I'm not sure why one would say that

You 'd question God's motives? Is this the standard free will cop out?

actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue

Ok, we're faulty. If we're faulty then..... (more standard fare)

assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue
No god? or Just a bunch of whacky religious philosophy?:D

its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action

Wrong, I could be silent and nothing happens to the kid. Anyway you`re also implying God might not know either.

lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with

Dont think so because they would still have to believe in a god, not going to happen.

actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you

I did say we all do it, didn`t I

Psychotic Episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?
”
No, unless you're suggesting that only He does the talking.
so you just assume at the onset that your skills of reception are just perfect?

In that case all praying is useless.
or alternatively, the prayers of a dysfunctional person are useless

God endowed us with the ability to communicate but not to Him, is that what you are saying
I am saying that this world offers the unique facility of tuning out god - in the spiritual world there is no option but to be totally socialized around god

“
I'm not sure why one would say that
”
You 'd question God's motives? Is this the standard free will cop out?
I mean to say I am not sure why that is the obvious default position of intelligent opinion.

“
actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue
”
Ok, we're faulty. If we're faulty then..... (more standard fare)
if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries.

“
assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue
”
No god? or Just a bunch of whacky religious philosophy?
even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas

“
its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action
”
Wrong, I could be silent and nothing happens to the kid.
so you think you could be a parent and keep your trap shut for 21 years?


Anyway you`re also implying God might not know either.
why?

“
lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with
”
Dont think so because they would still have to believe in a god, not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
what is the practical difference between a god that does absolutely nothing and has no qualities and a false notion of god?

“
actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you
”
I did say we all do it, didn`t I
discipline of knowledge and practice puts an end to it however

Yes, I think that is the pattern, at least often, with many people.

As far as the fallibility issue...
for me it is very similar to developing or regaining trust in other relationships.

If something goes wrong or something terrible is done by someone and they maintain a position of 'I have done nothing wrong' or 'I am perfect' it puts a damper on the relationship.

Also any pretending 'it REALLY has been OK' can also be a relationship breaker if it hasn't been OK.

I see, and I can relate. I think there are two main factors at work when it comes to relationships and everything that comes with them:

One, taking into account that an observed result might have several causes and that all causes might not be known. When things go wrong between people, or otherwise, this could be exclusively one person's fault, or both people's, or neither. But generally, people tend to think in terms of one cause - one effect; so when they see that something is wrong, they look for one possible cause - and no further. I think this one cause - one effect reasoning is a main source of the popularity of blaming (and not so much the desire to absolve oneself from responsibility). But once one considers the complexity of a situation, it becomes impossible to assign exclusive blame.

Two, having a set of clearcut relationship criteria in place even before one begins a relationship. Practically, this can be hard to live by, other than that we break up all of our old intimate social ties, go into seclusion to figure out a set of relationship criteria, and then begin anew, with new people.
It's important that one knows in advance what one is willing to settle for and what not. Otherwise, relationships are a lot of work and the constant compromising of one's standards or trying to figure them out on the go can be very very straining.

How these two factors relate to fallibility:

One, when considering what God might be like, we have to bear in mind that several causes might be at work that make us think about God one way or another. We need to investigate those causes - how much they actually have to do with God, how much they have to do with our particular perceptions of God, life, ourselves, other people, and even the food we eat or the place we live at.

Two, having a set of relationship criteria makes communication and interaction a lot easier for oneself (and the other person). It's when we are not in the clear about what we want from others and what we are willing to give that many relationship troubles begin. With a set of relationship criteria, we are able to accomodate for the other person's actual or perceived fallibility; we either break up with them, reformulate the relationship, or are ready to forgive them their faults. Without a set of criteria, we are left to wondering whether we should forgive them or not, whether we should break up with them or not etc.
I think similar applies, at least initially, to our relationship with God as well.

How these two factors relate to fallibility:

One, when considering what God might be like, we have to bear in mind that several causes might be at work that make us think about God one way or another. We need to investigate those causes - how much they actually have to do with God, how much they have to do with our particular perceptions of God, life, ourselves, other people, and even the food we eat or the place we live at. certainly and one must do the best one can to work through the various filters and distortions one can just as one would in human to human or other relationships.

Two, having a set of relationship criteria makes communication and interaction a lot easier for oneself (and the other person). It's when we are not in the clear about what we want from others and what we are willing to give that many relationship troubles begin. With a set of relationship criteria, we are able to accomodate for the other person's actual or perceived fallibility; we either break up with them, reformulate the relationship, or are ready to forgive them their faults. Without a set of criteria, we are left to wondering whether we should forgive them or not, whether we should break up with them or not etc.
I think similar applies, at least initially, to our relationship with God as well Given the context, the notion of coming up with one's own relationship criteria is taking quite a stand. Most monotheists would say that you must, by definition, unconditionally surrender to the terms of God. Your needs and desires must be set aside. Notions of hell will come rapidly into many conversations right around here. (free will being something it is great to have but not to use, much as freedom of speech is often viewed by conservatives)

Given the context, the notion of coming up with one's own relationship criteria is taking quite a stand. Most monotheists would say that you must, by definition, unconditionally surrender to the terms of God. Your needs and desires must be set aside. Notions of hell will come rapidly into many conversations right around here. (free will being something it is great to have but not to use, much as freedom of speech is often viewed by conservatives)

I think there is a great difference between monotheisms that work with the concept of karma, and those that do not.
What you say above certainly applies to those monotheisms that do not work with the concept of karma.

However, religious traditions that work with the concept of karma (and in relation to it, rebirth/reincarnation), typically have a remarkably different approach to practice in comparison to non-karmic traditions.
Karmic traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism emphasize graduality, doing your best - whatever that currently is for you, taking little steps, not talking beyond one's realizations, being honest about what you actually know for yourself; they emphasize doing good works, making merit, being generous.
Generally in these traditions, they won't stigmatize you if you don't have first-hand realization of a doctrinal truth. Unlike in non-karmic traditions, where there is the tendency especially among proselytizers, to flat-out call you stupid, proud, evil if within a month or a year you cannot say with all certainty that you know God exists.

I think it is crucial that one be a responsible listener/receiver of the teachings that various religious traditions impart. One has to be serious about oneself, know what one is able and willing to do, and what not. Because if one just hastily takes on some religious beliefs and practices, disregarding one's actual state of mind and circumstances, such practice likely won't amount to much and will likely even cause spiritual degradation.

However, religious traditions that work with the concept of karma (and in relation to it, rebirth/reincarnation), typically have a remarkably different approach to practice in comparison to non-karmic traditions.
Karmic traditions like Buddhism I didn't know Buddhism was considered a monotheism. and Hinduism emphasize graduality and I thought it was more on the mystical end of Hinduism (or the various Hinduisms) that H was monotheistic. But that said....

doing your best - whatever that currently is for you, taking little steps, not talking beyond one's realizations, being honest about what you actually know for yourself; they emphasize doing good works, making merit, being generous.
Generally in these traditions, they won't stigmatize you if you don't have first-hand realization of a doctrinal truth. Unlike in non-karmic traditions, where there is the tendency especially among proselytizers, to flat-out call you stupid, proud, evil if within a month or a year you cannot say with all certainty that you know God exists. To insiders or family members I assume. In any case I have known a lot of monotheists and none of them has said this to me. A few I did not know well did give off that vibe.

I think it is crucial that one be a responsible listener/receiver of the teachings that various religious traditions impart. One has to be serious about oneself, know what one is able and willing to do, and what not. Because if one just hastily takes on some religious beliefs and practices, disregarding one's actual state of mind and circumstances, such practice likely won't amount to much and will likely even cause spiritual degradation. Well you are asking the person to take themselves seriously and that sets them or you really apart.

I would add that one must get beyond but not exclude analysis of what the followers and texts are saying and check in with what one's gut feelings are telling you about the religion in question. How does it feel to hear this or that?

Sort of like you were screening roomates: The prospective roomate may go on and on about what he will do for you (Heaven, insight, inclusion, understanding) but if it feels creepy then at the very least it is not time for you guys to live together.

I didn't know Buddhism was considered a monotheism.

I didn't consider Buddhism to be a monotheism. If you read the rest of my post, you see it is focused on the distinction karmic vs. non-karmic, not monotheistic vs. polytheistic/atheistic.


and I thought it was more on the mystical end of Hinduism (or the various Hinduisms) that H was monotheistic. But that said....

Granted, there are some problems with the use of the word "Hindu". It is sometimes used to refer to all sorts of traditions and practices taking place in India, and other times to a theism with one supreme God and several demigods (the term "polytheism" only really applies when all the gods in a tradition are on the same level; so a system with one supreme God and several demigods is still a monotheism).


Well you are asking the person to take themselves seriously and that sets them or you really apart.

Sure.


I would add that one must get beyond but not exclude analysis of what the followers and texts are saying and check in with what one's gut feelings are telling you about the religion in question. How does it feel to hear this or that?

Agreed. Although I have found feelings to be a rather poor basis for making assessments. One reason I can see is because I've been physically ill and in a poor state a lot and the messages my body is sending me about this and that get in the way of rational assessment.


Sort of like you were screening roomates: The prospective roomate may go on and on about what he will do for you (Heaven, insight, inclusion, understanding) but if it feels creepy then at the very least it is not time for you guys to live together.

I know from personal experience that it is possible to asses such statements rationally, too.

if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries...........

even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas

A perfect transmitter designs an imperfect receiver? Non believers are synonymous with non functioning receivers?

If a non believer does an about face then the batteries have mysteriously been recharged? Safer to say receivers on non believers are turned off, no? No one's batteries really go dead. If God attempts to communicate with a dead receiver then He is really stupid. No, I think God would have to admit failure if He can only talk to some of us, and any attempt at communication would reveal the imperfection.

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries...........

even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas
”
A perfect transmitter designs an imperfect receiver? Non believers are synonymous with non functioning receivers?
its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action - for instance if I believe that the walkie talkie can work if I hold the orange button before speaking, that belief becomes valid when I act on it. As for design, a walkie talkie is perfectly deigned for communication but imperfectly designed for being a hammer - similarly it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way

If a non believer does an about face then the batteries have mysteriously been recharged? Safer to say receivers on non believers are turned off, no? No one's batteries really go dead. If God attempts to communicate with a dead receiver then He is really stupid.
therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)

No, I think God would have to admit failure if He can only talk to some of us, and any attempt at communication would reveal the imperfection.
if we think we have better things to do than properly listen that's fine. God can wait. He has all the time in the world.
:D

its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action ....... it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way

Excellent wriggling. Do you see anything wrong if God only speaks to believers? I would consider God's plunking of Jesus in our midst as a form of communication would you not? So He would be communicating Christ's arrival to believers only. If I accept that this is God's work then I can only be a believer. I think something like this speaks volumes. Remember the cargo cultists?

therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)

This is starting to look like a Roddenberry. God is a creature that communicates through the mood, a little love and capitulation. Whatever happened to 'Hello, God here'? It always comes down to this..... the big cop out answer..... what God does is incomprehensible to us. If so then it is useless to open communication with the big guy and vice versa.

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action ....... it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way
”
Excellent wriggling. Do you see anything wrong if God only speaks to believers?
As already mentioned there is no escaping god's "communication"

I would consider God's plunking of Jesus in our midst as a form of communication would you not?
sure, but that is more like through a medium - much like a king can communicate through a diplomat

So He would be communicating Christ's arrival to believers only.
If I accept that this is God's work then I can only be a believer. I think something like this speaks volumes. Remember the cargo cultists?
I assume that many who came to accept jesus as god's representative didn't have that standing at the outset .. so something must have changed in the interim.
I can't see what idea you are trying to strike with the cargo cultists.

“
therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)
”
This is starting to look like a Roddenberry. God is a creature that communicates through the mood, a little love and capitulation. Whatever happened to 'Hello, God here'? It always comes down to this..... the big cop out answer..... what God does is incomprehensible to us. If so then it is useless to open communication with the big guy and vice versa.
I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.

I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.

Maybe God needs a constitution. I would expect Him to tell us He is imperfect. There is no need for God to hide this or any other information that may be detrimental to his omniness. I think a little bit of honesty would do wonders, even for believers. Of course a communication of this sort would do exactly what the OP suggests, show that God is imperfect.

Current constitution is fraudulent and thus voided until God fesses up.

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.
”
Maybe God needs a constitution.
what for?

I would expect Him to tell us He is imperfect.
why?

There is no need for God to hide this or any other information that may be detrimental to his omniness.
its not so much hiding but respecting our desire to express our independence

I think a little bit of honesty would do wonders, even for believers. Of course a communication of this sort would do exactly what the OP suggests, show that God is imperfect.
seems like you are fixated on your own perfection and assume that the universe has to tow your line

Current constitution is fraudulent and thus voided until God fesses up.
social discontentment is also a common attitude problem of people serving jail sentences

social discontentment is also a common attitude problem of people serving jail sentences

Social acquiescence is a common attitude of people serving God. The obvious retort would be to compare an Earthbound god fearing existence to life in jail.

Social acquiescence is a common attitude of people serving God.
its also a quality of persons not in jail

The obvious retort would be to compare an Earthbound god fearing existence to life in jail.
my point is that you're expressing your opinion that god is imperfect for what appears to be reasons based on your own status quo.
my point is that this is strikingly similar to a discontented prisoner.

my point is that you're expressing your opinion that god is imperfect for what appears to be reasons based on your own status quo.
my point is that this is strikingly similar to a discontented prisoner.

A prisoner should be discontented.

My current affairs are subject to change. Of course my opinions may have been influenced by outside agencies. No different than most. Yes, there are some not so nice things I have seen that many don't but I don't blame God for them.

How is my claim that God is imperfect any different than the opposing view? Jeezuz LG, any speculation about my personal non internet life isn't going to change me.

A prisoner should be discontented.

My current affairs are subject to change. Of course my opinions may have been influenced by outside agencies. No different than most. Yes, there are some not so nice things I have seen that many don't but I don't blame God for them.

How is my claim that God is imperfect any different than the opposing view?
basically you start with an imperfect definition of god (one that is not standard or accepted by practitioners) so any further speculation on the matter doesn't amount to much - I mean if you use happiness in the material world as a starting point for determining how god should behave or manage the world, that is kind of like using happiness in a prison as a starting point for determining how society should be organized.

Jeezuz LG, any speculation about my personal non internet life isn't going to change me.
I didn't mean to try and second guess your real life - I'm simply going by your posts

basically you start with an imperfect definition of god (one that is not standard or accepted by practitioners) so any further speculation on the matter doesn't amount to much -

I wouldn't expect followers and practitioners to accept God's imperfections and at least you've now verified this. I think when the clarity of a god that's imperfect hits home there is bound to be some resignation along with a reluctance to sway opinion for every believer. In a case like this, does the believer ask himself whether more debate will strengthen the non believer's position or weaken theirs?

So there must be something wrong with the attacker or their logic. This is classic behavior when one's belief is threatened or confronted with something more reasonable or truthful than standard acceptance. Wars have been fought because of this.

Reducing religious belief(definitions) to a numbers game is illogical. IOW more people doing one thing doesn't make it right.

I can't believe that you, possibly one of God's true protectors & religiosity's sage, adopted the standard acceptance response tactic. It's a pity and a damn shame as well.

Stalemate :eek: I haven't changed my mind either on my original premis but I do feel better about it now.

I wouldn't expect followers and practitioners to accept God's imperfections and at least you've now verified this. I think when the clarity of a god that's imperfect hits home there is bound to be some resignation along with a reluctance to sway opinion for every believer. In a case like this, does the believer ask himself whether more debate will strengthen the non believer's position or weaken theirs?
Your side of the debate appears to use the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.
I beg to differ.
That I feel is the real issue under discussion (which is why I mention the analogy of the prison system - if you use the perspective of a resident of a jail for presenting the best of all possible worlds your world outlook is completely different)

In that sense discussing the consequences of your world view doesn't amount to much (if there is some digression with the premises, getting all heady about the conclusion is a waste of time). My point is that if you want to seriously challenge theistic ideas, you should at least work within the standard theoretical framework of theists.

So there must be something wrong with the attacker or their logic.
specifically, the problem is that you are deconstructing a world view that I don't even advocate, so getting into details of consequences of your world view isn't really productive to discussion

This is classic behavior when one's belief is threatened or confronted with something more reasonable or truthful than standard acceptance. Wars have been fought because of this.
its got nothing to do with this

Reducing religious belief(definitions) to a numbers game is illogical. IOW more people doing one thing doesn't make it right.
its got nothing to do with this either

I can't believe that you, possibly one of God's true protectors & religiosity's sage, adopted the standard acceptance response tactic. It's a pity and a damn shame as well.
if we don't have standard definitions for words we can't have discussion - I mean if you want to advocate that this is the best of all possible worlds, then sure, you have an argument for an imperfect god - I however don't advocate that.

Stalemate :eek: I haven't changed my mind either on my original premis but I do feel better about it now.
hardly
its a standard atheistic tactic
corrupt theory and definitions to make for an easier target (ie strawman)
If you want to seriously challenge theistic philosophy, you should at lest work within the theory that it operates in

The Brothers Grimm had a theory that a long haired girl named Rapunzel could grow her hair so long that if she was imprisoned in a tower then a prince should be able to climb up to her using her golden locks. They composed a written document outlining how this actually took place, thus verifying the theory.

Further study and reflection calculated the chances of such an event and found that for all the constituents to be in place, the odds were infinitely against such an occurence but entirely within the Realm of Probability.

The Realm of Probability needed a logical explanation. It was decided that although it couldn't be proven, the realm existed and that wherever it was, it was beyond human comprehension. Humans are not equipped with the necessary tools to physically acknowledge the theory and as a result the only recourse available is to believe and have faith in the Possibility.

What is the Possibility? It exists in the Realm of Probability beyond our understanding but assuredly it exists. We must adhere to that belief for without it the theory is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Very interesting topic.

I like to think about whether perfection really even exists. What is perfection, and can anything, including God, really ever be perfect.I am sure we can all agree a "Perfect" being could not knowingly concoct a life form that would knowingly be so utterly heinous. Think of the small 6 month old child left for dead in a starving state on the side of the road today. Why would a "Perfect" creature create a universe where animals must murder other animals to survive - that's just plain asinine.

Imagine making a video game where your life force is in a constant state of decreasing and only by murdering another life form in the game and eating it will that life force go up for a while - who would make such a game? A perfect being? Hardly.

The Brothers Grimm had a theory that a long haired girl named Rapunzel could grow her hair so long that if she was imprisoned in a tower then a prince should be able to climb up to her using her golden locks. They composed a written document outlining how this could take place, thus verifying the theory.
I don't know what version of Rapunzal you have been reading but in the versions I encounter I certainly don't find any issues of application to verify the theory

Further study and reflection calculated the chances of such an event and found that for all the constituents to be in place, the odds were infinitely against such an occurence but entirely within the Realm of Probability.
probability does not equal application

The Realm of Probability needed a logical explanation. It was decided that although it couldn't be proven, the realm existed and that wherever it was, it was beyond human comprehension. Humans are not equipped with the necessary tools to physically acknowledge the theory and as a result the only recourse available is to believe and have faith in the Possibility.
just to give you credit, perhaps you have the beginning of an argument that you can lodge against plato

What is the Possibility? It exists in the Realm of Probability beyond our understanding but assuredly it exists. We must adhere to that belief for without it the theory is nothing more than a fairy tale.
hence things become interesting when one begins to approach application (as opposed to saying "maybe .. , maybe ...., maybe ...., " all day)

Imagine making a video game where your life force is in a constant state of decreasing and only by murdering another life form in the game and eating it will that life force go up for a while - who would make such a game? A perfect being? Hardly.
Now imagine a video game where your life force is a constant ..... but within that video game you are playing a video game like the one you describe
:cool:

PsychoticEpisode's edited version now says:
The Brothers Grimm had a theory that a long haired girl named Rapunzel could grow her hair so long that if she was imprisoned in a tower then a prince should be able to climb up to her using her golden locks. They composed a written document outlining how this actually took place, thus verifying the theory.

I don't know what version of Rapunzal you have been reading but in the versions I encounter I certainly don't find any issues of application to verify the theory

In my version of Rapunzel, the prince makes it to the tower courtesy of fair young maiden's locks and he also gets to make with her, but that's another plot.

'Nuff said', I made my story up as I went on so I missed a few things. Obviously my intent was to produce something similar to religious text. In fairness, the Bros Grimm did not see the event happen but they had the most expertise on the subject and thankfully for the rest of us they wrote it down. To doubt their word is like doubting Tiger Woods' advice on golf, same thing. It's blasphemous to question it.

probability does not equal application

Then people who claim to be theists but only because there is a probability of God are what, pseudotheists? There should be a new category created for them. On the other hand the unequivocal have laid waste to the probability angle only because they have 100% confidence in what they have read on the subject. The truth is in the text and is found no where else on Earth. Ergo Bros Grimm & Rapunzel and religious truth.

The Realm of Probability needed a logical explanation. It was decided that although it couldn't be proven, the realm existed and that wherever it was, it was beyond human comprehension. Humans are not equipped with the necessary tools to physically acknowledge the theory and as a result the only recourse available is to believe and have faith in the Possibility.

What is the Possibility? It exists in the Realm of Probability beyond our understanding but assuredly it exists. We must adhere to that belief for without it the theory is nothing more than a fairy tale.

I think you are taking too much in one step. You seem to have (popular) Christianity as a reference, which could explain this.

The way people arrive at belief in God is, in my estimation, often poorly worked out. Many people who believe in God give a very sketchy, very general account of how they have arrived at belief in God - which can then easily lead to the conclusion that belief in God is basically a matter of a giant leap of faith. A conclusion that is quite useless to those who seek God, and a point of criticism for those who wish to criticize the religious.

However, there needn't be a giant leap of faith. Not all monotheisms require a giant leap of faith. As far as I can tell, there is the Vedic monotheism - it doesn't require a giant leap of faith, but instead suggests to take quite small and doable steps. It seems very promising to me, especially in comparison to (popular) Christianity.

Greenburg..... The option of not believing or taking your time about it is not a preference in the written Bible as far as I can tell. Show me and I'll retract.

Now imagine a video game where your life force is a constant ..... but within that video game you are playing a video game like the one you describe
:cool:OK, but do the people in the video game in the video game I exit feel real pain? If so then it's an immoral game. People in this life suffer. So, that they do not have to and do is immoral. Agreed?

Greenburg..... The option of not believing or taking your time about it is not a preference in the written Bible as far as I can tell.

Yes ... And the attitude of "You have to decide right now, no time for inquiry, you Doubting Thomas" is pushed by many Christian proselytizers.

However, on the grounds of what should people (even non-Christians) give absolute theological supremacy to the Bible, and ignore what the other traditional scriptures say about God?

Even if you don't believe in God and don't believe in what the Bible says, why limit yourself and consider the Bible to be the only religiously relevant document about God?

Even if you don't believe in God and don't believe in what the Bible says, why limit yourself and consider the Bible to be the only religiously relevant document about God?

In the context of the thread, any Bible is representative of a form of communication from god to us. Like a telegram or e-mail. Ignore the fact, as most religious folk do, that it was written by men for the authors are merely the medium through which information from Heaven was delivered.

Now you don't have to go too far once you start reading scriptures to find that there is something wrong here. Very easy to blame man for screwing things up translation wise but wouldn't you think that if God wanted to get a message through that it wouldn't contain the multitude of contradictions and misinformation that it does. The excuse that it suited the time period is like saying God didn't know things would change to the point where ancient musings mean anything. If credit given was to any entity besides God, the book would be full of errors.

Since the bible is acclaimed to be God's words then this attempt at communication is fraught with mistakes and clearly exhibits God's imperfection.

In the context of the thread, any Bible is representative of a form of communication from god to us. Like a telegram or e-mail. Ignore the fact, as most religious folk do, that it was written by men for the authors are merely the medium through which information from Heaven was delivered.

Now you don't have to go too far once you start reading scriptures to find that there is something wrong here. Very easy to blame man for screwing things up translation wise but wouldn't you think that if God wanted to get a message through that it wouldn't contain the multitude of contradictions and misinformation that it does. The excuse that it suited the time period is like saying God didn't know things would change to the point where ancient musings mean anything. If credit given was to any entity besides God, the book would be full of errors.

Since the bible is acclaimed to be God's words then this attempt at communication is fraught with mistakes and clearly exhibits God's imperfection.

Just to clarify, this is why I'll get really basic:

According to you, what should religious scriptures be like in order to truly qualify as God's Word?
What function(s) should religious scriptures ideally fulfill, according to you?
I mean, we cannot rightfully make criticism of something unless we have a quite clear idea of what said thing should be like.

Why do you think that the inconsistencies within or between scriptures are sufficient proof of "God's imperfection"?
What exactly do you think is wrong with scriptoral inconsistencies?

Just to clarify, this is why I'll get really basic:

According to you, what should religious scriptures be like in order to truly qualify as God's Word?

Perfect...don't tell me things like don't kill then run off and do someone in

What function(s) should religious scriptures ideally fulfill, according to you?
Perfection... you can follow it to a 'T' and end up bashing a baby's head in on a rock.

I mean, we cannot rightfully make criticism of something unless we have a quite clear idea of what said thing should be like.

Perfection is not consistent with telling people that after the Sun sets it then hastens back around to the other side or I might argue that bats aren't birds also.

Why do you think that the inconsistencies within or between scriptures are sufficient proof of "God's imperfection"?

Inconsistency is not perfection if your intent is to deliver the truth. Look, I'm not trying to be smart but I expect much more from a perfect being than what is authored.

What exactly do you think is wrong with scriptoral inconsistencies
I see nothing right with inconsistencies unless they are intended to deceive. Success at deception would defintely incorporate false doctrine. The bible if anything is perfectly inconsistent.

OK, but do the people in the video game in the video game I exit feel real pain? If so then it's an immoral game. People in this life suffer. So, that they do not have to and do is immoral. Agreed?
not really
I mean you run into serious problems if you equate pain and suffering with immorality.
For instance is it sufficient to indicate jails as immoral because it is often painful for a person to be locked up?
How about those immoral parents, causing pain to their children by circumventing their desires?

PsychoticEpisode'

“ The Brothers Grimm had a theory that a long haired girl named Rapunzel could grow her hair so long that if she was imprisoned in a tower then a prince should be able to climb up to her using her golden locks. They composed a written document outlining how this actually took place, thus verifying the theory. ”

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I don't know what version of Rapunzal you have been reading but in the versions I encounter I certainly don't find any issues of application to verify the theory ”

In my version of Rapunzel, the prince makes it to the tower courtesy of fair young maiden's locks and he also gets to make with her, but that's another plot.
great
now all you need to do is evidence the application

'Nuff said', I made my story up as I went on so I missed a few things. Obviously my intent was to produce something similar to religious text.
if you want to keep with the similarity then you should also provide a legitimate history of application too

In fairness, the Bros Grimm did not see the event happen but they had the most expertise on the subject and thankfully for the rest of us they wrote it down. To doubt their word is like doubting Tiger Woods' advice on golf, same thing. It's blasphemous to question it.

conceding that there is no issue of direct perception makes driving through issues of application problematic .... to say the least

“ probability does not equal application ”

Then people who claim to be theists but only because there is a probability of God are what, pseudotheists?
it mean sthat have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory

There should be a new category created for them. On the other hand the unequivocal have laid waste to the probability angle only because they have 100% confidence in what they have read on the subject. The truth is in the text and is found no where else on Earth. Ergo Bros Grimm & Rapunzel and religious truth.
so you better get that hair growing I guess
:p

great
now all you need to do is evidence the application

I shall take the same evidentiary approach religion takes to apply God's existence. Here goes:


That should do it. The end.(I wonder if I should have mentioned metaphor, oh well)

if you want to keep with the similarity then you should also provide a legitimate history of application too

Whether Rapunzel was the only babe imprisoned in a tower with long hair strong enough to hold the weight of humanity has been discussed at great length(catch the pun) and it's been decided by the learned scholars who study the situation that she was always there. No Rapunzels before or after. There can only be one. As God is evidenced in the Bible, so too is Rapunzel evidenced in the sacred Book of Grimm.

conceding that there is no issue of direct perception makes driving through issues of application problematic .... to say the least

You can say that again. It kind of transcends reality when you think of it. Rapunzel is from some other place that no person could physically be in, therefore incomprehensible. She's back there right now. Tough to get a personal appearance though.

it means that have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory

As its been stated previous, it is blasphemous to even consider Rapunzel never happened, it can't be questioned. I've violated that sanctity just trying to explain it, so it does happen unfortunately, present company included. Either you are Rapunzelist or you are ARapunzelist, there are no other choices. It can't be tested either way, you just have to believe in Rapunzel.

so you better get that hair growing I guess

According to the experts, Rapunzel will return for a sequel. There is a clue for this blesssed event.....remember, she was impregnated by a Prince. If not Rapunzel then Her child shall return to make a mockery of all those who doubt her existence.

not really
I mean you run into serious problems if you equate pain and suffering with immorality.
For instance is it sufficient to indicate jails as immoral because it is often painful for a person to be locked up?
How about those immoral parents, causing pain to their children by circumventing their desires?You're talking abotu a gamne we are in.

I'm suggesting that any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.

any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.

Thanks Michael, I just realized that the inflicting of pain and suffering is a communication from God. He must have this message looped for constant repetition. He undoubtedly is sending a signal that He is imperfect unless the plan was to have us suffer all along, in which case He has nailed it. If so, then who does pain and suffering benefit? If God then He is one sadistic MF, definitely not wearing the Good Halo.

Any imperfection of God's would actually be perfect if His intent was to deceive.

Perfect...
Perfection...

But what is "perfect", "perfection"?
One would have to be perfect oneself in order to be able to make a valid definition of "perfection".
An imperfect being cannot but make only imperfect definitions of perfection.
An imperfect being is not equipped to asses perfection.
So for an imperfect being to try to define perfection is a waste of time and energy.


Inconsistency is not perfection if your intent is to deliver the truth. Look, I'm not trying to be smart but I expect much more from a perfect being than what is authored.

I see nothing right with inconsistencies unless they are intended to deceive. Success at deception would defintely incorporate false doctrine.

I don't think so.
I find it quite possible that the imperfections we perceive in scriptures serve a certain purpose that eventually delivers the truth.

The "intention to deceive" is not necessarily criminal. If you ever had anything to do with little children, you will probably know that it sometimes requires quite a bit of deception to make them stop crying incessantly, to get them to eat vegetables and other foods that are good for them, to get them to clean their room, to teach them this or that. They won't do it if you tell them directly, but "Do it for mommy", or dancing with them, and so on might do the trick, for example.

And later, if you ever tried to teach yourself something, a skill or a subject matter, or if you ever worked on changing your habits, then you will also know that it requires some deception to do so. For example, if you are trying to quit smoking, and when you get the urge to smoke, you eat a carrot. It's a deception, but it can lead you to not smoking.

I find it quite possible that what appear to be deceptions in scriptures, can be utilized for a good purpose too. Provided that the reader has faith that in some way, it all makes sense.

I'm suggesting that any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.

Such a creator is not necessarily evil.

If the pain and suffering are due to a choice humans have made in their free will (and a choice that could have been made otherwise, too),
then the existence of pain and suffering are not proof that the creator is evil.

If people would experience pain and suffering and had absolutely no free will about that, then this would be proof of an evil creator.

One could of course argue that a creator who creates beings that have the ability to choose their own misery and demise, is evil (and that those beings are evil, too).
In the case of arguing such, however, I think it is necessary to look closer into the nature of suffering - how suffering exists, how human beings exist, what is the self, are we our bodies ...

Also, Western thinkers, such as Erich Fromm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm) have noted that freedom can be perceived as a terrible burden, and that people will even prefer to behave as automatons than bear this burden of freedom.
I think this perception that freedom is a burden is quite common and we are often not even aware of it (as we are so used to it). And I think it is this perception that freedom is a burden that makes us resent the notion of being created such that we have free will, and also resent such a creator.

A less convoluted approach to imperfections in scripture would suggest the obvious; they are imperfections because they have been badly or carelessly written. To suggest that the imperfections we perceive have some deeper meaning is an unnecessary complication which suggests a need to believe what is not there, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

Your comments on deception are less than convincing. If your analogy is valid, it suggests that god is treating his creatures as if they were imbeciles. Why the need for mystery, when we could have been created with the ability to understand what is being said instead of our having to go all round the houses and argue amongst ourselves as to what a particular passage of scripture means. It could equally be said that god is a lousy communicator but that would be unacceptable to the religious who have put temselvers in the position of having to defend their god as a perfect being.

The basic question to which there appears to be no rational answer is why god communicates in a manner which is less than clear. This seems to another of his mysteries. " I shall create beings who will not understand what I tell them but I will enjoy watching them trying to make sense of my utterances. Why give them a straightforward message when a mystery will do ! "

Your analogy of the smoker and the carrot is silly. There is no deception involved in eating a carrot when I feel like a cigarette. I am merely knowingly substituting one oral activity for another.

Myles,

To suggest that the imperfections we perceive have some deeper meaning is an unnecessary complication which suggests a need to believe what is not there, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication

Your comments on deception are less than convincing. If your analogy is valid, it suggests that god is treating his creatures as if they were imbeciles.

Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.
As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates.
Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.

Why the need for mystery, when we could have been created with the ability to understand what is being said instead of our having to go all round the houses and argue amongst ourselves as to what a particular passage of scripture means.

We have the ability to understand, do we not?
Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

The basic question to which there appears to be no rational answer is why god communicates in a manner which is less than clear.

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.

This seems to another of his mysteries. " I shall create beings who will not understand what I tell them but I will enjoy watching them trying to make sense of my utterances. Why give them a straightforward message when a mystery will do ! "

Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Your analogy of the smoker and the carrot is silly. There is no deception involved in eating a carrot when I feel like a cigarette. I am merely knowingly substituting one oral activity for another.

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control. :)

jan.

Does God destroy his aura of perfection by communicating with His creations?

Does asking a question of your creations somehow blow away the spectre of perfection surrounding God? If God knows all, why communicate with us? What possible difference can our talks with God make in an unalterable plan, in which every move is known by the originator before it happens?

When God declares he is the beginnng and the end, how insignificant or unimportant are we? Would a perfect God need to make that announcement? If so why?

When God asks questions of us, again what does it really matter in the great scheme of things how we answer?

Perhaps God needs imperfection just to be perfect.

A perfect God should not be seen or heard from. In fact it might not be necessary for God to exist at all or at least give the appearance of such, once things are set in motion. If I believe in a perfect God is it necessary for Him to tell me He's perfect?

According to the bible God DID communicate with us.
And millions of believers claim that He is still communicating with them today through prayer.

[QUOTE=Jan Ardena;1949059]Myles,



Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication


If it's so accessible, why so much argument as to what is meant ?


Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates. Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.


Here we go again.Why did he not create us all with an appropriate level of awareness.? I'm sure you have a clever answer.

We have the ability to understand, do we not? Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

Nonsense. Look at the number of religions. each of which offers a different take on god. Are you honestly saying that such groups do not wish to understand ?

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.


There are indeed people who claim to understand what god wants but they are a bit short on evidence when they are questioned. My question is rational; the available answers are not.

Do you believe the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ian Paisley, Mohammed, Hidus, Sikhs, inter alia ?. Of course not, you make a choice and attempt to defend it.


Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Why the need to choose. If every textbook were written with the sme lack of clarity as the scriptures, we'd still be living as we dis thousands of years ago.


There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control. :)

I disagree. The bodily craving is interpreted by the brain but that same brain knows that a carrot is being eaten. Do you believe we cure a headache by deception when we take a pill ?

Myles,


Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication


If it's so accessible, why so much argument as to what is meant ?

People arguing, has nothing to do with accesibility.


Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates. Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.


Here we go again.Why did he not create us all with an appropriate level of awareness.? I'm sure you have a clever answer.

Having the ability to understand is absolutely apropriate.

We have the ability to understand, do we not? Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

Nonsense. Look at the number of religions. each of which offers a different take on god. Are you honestly saying that such groups do not wish to understand ?

I'm saying, they are using their ability to understand. If they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the source is contradictory.

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.

There are indeed people who claim to understand what god wants but they are a bit short on evidence when they are questioned. My question is rational; the available answers are not.

From this statement it would appear you know what you want to hear in the form of answers, and you reject that which does not conform to your understanding. Ultimately you will accept only that which fits your view.
What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.


Do you believe the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ian Paisley, Mohammed, Hidus, Sikhs, inter alia ?. Of course not, you make a choice and attempt to defend it.

What do you mean by 'do I believe them'?

Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Why the need to choose. If every textbook were written with the sme lack of clarity as the scriptures, we'd still be living as we dis thousands of years ago.

We are living as we did thousands of years ago.
In what way have we changed?

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control. :)

I disagree. The bodily craving is interpreted by the brain but that same brain knows that a carrot is being eaten.

How does the brain know?

Do you believe we cure a headache by deception when we take a pill ?

I believe we can if we want to.

Jan.

You're talking abotu a gamne we are in.

I'm suggesting that any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.
well since you can walk away from the game when you sincerely want to, where does the duty of care lie?

I shall take the same evidentiary approach religion takes to apply God's existence. Here goes:


That should do it. The end.(I wonder if I should have mentioned metaphor, oh well)



Whether Rapunzel was the only babe imprisoned in a tower with long hair strong enough to hold the weight of humanity has been discussed at great length(catch the pun) and it's been decided by the learned scholars who study the situation that she was always there. No Rapunzels before or after. There can only be one. As God is evidenced in the Bible, so too is Rapunzel evidenced in the sacred Book of Grimm.



You can say that again. It kind of transcends reality when you think of it. Rapunzel is from some other place that no person could physically be in, therefore incomprehensible. She's back there right now. Tough to get a personal appearance though.



As its been stated previous, it is blasphemous to even consider Rapunzel never happened, it can't be questioned. I've violated that sanctity just trying to explain it, so it does happen unfortunately, present company included. Either you are Rapunzelist or you are ARapunzelist, there are no other choices. It can't be tested either way, you just have to believe in Rapunzel.



According to the experts, Rapunzel will return for a sequel. There is a clue for this blesssed event.....remember, she was impregnated by a Prince. If not Rapunzel then Her child shall return to make a mockery of all those who doubt her existence.

how is all this getting around
"it means that you have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory"

It seems you are just answering challenges of application with more theory (theory along the lines of correlation = causation btw)

Myles,




People arguing, has nothing to do with accesibility.



Having the ability to understand is absolutely apropriate.



I'm saying, they are using their ability to understand. If they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the source is contradictory.



From this statement it would appear you know what you want to hear in the form of answers, and you reject that which does not conform to your understanding. Ultimately you will accept only that which fits your view.
What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.




What do you mean by 'do I believe them'?



We are living as we did thousands of years ago.
In what way have we changed?

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control. :)



How does the brain know?



I believe we can if we want to.

Jan.

Let's cut to the chase. God has created a right mess , what with all that squabbling about scripture. He should not have delegated the job.

how is all this getting around
"it means that you have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory"

It seems you are just answering challenges of application with more theory (theory along the lines of correlation = causation btw)

Are there no towers, are there no maidens?

In the interest of staying within the context of my original premis, that the story of God and everything associated with it is more or less a Fairy tale then I see know reason to even try. To look like a buffoon as theists seem prone to be when they attempt to rationalize their belief with the world is not in my repertoire. Sorry but I will not fall into that trap. I'm quite happy with my little satirical piece.

The Possibility lives on in the Realm of Probability. No one can go there and no one can understand it. Sound familiar?

Are there no towers, are there no maidens?

In the interest of staying within the context of my original premis, that the story of God and everything associated with it is more or less a Fairy tale then I see know reason to even try.

That phrase seems unnecessarily abstract. You think you can assess liklihood without engaging in certain kinds of activities. Light Gigantic is saying you can't. It is not a matter of an 'interest in staying in the context of your original premise' but a lack of new information so your opinion stays the same.

It is not a matter of an 'interest in staying in the context of your original premise' but a lack of new information so your opinion stays the same.

What I would give for real information on a true God? There isn't anything, zero, zilch, nada. Philosophize all you want, there's nothing to go on.

On the assumption that God actually communicated in written form, the inference that His word is imperfection means that whenever God communicates with us in any way He always risks revealing it. Prove me wrong, you can't. Why? Because there's nothing to base your opinion on, no hard facts. The communicative word is full of holes and would not support it. I feel like a theist, I don't have to prove anything.

It is better to believe God is beyond our mortal existence, somewhere over the rainbow.

What I would give for real information on a true God? There isn't anything, zero, zilch, nada. Philosophize all you want, there's nothing to go on.
I think you missed the point of my post and the point of the thread.
My post: All you were saying is that since the time you wrote your other posts you had not investigated, had no more information and had the same opinion.
The thread: to truly test various religious hypotheses it might be necessary to engage in certain practices.

You don't want to, fine. Don't. But your post was, essentially, off topic.

Convincing by philosophizing was precisely not the point.

Simon...This is off topic and & I'm sorry......if I wanted to inject more info I would have had to make it up, pretty obvious I think. Threads tend to go off topic at times, I don't like it and for the most part I try to get back to it. But I'm no different than anyone else.

Basically LG and I usually disagree which makes things more interesting. He knows what I think of religious philosopy. LG isn't stupid and is very cagey. One tactic is to throw you off topic, plain and simple. I find it a lot of fun to try and get inside his head. He knows I deliberately say things to get a response and he handles it well, sometimes I guess right but most times I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

I'll delete this post tomorrow, hopefully before LG reads it.

Simon...This is off topic and & I'm sorry......if I wanted to inject more info I would have had to make it up, pretty obvious I think. Threads tend to go off topic at times, I don't like it and for the most part I try to get back to it. But I'm no different than anyone else.

Basically LG and I usually disagree which makes things more interesting. He knows what I think of religious philosopy. LG isn't stupid and is very cagey. One tactic is to throw you off topic, plain and simple. I find it a lot of fun to try and get inside his head. He knows I deliberately say things to get a response and he handles it well, sometimes I guess right but most times I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

I'll delete this post tomorrow, hopefully before LG reads it.
I didn't mean

you are off topic so you are bad.

I wondered if you really got the ideas in the thread. (not that you would agree with them if you got them. I think it is pretty clear you would not, but it did not seem like you were quite responding to them.)

Myles,

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.

jan.

Myles,

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.

jan.

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ? In what way are you qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ? In what way are you qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

As I thought, your question is irrational.

Qualifications?
To talk about anything, one only need to be able to talk.

Jan.

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ?

For starters, the qualification that one deems the things one is asking about truly important to oneself.
Otherwise, one is simply an idle chatterer, a nuisance, not worthy of a decent reply.

I wondered if you really got the ideas in the thread. (not that you would agree with them if you got them. I think it is pretty clear you would not, but it did not seem like you were quite responding to them.)

Let's say I'm cautious. My little satirical story was intended to mimic the bible's penchant for the human construct of a god or religion. When LG starts asking questions based on conducting a philosophic argument then my guard goes up. At that point I am at a disadvantage. I can't remember which post but LG stated I needed to produce a clearer definition of God. This is when I said to myself WTF? Where did that come from? After that I choose my words carefully, that's all. Score one for LG but bear in mind it was off topic.

Back to the thread. I still believe that God (pick any definition) should be perfect. I think most believers would agree. However when He attempts to communicate with us via scripture He displays imperfections unless, He is deliberately condescending towards us so that we at least get the important part of the message. Someone alluded to this earlier. I'm saying that if He is talking down to us, then it shouldn't happen (beneath a perfect being to do so).

Obviously we are not perfect. If God were to create everything to perfection than He might as well create Himself ad infinitum. I don't think any self-respecting god would do that. So if God exists then we have intentionally been made imperfect. I trying to help believers out there, LG knows what I'm talking about. The fact is that we have to be perfectly imperfect in order for God to exist. Why communicate if you're God, if that is the case. It would serve no purpose. Not one person on Earth should ever claim that God communicates to them because it is illogical for Him to do so.

Why doesn't He do this then and put everybody's mind at ease? Because He would have to tell us we were intentionally made with a flaw. Therefore no amount of worship, sacrifice, devotion, giving, whatever, would mean anything. The realization that there is no hope for us on this lonely planet would not be in His best interest. So we do it for Him. People refer to themselves as sinners on an daily basis so there is no need to communicate that message, and He didn't have to lift a finger.

What are we left with. God is, He's perfect, we're perfectly imperfect or God isn't and we're not perfect. Either way we're not perfect. Or so it seems. We are more perfectly adapted to surviving than any other creature on the planet which is more important to me anyways.

Let's say I'm cautious. My little satirical story was intended to mimic the bible's penchant for the human construct of a god or religion. When LG starts asking questions based on conducting a philosophic argument then my guard goes up. At that point I am at a disadvantage. I can't remember which post but LG stated I needed to produce a clearer definition of God. This is when I said to myself WTF? Where did that come from? After that I choose my words carefully, that's all. Score one for LG but bear in mind it was off topic.

Back to the thread. I still believe that God (pick any definition) should be perfect. I think most believers would agree. However when He attempts to communicate with us via scripture He displays imperfections unless, He is deliberately condescending towards us so that we at least get the important part of the message. Someone alluded to this earlier. I'm saying that if He is talking down to us, then it shouldn't happen (beneath a perfect being to do so).

Obviously we are not perfect. If God were to create everything to perfection than He might as well create Himself ad infinitum. I don't think any self-respecting god would do that. So if God exists then we have intentionally been made imperfect. I trying to help believers out there, LG knows what I'm talking about. The fact is that we have to be perfectly imperfect in order for God to exist. Why communicate if you're God, if that is the case. It would serve no purpose. Not one person on Earth should ever claim that God communicates to them because it is illogical for Him to do so.

Why doesn't He do this then and put everybody's mind at ease? Because He would have to tell us we were intentionally made with a flaw. Therefore no amount of worship, sacrifice, devotion, giving, whatever, would mean anything. The realization that there is no hope for us on this lonely planet would not be in His best interest. So we do it for Him. People refer to themselves as sinners on an daily basis so there is no need to communicate that message, and He didn't have to lift a finger.

What are we left with. God is, He's perfect, we're perfectly imperfect or God isn't and we're not perfect. Either way we're not perfect. Or so it seems. We are more perfectly adapted to surviving than any other creature on the planet which is more important to me anyways.

Interesting. And I didn't have the whole context.

Interesting also that I am a theist but I believe God has made mistakes.

As I thought, your question is irrational.

Qualifications?
To talk about anything, one only need to be able to talk.

Jan.

Be you asked me what my qualifications are. I can now give you an answer which you will regard as rational.I can talk.

I maintain, however, that talking to something which doesn't exist is irrational.

For starters, the qualification that one deems the things one is asking about truly important to oneself.
Otherwise, one is simply an idle chatterer, a nuisance, not worthy of a decent reply.

You are assuming I have not been there. I have and I've grown out of it.Some people never do.

What about this PE ?
According to the bible God DID communicate with us.
And millions of believers claim that He is still communicating with them today through prayer.

What about this PE ?

“ Originally Posted by Enmos
According to the bible God DID communicate with us.
And millions of believers claim that He is still communicating with them today through prayer.

Bible is a man made construct. It represents what our ancestors believed how things did or should go down. It is so full of mistakes, and with every passing day that list grows longer, that it couldn't have come from a perfect God unless it was intentional. Placed in our midst to do what?

In my estimation, God if He exists, would not communicate perfection to something imperfect, it is illogical to assume we would understand. If you think He has then He has errored. You can take solace in believing He's perfect but don't ever expect Him to make a house call. We are on our own folks, no need to fight over God. Let's make do without Him and move on.

Bible is a man made construct. It represents what our ancestors believed how things did or should go down. It is so full of mistakes, and with every passing day that list grows longer, that it couldn't have come from a perfect God unless it was intentional. Placed in our midst to do what?

In my estimation, God if He exists, would not communicate perfection to something imperfect, it is illogical to assume we would understand. If you think He has then He has errored. You can take solace in believing He's perfect but don't ever expect Him to make a house call. We are on our own folks, no need to fight over God. Let's make do without Him and move on.

Hmm I thought you were a theist..

Interesting also that I am a theist but I believe God has made mistakes.

Yes it is interesting that you feel so. I think you are part of a trend in religion that underlines the fact we better understand our world than ever before. With this comes the responsibility of adaptation in order to fulfill our needs. Some of us need God but we can no longer accept a perfect one because old fashioned dogma doesn't fit modern society. Questions abound and logical answers to beguiling stories counter old scripture and teaching. The believer has to reconcile and this is your way. Perhaps unconsciously I'm also doing it but to a more extreme measure.

A God who makes mistakes was once unthinkable. Either sinning has worsened, religion is weakening or we're just plain smarter these days. Any one of those events act to facilitate changes in attitude. However, one communique from God to the whole world would also serve to facilitate change(s).

Hmm I thought you were a theist..

I must have hit the space bar accidentally once.:D

Aside from that, I have no reason to believe God exists. Neither will any wager ever change my position, it's not a way to live.

Myles,

Be you asked me what my qualifications are.

I did no such thing. I assume you are qualified, because someone as confident as you must be. :)

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?

I can now give you an answer which you will regard as rational.I can talk.

You asked what qualifications does one need to ask questions, and, in what way am I qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

To the first question, I couldn't understand why one would need qualifications to ask questions, hence my response; Qualifications?
To the second my response was that one only need to be able to speak, to talk about god and his method of communication.

Try to actually read the posts.

Looks like you've got it wrong, again. ;)

I maintain, however, that talking to something which doesn't exist is irrational.

So do I.
What's your point?

Myles,



I did no such thing. I assume you are qualified, because someone as confident as you must be. :)





You asked what qualifications does one need to ask questions, and, in what way am I qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

To the first question, I couldn't understand why one would need qualifications to ask questions, hence my response; Qualifications?
To the second my response was that one only need to be able to speak, to talk about god and his method of communication.

Try to actually read the posts.

Looks like you've got it wrong, again. ;)



So do I.
What's your point?

Re-read your post no. 77 where you asked why I thought I was qualified......

My response was to ask what qualifcations were needed.


I now consider you are wasting my time. Bye

Yes it is interesting that you feel so. I think you are part of a trend in religion that underlines the fact we better understand our world than ever before. With this comes the responsibility of adaptation in order to fulfill our needs. Some of us need God but we can no longer accept a perfect one because old fashioned dogma doesn't fit modern society. Questions abound and logical answers to beguiling stories counter old scripture and teaching. The believer has to reconcile and this is your way. Perhaps unconsciously I'm also doing it but to a more extreme measure.

A God who makes mistakes was once unthinkable. Either sinning has worsened, religion is weakening or we're just plain smarter these days. Any one of those events act to facilitate changes in attitude. However, one communique from God to the whole world would also serve to facilitate change(s).
Many 'pagans' had imperfect deities causing all sorts of problems. I would guess the majority of religions viewed things this way - note: not the majority of the religious. We in the West are used to the God of the theology departments and Vatican libraries, etc. Perfect, all powerful, all seeing, infallible. Why limit God to some crystalline perfection with all its attendant paradoxes. Why not a learning being?

Re-read your post no. 77 where you asked why I thought I was qualified......

My response was to ask what qualifcations were needed.


I now consider you are wasting my time. Bye

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?


I'm afraid you are wrong, I asked 'what do you know..."
Aren't you interested in evidence I have presented? :D

jan.

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?


I'm afraid you are wrong, I asked 'what do you know..."
Aren't you interested in evidence I have presented? :D

jan.

Read it again ! " why you believe you are qualified to ask such questions..."

If I believe I am qualified, it suggests I have some sort of qualification and you wish to know what I think it is. The alternative is to say I don't believe I am qualified, in which case I would not be making a statement on the subject in the first place.

I am not interested in what you call evidence; I have heard it all before; it carries no weight.

Myles,

Read it again ! " why you believe you are qualified to ask such questions..."[/COLOR]

That was the assumption, based on your confidence. The question was; what do you know about god.

[QUOTE]If I believe I am qualified, it suggests I have some sort of qualification and you wish to know what I think it is.

It stands to reason that if you believe you are qualified, then you have qualification. I asked what do you know about God to warrant such belief.
I know a few things about cars, but I am not a qualified mechanic, and not all qualified mechanics know the same things about cars, hence good, or bad mechanics.

The alternative is to say I don't believe I am qualified, in which case I would not be making a statement on the subject in the first place.

The alternative would be to say I don't know anything about God, so I don't believe I am qualified to affirm; "The basic question to which there appears to be no rational answer is why god communicates in a manner which is less than clear.

I am not interested in what you call evidence; I have heard it all before; it carries no weight.

This is your mistake.

jan.

Pschotic episode
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how is all this getting around
"it means that you have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory"

It seems you are just answering challenges of application with more theory (theory along the lines of correlation = causation btw) ”

Are there no towers, are there no maidens?
... and does correlation = causation?

In the interest of staying within the context of my original premis, that the story of God and everything associated with it is more or less a Fairy tale then I see know reason to even try.
so if I can correlate some fairy tale to a claim in physics I have a legitimate reason for not applying any subsidary requirements in the field of physics?


To look like a buffoon as theists seem prone to be when they attempt to rationalize their belief with the world is not in my repertoire. Sorry but I will not fall into that trap. I'm quite happy with my little satirical piece.
fine .... but self satisfaction is generally not a safe means for avoiding looking like a buffoon

The Possibility lives on in the Realm of Probability. No one can go there and no one can understand it. Sound familiar?
yes
its a hallmark claim of theists stabilized on an unsatifactory level of performance
(and thus an attractive argument for atheists to refute)

... and does correlation = causation?

Scientists have proven hair grows, it has tensile strength, if braided it can support the weight of a man. This part is known fact. However there is some dispute whether or not the Rapunzel events would unfold as they are claimed.

This is where it became chance but only in a statistical sense, found deep within a Realm of Probability. The odds of the event actually occuring in that Realm are transcalculational, as one action begets another like an endless tree of branches. Suffice to say it probably would never happen in an infinite amount of universes and time. However people cling to the belief that it did.

But for one chance the Possibility is dead. But for infinity, the Possibility is alive. Infinity seems to be the only concept that keeps the Possibility alive.

The Grimm communique fails to positively establish the event actually occured. There is not enough information and as a result too much doubt is attached. Therefore it is flawed. The message should not contain disparate variables but establish a indisputable fact so that the receiver is 100% positively informed. That is all.

Scientists have proven hair grows, it has tensile strength, if braided it can support the weight of a man. This part is known fact. However there is some dispute whether or not the Rapunzel events would unfold as they are claimed.
... and that is precisely what you are correlating as sufficient
:o

If god made us in his image, then god is anything but perfect.

If god made us in his image, then god is anything but perfect.

you would rather be a rock?

you would rather be a rock? If he says yes, does that mean he was being a hypocrite.

No.

If he says yes, does that mean he was being a hypocrite.

.
Yes - assuming that rocks don't have a sense of "I"

Yes - assuming that rocks don't have a sense of "I"
Hm. He was talking about being flawed. You asked if he preferred being human to being a rock. If he says he prefers being a human does this mean he has somehow admitted humans or God are not flawed?

No.

It was a distracting question. The answer implies little.

... and that is precisely what you are correlating as sufficient
:o

Do I have to help prove God exists for you once again? I get to do all the hard work. You'll always have that glimmer of hope, hang in there.

Rapunzel's story is no different than any religious script. It was intended to mimic the communique from God to the authors of scripture. If its flawed that's good. You're not going to tell me its perfect, are you?

you would rather be a rock?

I have no idea what would make you ask that question.

I have no idea what would make you ask that question.

Yes, it was ridiculous. If I am using a screwdriver with a broken handle and I point this out to a friend and my friend says "would you rather use a rock?" I still have a screwdriver with a broken handle even though I will reluctantly use it and prefer it over a rock. The idea that God might also be flawed is so taboo smugness immediately arises in relation to it.

Yes, it was ridiculous. If I am using a screwdriver with a broken handle and I point this out to a friend and my friend says "would you rather use a rock?" I still have a screwdriver with a broken handle even though I will reluctantly use it and prefer it over a rock. The idea that God might also be flawed is so taboo smugness immediately arises in relation to it.

They were talking about it like I said things that I didn't say.

Do I have to help prove God exists for you once again?
lol
I certainly hope not

I get to do all the hard work. You'll always have that glimmer of hope, hang in there.

Rapunzel's story is no different than any religious script.
Ever wondered why religious scholars (even the atheistic variety) never speak like that?

It was intended to mimic the communique from God to the authors of scripture. If its flawed that's good. You're not going to tell me its perfect, are you?
so once again, if I can mimic a claim of physics with a fairy tale, does that mean I have adequately provided a means to circumvent other prescribed activities in physics?

lol
so once again, if I can mimic a claim of physics with a fairy tale, does that mean I have adequately provided a means to circumvent other prescribed activities in physics?

You can do anything you want but bear in mind: It is much easier to circumvent religion than physics. You've taken the challenge and have run the gauntlet, part ways at least. Still a long way to go.:D

You can do anything you want but bear in mind: It is much easier to circumvent religion than physics.
if I want to avoid the prescriptive measures required, it makes no difference
:D

Of course professionals in the field might treat me with compassion, or perhaps anger and ridicule if I become a bit too pedantic ....

Of course professionals in the field might treat me with compassion, or perhaps anger and ridicule if I become a bit too pedantic ....

Too pedantic? Hell, that's keeping religion alive.

Too pedantic? Hell, that's keeping religion alive.
and quite a few atheists too
:D

Such a creator is not necessarily evil.

If the pain and suffering are due to a choice humans have made in their free will (and a choice that could have been made otherwise, too),
then the existence of pain and suffering are not proof that the creator is evil.

If people would experience pain and suffering and had absolutely no free will about that, then this would be proof of an evil creator.What about a child who is raped and butchered? They obviously have no free will to stop this. A creator that is omnipotent can create a world with free will where such an evil event could not happen - a physic imposibilty no different then you or I flapping out arms and flying. Simply impossible. Given that a creator can create such a world and did not, that says to me the creator/s is/are evil. OR there isn't any.

well since you can walk away from the game when you sincerely want to, where does the duty of care lie?I don't get the question. You mean as God, when does God just walk away?

I'm not saying a "game" - -that was an example as God as a programmer. The Programmer has control over the reality in the game.

So, we agree that God can create a world where horrendous unbearable suffering can not exist and yet decided to create one where it does anyway. Well, such a God is evil. Remember, God can do anything, It can create a world where you have freewill and you can still come to whatever epiphanies It would like you to come to. Just imagine if you were simply a flower soaking in the sun. :)

But ooohhh no, God creates animals that must rip the flesh off other animals while still alive (and even gives those other animals pain receptors) and also make this a requirement for the one animal to remain alive. He builds it into their DNA - to kill.

God could have made it so that children can not be raped and doused with gas a burned alive - but meh, he didn't.

Again, such a God must then be evil.

Isn't perfection relative?

One person's perfect house/car/day/etc. may be different than anothers.

I think perfection is in the eye of the beholder. What do you guys think?

What about a child who is raped and butchered? They obviously have no free will to stop this.

The understanding of such situations depends on one's understanding of these topics:
- What is a person? - Are you your body? Are you a soul and the body is just attached to it? What are the characteristics of the soul, and what are the characteristics of the body?
- How does human action take place?
- How does suffering exist? What does it pertain to?
- Is there only this one life time (those 70 years or so), or is there rebirth where a living being is born many many times, in different bodies?


In short, if you are trying to understand these topics from a common Western or common Christian perspective, the conclusion will most likely be that there is no free will, or that if there is a God, he is evil.

However, these perspectives are not the only ones that exist in this world.
Religious traditions such as Buddhism or Hinduism address these topics much differently.
Here's a summary: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803


A creator that is omnipotent can create a world with free will where such an evil event could not happen - a physic imposibilty no different then you or I flapping out arms and flying. Simply impossible. Given that a creator can create such a world and did not, that says to me the creator/s is/are evil. OR there isn't any.

Are you sure that such a world does not exist? Are you sure that Plant Earth is the only case of creation, and that if there are others, they're all like Earth?
I'm not arguing that there exists such a world. It's just that it is impossible to prove a negative, and you are arguing as if you had proven a negative ...
It makes the whole discussion futile.

I was under the impression we were speaking about the Abrahamic God.

I don't know much about the Buddhist or Hindu versions of reality. I'll try to get over to the other thread.

Michael
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well since you can walk away from the game when you sincerely want to, where does the duty of care lie? ”

I don't get the question. You mean as God, when does God just walk away?
No I mean we can.
If we are eternally bound this world talks of liberation are moot

I'm not saying a "game" - -that was an example as God as a programmer. The Programmer has control over the reality in the game.
therefore I struck the example of a game within a game. Or a game that we can control within certain (very stringent) limits that exists within a larger game.

So, we agree that God can create a world where horrendous unbearable suffering can not exist and yet decided to create one where it does anyway.
I guess it depends whether you think creating a jail creates a need within society or whether creating a jail caters for an already existing social phenomena

Well, such a God is evil. Remember, God can do anything, It can create a world where you have freewill and you can still come to whatever epiphanies It would like you to come to. Just imagine if you were simply a flower soaking in the sun.
just because god can create anything doesn't mean that things like round squares or free will with out the opportunity to express evil can be created

But ooohhh no, God creates animals that must rip the flesh off other animals while still alive (and even gives those other animals pain receptors) and also make this a requirement for the one animal to remain alive. He builds it into their DNA - to kill.

God could have made it so that children can not be raped and doused with gas a burned alive - but meh, he didn't.
actually he did create a world like that - that is where we are originally situated - for some funny reason however we think that this world offers a better alternative
:o

Again, such a God must then be evil.
or alternatively, we are just expressing our free will in a totally ridiculous fashion