matthew 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

lets clarifying what we mean by "perfect". something that "contains all potentialities", "without flaw".

The idea of a perfect being creating the universe is self-contradictory. How can perfection be improved upon? To create is to indicate a lack, an imperfection. a flaw

If a perfect being needs to create something then it isn’t perfect. To be perfect is to lack nothing.

“Perfect beings would not be troubled by anything, including the behavior of humans. Hence, the notion that a god would reward or punish us is absurd. To be perfect is to be unperturbed. The concept of perfection, therefore, requires that a god be indifferent to human behavior.”

therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent.




.

matthew 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

lets clarifying what we mean by "perfect". something that "contains all potentialities", "without flaw".

The idea of a perfect being creating the universe is self-contradictory. How can perfection be improved upon? To create is to indicate a lack, an imperfection. a flaw

If a perfect being needs to create something then it isn’t perfect. To be perfect is to lack nothing.

“Perfect beings would not be troubled by anything, including the behavior of humans. Hence, the notion that a god would reward or punish us is absurd. To be perfect is to be unperturbed. The concept of perfection, therefore, requires that a god be indifferent to human behavior.”

therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent.

.

God is perfect. He is Spirit. And He is Mighty. Look around!. His creation would have been deeply flawed if it did not contain creatures with free will.

God presents us with situations and we make choices. He does not expect us to be perfect. How could He show His patience with us if we were perfect?
You greatly underestimate His wisdom in this.

peace

c20

Perfection

Many people have told me that in order to find God, one must seek him. To me this has always seemed somewhat bizarre a notion. The world’s most powerful, and arguably the world’s most loving being, and he resorts to hiding in the shadows. This being that many would claim is the source of light, seems more comfortable in the darkness, in the void where man cannot reach.

However, I came to the conclusion that God is somewhat similar to Bigfoot. Three hundred years Bigfoot has roamed this planet, and yet he has only been seen a dozen times. Those of us who truly seek Bigfoot must truly search for him. You don’t just wake up one day and find Bigfoot, so there’s no reason to believe God would be any different. And so eventually I found myself searching: I looked under the sofa, I shuffled through the closet, and I picked up every rock that lay in my garden for sign of this being. I bought a submarine and explored the depths of the ocean, I stole the Hubble Space Telescope to view the depths of the big black expanse above us, and I purchased a dune buggy that was on special offer in Toys R Us to search the arid desert regions. All of this ended up in futility, and having explored this planet and beyond to an extreme degree, I couldn’t even find a molecule going by the name of God.

And then my son died.

You would be amazed at how sobering the death of a son can be. You would be amazed at how many questions scurry through your mind like ants on a summer night. You would be amazed at how much you need answers. There was no anger, which comes later in the process, just a general lack of understanding. I asked the doctors, and they gave me an explanation. I asked the priest who also gave me an explanation. I asked the rabbi, the philosopher, the Buddhist, the man who painted my fence and the woman at the bus stop. All of them gave me an answer. As you will know, no human is perfect, and yet they all answered me. The one being that is perfect declined from comment. What does this say of perfection?

When I really sought an answer, everyone helped. God hid. When I really needed help, everyone tried their best, even with all their imperfections. God hid.

What do we conclude about the all loving, perfect being that seems to find hide and seek so enjoyable, even at a time when man is at his very lowest? Do we claim him loving or caring, or even all knowing, when at best he cannot help when people ask, he cannot speak when people need to hear, he cannot feel when people need a shoulder to lean on?

I would of course dare one man to say I was not humble. To that man I would ask he experience the death of a son to know what humility is. To know what it is like to be powerless, and yet to seek answers, and to seek help. I did just that, and those who answered did not hide, but became more visible. God just crawled further into the void. It was incredible to see all the people that came to me. They did not ask that I seek them and they did not ask that I must find or want them. They came to me without asking, and simply out of love and out of kindness. Where was God through all of this? Nobody knows. Perhaps he was vacationing in a galaxy far far away. The strange thing is though, that my mother, who was vacationing far far away, still managed a response.

The very word ‘love’ becomes as worthless as a car with no wheels, and ‘perfection’ can only be seen in the imperfect. And so we have something to think about. In this case, isn’t the imperfect perfect? And isn’t the perfect imperfect? Where the perfect has failed, which goes against the very definition of perfect, the imperfect has succeeded. While we have no need to expect anything from imperfection, that luxury does not extend to perfection which by very definition does not have a choice in the matter.

I have the feeling that eventually I will meet God and ask him why he wasn’t there when I needed him most. To this he will undoubtedly respond: “Nobody’s perfect”.

(c) Steve 2004

c20 can you read do you understand anything, it says if your god is perfect he had no need to create, if he created then he is flawed and not perfect.
it's that simple.
if it's perfect then it never created humans, they never came into the equation.

Maybe god didn't create the universe, maybe it has always been there, bigbangin...

Maybe the perfect must include everything, even the imperfect... but it doesn't realy include nothing... and it doesn't include everything... it is void... all inclusive, non inclusive... impossible to explain.

Fahrenheit 451, you're right, God didn't need to create.

to what768 first, lets clarifying what we mean by "perfect". something that "contains all potentialities", "without flaw". but according to the bible it created man.(which makes it flawed)

to BeyondTAS, same answer then it's flawed, not perfect.therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent.

to philopastry, no a man and freezing.

c20 can you read do you understand anything, it says if your god is perfect he had no need to create, if he created then he is flawed and not perfect.
it's that simple.
if it's perfect then it never created humans, they never came into the equation.

Love gives. It is better to give than to receive.

peace

c20

WTF has that got to do with the original premis.
for f@*# sake, man.
make sense, or shut the f@*# up.

WTF has that got to do with the original premis.
for f@*# sake, man.
make sense, or shut the f@*# up.


If a perfect being needs to create something then it isn’t perfect. To be perfect is to lack nothing.


To which I replied, it is perfect to 'give'.
To 'give' requires others to 'receive' that which is being given. Love wouldn't be love if it was not 'giving' would it? God created us to show us His love. This is the purpose of creation. It is a perfect gift.

PSA.16:8 I have set the Lord always before me: because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

JOH.6:68,69 Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the Words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

peace

c20

I am sorry c20, it would be cruel of me to continue.
I am not going to have a battle of wits, with no-brained man. it would be unfair, you would avoid the answer anyway, and preach.
enough said, bye
oh and go and see that doctor, really.

I am sorry c20, it would be cruel of me to continue.
I am not going to have a battle of wits, with no-brained man. it would be unfair, you would avoid the answer anyway, and preach.
enough said, bye
oh and go and see that doctor, really.

bye. nice to have met you

I asked the priest who also gave me an explanation. I asked the rabbi, the philosopher, the Buddhist, the man who painted my fence and the woman at the bus stop. All of them gave me an answer. As you will know, no human is perfect, and yet they all answered me. The one being that is perfect declined from comment. What does this say of perfection?
That was the only perfect answer. What everybody else told you was insufficient, I'm sure you noticed. If any of their answers sufficed, you wouldn't have continued asking.

nice to see you again jenyar, but duh, I might be amoeba-man two.
no that's not possible.
can you elaborate please.

If you are asking God, you must believe in Him or who are you asking? Since then you come face to face with God almighty, you would know that God is a God of the living.
He doesn't need to say anything to you if you are in His presence. In His presence you just have peace.

Thanks

amoeba-man

Yo Dudes,

That`s a moving piece SnakeLord. Amidst the madness, I have found great beauty in the simple kindness of many people that I`ve met. To appreciate the value and beauty of this aspect of the human condition is to truly awaken. I do feel sad for those amongst us who need a supernatural friend to move them to love, when so much love is so simply apparent. The one sure thing I know is that perfection is an illusion.

Here is the Gnostic take on perfection or rather lack of it. The Catholic Church crushed the Gnostic movement in the early days of Christian infighting.

"Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers."

From: http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

This view scared the pants of the Catholics, so the poor Gnostics suffered the predictable persecution and torture for their beliefs. If you can`t beat them, kill them. The link givess access to the entire Nag Hammadi texts.

Smooth.

There are two levels of perfection. Metaphysical perfection and absolute perfection.

God is the name for metaphysical perfection. If god is not perfect then it should not be called god.
Man created perfection in the notion of zero, an absolute perfection.

That was the only perfect answer. What everybody else told you was insufficient, I'm sure you noticed. If any of their answers sufficed, you wouldn't have continued asking.

There are several ways of responding to this:

A) My son died 6 years ago now, and I have not "continued asking". As such we must note that along the line somewhere an answer did suffice. The answer that did suffice still didn't come from this all-loving, perfect god, but from a human.

B) I wouldn't have needed to "continue asking", if the all-loving, perfect god had have responded to the plea for help. I am sure he has a busy schedule, but a perfect being would have taken ten seconds to have given the answer. You state that everybody's answer was insufficient. While that might be true to a degree, given their lack of knowledge of medical issues and so on, the point is that at least they tried.

As my story says, in this case the imperfect has been perfect - even if the answers weren't 100% accurate, and the perfect has shown itself as imperfect, by not answering at all.

C) While silence might have been the perfect answer for you, you have no right to extend your thoughts as being the same as mine.

That`s a moving piece SnakeLord.

Thanks. It's in the process of being altered and added to, but I got so sick of the words "imperfect" and "perfect", I needed a break :D

Fahrenheit, you assume that because God created implies that God needed to create. The assumption is baseless.

I would conject that God did need to create, else he wouldn't have done it. He wanted witnesses to the power of The Word of God which was God and was with God.
This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God. So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.

peace

c20

You contradict yourself in less than 20 words. "God did need to create" "He wanted"

Need I say more?

there is no such assumption, it is not a question of whether it created or not, the fact is if something is perfect it does not need anything added, it is flawless.
so therefore if it created it is flawed, if it needed anything, it is flawed, not perfect.


lets clarifying what we mean by "perfect". something that "contains all potentialities", "without flaw".

You contradict yourself in less than 20 words. "God did need to create" "He wanted"

Need I say more?

Want derives from a need to share, to give. Those who store things up, store them up for others do they not? Inheritance for example.

A father desires the best for his children. His son's who will inherit all that is their fathers. The father's motive for His son's in every action is love. Love gives unconditionally because it is it's nature to do so. Love needs to love therefore Love said "Let there be". Love speaks in Faith and expects (Hope) it to come to fruition. It believes all things.

peace

c20

mustafhakofi, you missed the point. The assumption is that to create means there is a need. However, just because God created, doesn't NECESSARILY mean He needed to. Of course there is no need in the infinite, that's entirely obvious. Hence, if God created, He didn't create out of need.

c20H25N3o: I would conject that God did need to create, else he wouldn't have done it. He wanted witnesses to the power of The Word of God which was God and was with God.
*************
M*W: Like you said, it is your conjecture, and you did not provide evidence from unbiased literature.
*************
c20: This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God. So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.
*************
M*W: You're quoting Moses here. Moses' god was the sun. Moses' thought of himself as the 'word of god made flesh.' The sun spoke to Moses (in Egyptian, no less), and the word of god was the word Moses' thought he heard the sun speak to him (in Egyptian).

You are preaching again without documentation. You don't have the background to discuss the ancient religion of Moses. You are both blind and gullible. If you want the members of sciforums to comprehend your message, then you will go get yourself educated in ancient history. We're all tired of your preaching. It serves no purpose.

c20H25N3o: I would conject that God did need to create, else he wouldn't have done it. He wanted witnesses to the power of The Word of God which was God and was with God.
*************
M*W: Like you said, it is your conjecture, and you did not provide evidence from unbiased literature.
*************
c20: This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God. So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.
*************
M*W: You're quoting Moses here. Moses' god was the sun. Moses' thought of himself as the 'word of god made flesh.' The sun spoke to Moses (in Egyptian, no less), and the word of god was the word Moses' thought he heard the sun speak to him (in Egyptian).

You are preaching again without documentation. You don't have the background to discuss the ancient religion of Moses. You are both blind and gullible. If you want the members of sciforums to comprehend your message, then you will go get yourself educated in ancient history. We're all tired of your preaching. It serves no purpose.

M*W You know full well that the only proof I have of God's existence is the seed. Surely the seed is evidence enough for you?

peace

c20

c20H25N3o: M*W You know full well that the only proof I have of God's existence is the seed. Surely the seed is evidence enough for you?
*************
M*W: The evidence you speak of is merely a concept in your own mind. You should be able to identify and describe the 'seed' using scientifically acquired evidence to prove God exists. If you cannot do this, then your concept of God is simply your delusion and no true god exists. We await your scientific proof.

c20H25N3o: M*W You know full well that the only proof I have of God's existence is the seed. Surely the seed is evidence enough for you?
*************
M*W: The evidence you speak of is merely a concept in your own mind. You should be able to identify and describe the 'seed' using scientifically acquired evidence to prove God exists. If you cannot do this, then your concept of God is simply your delusion and no true god exists. We await your scientific proof.

Ok. A seed cannot exist without the fruit that contains it since the seed is developed inside of the fruit, which in turn must be attached to the tree so that it can receive nutrients through the earth in which that tree is rooted.
If a seed cannot exist without a tree and a tree cannot exist without a seed, I would suggest the burden of proof is upon the scientist to tell us which came first and how. If you cannot then God made it is the only answer using basic childlike logic. As you can see, the burden of proof is not on the believer but rather the unbeliever.

Thanks

c20

If a seed cannot exist without a tree and a tree cannot exist without a seed, I would suggest the burden of proof is upon the scientist to tell us which came first and how. If you cannot then God made it is the only answer using basic childlike logic.

It's actually rather simple.. but it does require study, and certainly more so than one can type on this forum. Your answer denotes your very problem:

""god made it" is the only answer using basic childlike logic"

Do you see the problem now?

It's actually rather simple.. but it does require study, and certainly more so than one can type on this forum. Your answer denotes your very problem:

""god made it" is the only answer using basic childlike logic"

Do you see the problem now?

No.

just give me some basics snakelord. you know in laymens terms. the seed and the tree thing. :rolleyes:

It would undoubtedly be impossible for you to grasp given that your mind thinks everything just *popped* into existence, exactly as you see it right now. I will certainly try and find you some sites that will explain things for you in very simple terms. From there you can hopefully move onto a greater understanding.

It would undoubtedly be impossible for you to grasp given that your mind thinks everything just *popped* into existence, exactly as you see it right now. I will certainly try and find you some sites that will explain things for you in very simple terms. From there you can hopefully move onto a greater understanding.

No m8. Your own words please. Something so simple even a child could understand it. Something I could explain to my son.

Thanks

c20

c20H25N3o: Ok. A seed cannot exist without the fruit that contains it since the seed is developed inside of the fruit, which in turn must be attached to the tree so that it can receive nutrients through the earth in which that tree is rooted. If a seed cannot exist without a tree and a tree cannot exist without a seed, I would suggest the burden of proof is upon the scientist to tell us which came first and how. If you cannot then God made it is the only answer using basic childlike logic. As you can see, the burden of proof is not on the believer but rather the unbeliever.
*************
M*W: You are such a liar and deceiver! I did not ask you to explain botanical evolution to us. I asked you to provide evidence of the existence of the seed of God, but you couldn't do it. (Are we surprised? No). You claim to be an instrument of God, yet you cannot explain "the seed of God." The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who makes up all these fantastic religious delusions, but you cannot prove squat. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the existence of God. It's called "Ad Ignorantiam" -- the appeal to ignorance. The burden of proof is fallacious when it is placed on the wrong side. The burden of proof occurs when there is a lack of evidence to prove God exists (your argument), therefore, you must provide this court beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can prove a believable burden that God, in fact, exists. Heretofore, you have not provided this forum substantial compelling evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof would reside with the opposition to prove you wrong. This reasoning follows the following form:

c20 claims God exists but cannot provide the evidence for God or christianity, so the burden of proof rests on the rest of the members to supply the burden of proof that God does not exist and neither does christianity.

The atheists on the forum claim that God doesn't exist and belief in God is false, because C20 cannot provide proof of God's existence.

The atheists on the forum are obligated to provide evidence that no God exists. c20 on the other hand does not bear the burden of proof and is assumed to be true unless c20 can prove otherwise.

To determine whether c20 or the atheists on the forum can present clear and compelling evidence of the burden of proof may require significant debate. c20, however, has failed to provide any evidence for the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, so, the atheists prevail as they can provide beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence that there is no God.

In American law, a person is believed to be innocent until proven guilty. Since c20 cannot provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so the burden of proof is up to the atheists. In debate, the burden of proof is placed on c20 because c20 wants to prove the existence of God, but c20 cannot prove that God exists, so he is to be considered a liar and a fraud unless he can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise. In this case, c20 would not prevail, and his preaching in the affirmative for God existing would be proven to be false. Because c20 fails to debate the issues of God and christianity, he has resorted to preaching on the religion forum which is an absolute no-no. The judge in the case of c20 vs. the atheists is James R.

matthew 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

lets clarifying what we mean by "perfect". something that "contains all potentialities", "without flaw".

The idea of a perfect being creating the universe is self-contradictory. How can perfection be improved upon? To create is to indicate a lack, an imperfection. a flaw
Ok. Prove that last premise. Why creating is an imperfection?

If a perfect being needs to create something then it isn’t perfect. To be perfect is to lack nothing.
Does God need us? I don't think so...!
And why does He need to create? As long as I know He just wanted to create. There was no need.

“Perfect beings would not be troubled by anything, including the behavior of humans. Hence, the notion that a god would reward or punish us is absurd. To be perfect is to be unperturbed. The concept of perfection, therefore, requires that a god be indifferent to human behavior.”
Not quite. The concept of perfection requires that He is neutral and impartial, but NOT necessarily indifferent.

therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent.
Organize your premises and conclusion and fully explain them before you claim such a thing.

And just a hint.... don't consider God in human terms....

I would conject that God did need to create, else he wouldn't have done it. He wanted witnesses to the power of The Word of God which was God and was with God.
You speak the Word but you don't understand it. As a result, peoplen don't understand you either.

This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God.
God is amorphous. We are too. You confuse spirit with body. Our spirits were created in his image, not our bodies. Our "image" is our spirits, not our bodies.

I'm not even going to the Word of God....

So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.
And you are too. You just said it in the above quote...

EDIT: actually... I should ponder more about the above...

Ok, to explain this as simply as possible...

It is along the same lines as the often thought of "chicken and the egg".

Everything is an evolutionary process. A tree doesn't just pop into existence, fully grown, and with seeds on it's branches. As things evolve, they change slightly. Over a long period of time those changes add up. You now see a tree with seeds that has been changing for millions of years. It didn't start as a seed or a tree, but has continually evolved whereby right now a tree has seeds, and seeds make a tree.

Was that simple enough?

The idea of a perfect being creating the universe is self-contradictory. How can perfection be improved upon? To create is to indicate a lack, an imperfection. a flaw Ok. Prove that last premise. Why creating is an imperfection?it's quite obvious, a flawless thing, needs nothing no improvements.
If a perfect being needs to create something then it isn’t perfect. To be perfect is to lack nothing.

Does God need us? I don't think so...!
And why does He need to create? As long as I know He just wanted to create. There was no need. want, need lets not split hairs
“Perfect beings would not be troubled by anything, including the behavior of humans. Hence, the notion that a god would reward or punish us is absurd. To be perfect is to be unperturbed. The concept of perfection, therefore, requires that a god be indifferent to human behavior.”

Not quite. The concept of perfection requires that He is neutral and impartial, but NOT necessarily indifferent. wrong, a flawless thing needs no neutrality or impartiality, absolutely nothing.
therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent.

Organize your premises and conclusion and fully explain them before you claim such a thing.it's is easily claimed because it must be true.

And just a hint.... don't consider God in human terms....
I'm not, no human is prefect, but to be imperfect is also not godly.

it's quite obvious, a flawless thing, needs nothing no improvements.
That doesn't make creation imperfect. If He doesn't need creation, He is not dependent on creation. If He is not dependant on anything, than that makes Him perfect.

want, need lets not split hairs
That's what you are doing - and I'm trying to correct your mistake.... :eek:

wrong, a flawless thing needs no neutrality or impartiality, absolutely nothing.
Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality! :eek:

it's is easily claimed because it must be true.
Great argument! :rolleyes:

I'm not, no human is prefect, but to be imperfect is also not godly.
Ok. But what I was saying is to not understand God's perspective in the same way you understand human's perspective.

truthseeker, if it's not dependant(a person who relies on/needs/wants,) creation then why do it. (back to the original post again I think) to create implies a need, making god imperfect for doing it.

even your word dependant, can be used in place of need /want.

"Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality!" I dont see it, it's not dependant on those two things as it's perfect.

" therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent." the logic of the arguement, makes it true.

but truthseeker to think like a human is all we know, as far as we know we are the most intelligent creature in this planet, we can only understand our own perspective try as we might we cant think like another creature, but we can make educated guesses.

truthseeker, if it's not dependant(a person who relies on/needs/wants,) creation then why do it.
The confusion in your argument lies on the fact that wants are independant and you regard them as dependant. Your wants are independant because they are relied on simple conscious choices which are not necessarily dependant on any factor at all. In the case in question, God would make an independant choice mto create the unmiver. He doesn't need the universe for anything. He doesn't need it to survive neither to be happy. He created it simply because He wanted to do so, and chose to do so. The creation of the universe was independant of everything else. There is where His perfection lies.

(back to the original post again I think) to create implies a need, making god imperfect for doing it.
If you create a painting, for example. Do you need the painting? Or if you listen to music. Do you necessarily need that music or you are just doing that because you want to do it?

even your word dependant, can be used in place of need /want.
You need to distinguish needs and wants if you want to have a conversation about dependance. Dependance is only related to needs. That's actually the exact thing that differentiates needs and wants!

"Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality!" I dont see it, it's not dependant on those two things as it's perfect.
Neutrality and impartiality imply perfection. If you are perfect, you won't take sides. if you are perfect, you will simply be neutral. Perfection "needs" neutrality and impartiality in order to be defined as "perfection", because those things are implied in perfection itself.

" therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent." the logic of the arguement, makes it true.
The premises are incorrect. An argument needs not only to be correctly infered but also the premises have to be true. Since the premises are not true, the argument is also flawed.

but truthseeker to think like a human is all we know, as far as we know we are the most intelligent creature in this planet, we can only understand our own perspective try as we might we cant think like another creature, but we can make educated guesses.
No, we can't make guesses. Our understanding is dependant on the scope of our knowledge. We simply have not enough knowledge to understand God. However, it is possible to use logical argumentation and examine our perceptions and, than, infer from what we perceive to be most true.

But that is a looooooooooooooong subject.... :eek:

God isnt perfect or he wouldnt make something imperfect

The confusion in your argument lies on the fact that wants are independant and you regard them as dependant. Your wants are independant because they are relied on simple conscious choices which are not necessarily dependant on any factor at all. In the case in question, God would make an independant choice mto create the unmiver. He doesn't need the universe for anything. He doesn't need it to survive neither to be happy. He created it simply because He wanted to do so, and chose to do so. The creation of the universe was independant of everything else. There is where His perfection lies. The argument remains whether god needed to create or wanted to create. While I agree with you that need implies dependence, similarly want implies desire. Desire, in turn, implies a lack of something which brings us back to god being imperfect.

In fact I find the very concept of creation denies god's perfection. God must, by definition encompass everything or it is not god. You cannot have that which is god and that which is not-god because there is something greater than god (god + not-god).

A perfect god would simply be.

~Raithere

There are several ways of responding to this:

A) My son died 6 years ago now, and I have not "continued asking". As such we must note that along the line somewhere an answer did suffice. The answer that did suffice still didn't come from this all-loving, perfect god, but from a human.

B) I wouldn't have needed to "continue asking", if the all-loving, perfect god had have responded to the plea for help. I am sure he has a busy schedule, but a perfect being would have taken ten seconds to have given the answer. You state that everybody's answer was insufficient. While that might be true to a degree, given their lack of knowledge of medical issues and so on, the point is that at least they tried.

As my story says, in this case the imperfect has been perfect - even if the answers weren't 100% accurate, and the perfect has shown itself as imperfect, by not answering at all.

C) While silence might have been the perfect answer for you, you have no right to extend your thoughts as being the same as mine.



Thanks. It's in the process of being altered and added to, but I got so sick of the words "imperfect" and "perfect", I needed a break :D

If i am God and :

1. not willing to concede to your plea to save your son, i would just keep quiet. No empty words of sorry or sermons of why your son is taken away from you.

2. willing to save your son, would simply do that, no word is required.

In either case you won't hear anything.

Btw, Does God need to speak? If he needs to speak further then it means he is not perfect in making others to understand things so far already.

God isnt perfect or he wouldnt make something imperfect
Everything that is separated from Him lacks something, doesn't it? ;)

The argument remains whether god needed to create or wanted to create. While I agree with you that need implies dependence, similarly want implies desire. Desire, in turn, implies a lack of something which brings us back to god being imperfect.
I don't think God's choice necessarily imply a desire. I mean... I could move my hand right now for no reason at all and I don't think that could be categorized as a desire, could it? :confused:

In fact I find the very concept of creation denies god's perfection. God must, by definition encompass everything or it is not god. You cannot have that which is god and that which is not-god because there is something greater than god (god + not-god).
Something that is imperfect is "greater" than God? Does the existance of the universe really imply imperfection?


A perfect god would simply be.

Yeah... that's a good definition. And I think that does happen, in a way. I think the answer for the mystery relies on the infinity aspect of God's "time" and "space"... :eek:

from prefection to time and space

1: Reality is the universe, everything herein is nature.
2: The universe is "that which exists"
3: The supernatural is "that which is beyond nature"
4: Thus the supernatural, by definition, is that which does not exist
5: God is a supernatural entity, outside of reality

Moreover, given the modern definition of `God` as the omnipresent creator of the universe;

6: If the God exists, it must exist within the universe
7: Indeed, by definition, it is omnipresent throughout the universe
8: Existence of God is dependent upon prior existence of the universe
9: So the universe had to exist before the God
10: The modern definition of God is a self-contradictory paradox

A thing that doesn`t exist has no influence. It cannot create itself, nor the conditions necessary for its emergence.


with thanks to the preacher.

1: The universe is part of reality, everything herein has nature. It is unknown whether the universe is the sum of reality.
2: The universe exists, but you cannot substantiate the claim that the universe is "that which exists."
3: The supernatural is "that which is of higher nature." "That which is beyond nature" would ne extranatural.
4: The supernatural may or may not be a part of the universe, and hence may or may not exist. The supernatural does exist relatively speaking.
5: God is said to be a supernatural entity, which may or may not exist.

Moreover, given the definition of 'God' as the omnipresent creator of the unvierse;

6: If God is the creator of the universe, then God cannot be part of the universe, but may exist without, within and through the universe.
7: Indeed, by definition, it must be omnipresent throughout the universe.
8: If God is creator, then the existence of the universe is dependent upon the prior existence of God.
9: The definition of God is not yet conflicted within this argument.
10: The modern definition of God is not self-contradictory, but may certainly be a paradox.

A thing that doesn`t exist has no influence. It cannot create itself, nor the conditions necessary for its emergence.

How is your argument in any way convincing? I would suggest that you try to substantiate premises 1, 2, and 3.

Good reply...! :eek: ;)

I don't think God's choice necessarily imply a desire. I mean... I could move my hand right now for no reason at all and I don't think that could be categorized as a desire, could it?You would have to desire to move your hand, you have to want it to move. You may or may not have a distinct reason for the desire but it seems to me that you still have to have the desire. Besides, wouldn't eliminating the reason for creation also eliminate any meaning the creation might have?

Something that is imperfect is "greater" than God? Does the existance of the universe really imply imperfection?I was considering simply that which exists, not it's perfection. The problem is that if something exists that is not god then there is a category of "everything that exists" which contains both god and that which is not god. Therefore god must be inclusive. Further, it seems to me that god must always have been inclusive. If god creates something new that means that prior to that creation god was something less. Although we might escape that by considering that god exists beyond of temporal frame of reference.

These just seem the type of problems that come up anytime we deal with infinities and absolutes.

Yeah... that's a good definition. And I think that does happen, in a way. I think the answer for the mystery relies on the infinity aspect of God's "time" and "space"...I agree but there are implications to this as well.

~Raithere

1: It is unknown whether the universe is the sum of reality. Reality is the universe, everything herein is nature. if regarded from the empirical perspective, this refers to the ordinary world of nature; if regarded from the transcendental perspective, it refers to the transcendent realm of the noumenon.

(empirical: Most of the knowledge we gain through ordinary experience, or through science, is empirical. 'This table is brown' is a typical empirical statement.)

(perspective: a way of thinking about or considering something; or a set of assumptions from which an object can be viewed. Knowing which perspec*tive is assumed is important because the same question can have different an*swers if different perspectives are assumed)

(transcendent: the realm of thought which lies beyond the boundary of pos*sible knowledge, because it consists of objects which cannot be presented to us in intuition-i.e., objects which we can never experience with our senses (sometimes called noumena). The closest we can get to gaining knowledge of the transcendent realm is to think about it by means of ideas. (The opposite of 'transcendent' is 'immanent'.))

(noumenon: the name given to a thing when it is viewed as a transcendent object. The term 'negative noumenon' refers only to the recognition of some*thing which is not an object of sensible intuition, while 'positive noumenon' refers to the (quite mistaken) attempt to know such a thing as an empirical object. These two terms are sometimes used loosely as synonyms for 'transcendental object' and 'thing in itself', respectively.)

2: The universe exists, duh we both agree that universe exists therefore the universe is that which exists.( or do you think it does'nt)

3: The supernatural is "that which is of higher nature." "That which is beyond nature" would ne extranatural
How is your argument in any way convincing? I would suggest that you try to substantiate premises 1, 2, and 3.
(supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings", A phenomena which cannot be explained by natural or physical laws is described as being supernatural.Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. existing or occurring outside of normal human experience and knowledge not explainable by known forces or laws of nature (may be attributed to a divine force or spirit source).
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous. ) therefore beyond nature.

I dont understand extranatural, thats not in any dictionary, in fact it's not of this unverse.

You would have to desire to move your hand, you have to want it to move. You may or may not have a distinct reason for the desire but it seems to me that you still have to have the desire. Besides, wouldn't eliminating the reason for creation also eliminate any meaning the creation might have?
It seems that you are mistaking a choice for a desire... But in any case, one can make a choice and still desire nothing. What do you mean by "meaning"!? ;)

I was considering simply that which exists, not it's perfection. The problem is that if something exists that is not god then there is a category of "everything that exists" which contains both god and that which is not god. Therefore god must be inclusive. Further, it seems to me that god must always have been inclusive.
God is both inclusive and exclusive. He permeates the universe and yet, He is also outside of the universe. Think of God as a "nothingness" in which the universe expands on... ;)

If god creates something new that means that prior to that creation god was something less.
All things are contained in God.

Although we might escape that by considering that god exists beyond of temporal frame of reference.
Well... that's one of the reasons why it is so hard to understand this stuff...! :D

These just seem the type of problems that come up anytime we deal with infinities and absolutes.
Yes.... but there might be a way to get around that problem....

I agree but there are implications to this as well.

Which implications you have in mind?

That's a much better post, mis-t-highs... but...

Reality is the universe, everything herein is nature.
If there is a "supernatural" that would make it "real" wouldn't it? ;)

if regarded from the empirical perspective, this refers to the ordinary world of nature; if regarded from the transcendental perspective, it refers to the transcendent realm of the noumenon.
What's the point of discussing the noumenon if it cannot be understood?
I do think the "transcendental" can be understood if you decrease your awareness of the "empirical". Ok... I will use the words "tangible" and "abstract", which are more clear in my point of view. The things which are tangible are immanent things from the abstract, which is the transcendent. You use your senses to gather information from the tangible world. If you decrease your awareness of the tangible world through the "silencing" of your senses, everything that will be left is what is abstract, don't you agree? And it is that which is abstract that will lead you to experience and understand the sublime. :)

Wow! That's deep!

(supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings", A phenomena which cannot be explained by natural or physical laws is described as being supernatural.
Is it possible for something non-physical to exist? Even if it is beyond this universe?

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. existing or occurring outside of normal human experience and knowledge not explainable by known forces or laws of nature (may be attributed to a divine force or spirit source).
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous. ) therefore beyond nature.
What do you mean by "outside" and "beyond"? Do you mean it physically?

I dont understand extranatural, thats not in any dictionary, in fact it's not of this unverse.
I think he has a point in differentiating the "supernatural" from the "extranatural". The prefixes "super" and "extra" actually carry very different meanings. And, unfortunately, just the dictionary cannot help us when we are discussing things that are in the boundary of what we consider "real". Specially when semantics is involved...

Reality is the universe, everything herein is nature. if regarded from the empirical perspective, this refers to the ordinary world of nature; if regarded from the transcendental perspective, it refers to the transcendent realm of the noumenon.

You still haven't substantiated this. You simply assert it without giving a reason as to why we should accept this. I gather that what you mean by "nature" is the physical realm (including matter/energy etc...). This is usually what people refer to when they say "universe." However, as you have pointed out, there is also the noumenon (from the Greek, "pneumon" which means breath, or wind). Many people mean both the physical world and the noumenon when they say "universe." The noumenon isn't transcendent, though. Granted, it isn't empirical, but it is said to be immanent. (sometimes I wonder about words like transcendent, which has a prefix which means "through" but whose meaning refers to that which is beyond or outside or above). Yet, even God is said to be different than the noumenonic. Hence, if one believes in God, then he may say that there is else aside from the universe. Yet, even if one didn't belief as such, what proof is there that the universe (both physical and noumenonic) is the sum total of reality?

duh we both agree that universe exists therefore the universe is that which exists.( or do you think it does'nt)

To say that the universe exists is not to say that the universe is that which exists, since to say "the universe is that which exists" implies that it is the sum of existing things. Surely, when I say that I exist, I don't mean that I am that which exists. That which exists includes me.

(supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings", A phenomena which cannot be explained by natural or physical laws is described as being supernatural.Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. existing or occurring outside of normal human experience and knowledge not explainable by known forces or laws of nature (may be attributed to a divine force or spirit source).
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous. ) therefore beyond nature.

I dont understand extranatural, thats not in any dictionary, in fact it's not of this unverse.

You don't have to sit there quoting from the dictionary. Often times the dictionary will not give definition based upon a word's etymology, but rather it will give definition based upon common usage and understanding. In saying that the supernatural isn't beyond, but rather higher, I challenge the common usage and understanding of the word, based upon its etymology. Hence, why I gave your definition the word "extranatural." It's not entirely accurate, but it does convey the point I was trying to make. When we say "superman" we're not talking about something that is outside of humanity. Rather, we are talking about a man who has accellerated or heightened qualities. A greater man, or a better man. Likewise, when I talk about that which is supernatural I am not speaking about something that is outside of the natural sphere. Rather I am speaking about something that has a higher nature, a greater or better nature. When on speaks about nature, often the common understanding is the world as separate from humans (though most would consider humans part of nature). In other words, the physical world. Nature, however, as a word, means something different. Nature is a word that refers to the design, or structure, or function of a thing. Everything has nature. Humans have human nature (human structure, functionality, etc...) while a dog has a canine nature, and a cat a feline nature... etc... The reason that we came to call the universe nature, is because the universe itself has its own structure, functionality, etc... Hence, when we refer to "Nature" we actually are referring to the universe as a functioning, structured body that has laws that it works by. Hence, Natural Laws are those laws by which the universe runs and is ordered by. If we are to say that the supernatural is that which is set apart from Natural Laws, and physical laws, then we are simply asserting that the supernatural is not bound by, or run by the laws of the universe. An example of this might be Free Will. If, as many believe, one of the laws of the universe is that of cause and effect, then free will is not part of the Natural realm. Rather, Free Will is then a part of the supernatural realm. This is a major reason why a majority of the older world religions have said that humans have "divinity" or "the image of God" which refers to intellect and free will. It is because such qualities wouldn't be part of the Natural Sphere, hence they are part of the supernatural sphere. God isn't the only entity who is said to be of the Supernatural. Humans too are said to be able to partake in the supernatural (ie, because of free will and intellect... and Love, or Agape).

..."pneumon"...

Ahhhhhhh! Now I understand.... :p

so simply put non-existent.

Precisely. But no matter which way round you interpet various points and texts from whatever holy book, there is always someone who will find a counter quote and offset yours, or anyone elses, arguement. Which also goes to show how contradictory the holy books are too! So simply put non-existent.

Another argument from ignorance...... :rolleyes:

Another argument from ignorance...... :rolleyes:


And how is that ignorance again? :rolleyes:

misty never asserted anything you did as you changed the meaning to suit you, you made the universe only part of reality, "the universe is that which exists" implies that it is the sum of existing things.(beyondcommonsense is there anything else.) you have asserted that there is something more therefore the onus is on you to prove your point, is it not.

so do we make up a definition for a word as we see fit.
beyond means reverse: not on this side, thats not it's meaning I just made it up.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
-- Delos McKown

And how is that ignorance again? :rolleyes:
The fact that you don't know whether God exists or not and that you haven't found evidence for His existance yet shouldn't be an argument for His non-existance..... :rolleyes:

Obviously, just because you haven't found evidence doesn't imply that there is no evidence! :rolleyes:

Everything that is separated from Him lacks something, doesn't it? ;)
how could anything be separated from god if He is everywhere? :confused:

God created us to show us His love. This is the purpose of creation. It is a perfect gift.

c20
tell that to these people
http://phreeque.tripod.com/grady_stiles.html :eek:
what a loving creator,NOT

It seems that you are mistaking a choice for a desire... But in any case, one can make a choice and still desire nothing. What do you mean by "meaning"!?
It seems to me you are obfuscating the problem with semantics. ;)

The question I'm posing is whether creation is a deliberate act of god. In choosing to act (using your new term) one is fulfilling some expectation. But what could a perfect being need to fulfill? If god acted deliberately, with purpose, then it was the expression of some desire or need. This belies god's perfection at least in an absolute sense.

Another option is that god simply is and does not act in any human sense. But this would seem to preclude exactly what people are desirous of in conceiving of a god.

God is both inclusive and exclusive. He permeates the universe and yet, He is also outside of the universe. Think of God as a "nothingness" in which the universe expands on... I'm fine with that, it's what I meant. It just means that there is nothing that is not god.

Well... that's one of the reasons why it is so hard to understand this stuff...! And why it's so much fun to think about.

Yes.... but there might be a way to get around that problem....Any suggestions?

Which implications you have in mind?I can only push the logic so far and I have a hard time describing my thoughts but I'll give it a go. All these infinite properties seem to suggest that god would be static. God could not act because to act is to change. But how does something that encompasses and permeates everything change? Change also implies (at least to our understanding) a temporal aspect but god would necessarily be atemporal.

Ah well, I'll let you chew on that. If I think of a better way to express it I'll post more.

~Raithere

how could anything be separated from god if He is everywhere? :confused:

not doing a very good job then, is he?

Come on really! In this day and age, with all our discoveries, people still hang onto the medieval concept of "god must have made it" and "an act of god" etc.

The answer is out there AND VISIBLE!

Obviously, just because you haven't found evidence doesn't imply that there is no evidence!
but truthseeker, it makes for a good arguement, until proven otherwise.
a lot of people believe there to be no wmd in iraq, get the point.

How to spell this word "god" ?

In arabic its Allah
In Israel its Jehovah
In Iraq its WMD
In America its in every political quote
In Britian we dont care!!

how could anything be separated from god if He is everywhere? :confused:
Yes! Incredible, isn't!?
Well... it is all a matter of awareness! It ties exactly to what I was saying:

"What's the point of discussing the noumenon if it cannot be understood?
I do think the "transcendental" can be understood if you decrease your awareness of the "empirical". Ok... I will use the words "tangible" and "abstract", which are more clear in my point of view. The things which are tangible are immanent things from the abstract, which is the transcendent. You use your senses to gather information from the tangible world. If you decrease your awareness of the tangible world through the "silencing" of your senses, everything that will be left is what is abstract, don't you agree? And it is that which is abstract that will lead you to experience and understand the sublime. "

If you are not aware of God, you are "separated" from Him. Even tough He is right here, you cannot "see" Him. It is very hard to be aware of God and the world at the same time. You gotta choose one and go for it. With some practice you might be able to be aware of both at the same time, but I'm not 100% sure of that....