Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What made God?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Does my logic have flaws? No shit it does....all of our logic has flaws, for we are human, and this flaws in logic are inevitable. 😉However, I beleive that despite all of that trivial bullshit, my logic is still based on more reasonable observation, experience, and conclusiveness as oppose to blindly accepting some old outdated book as a source of truth, when it contradicts itself.
You know exactly what I am talking about. A perfect God will use imperfect representation to present himself ?
What is perfection anyway ? You imply it exists..okay so what is it ?
Omg lemme guess...ur gonna give me ANOTHER INCONCLUSIVE, UNCONVINCING, illogical, mythological, and unclear answer:
God is Perfection. 😄
Uh...[b]NO
👇Can you prove perfection exists? Can you prove your God exists?
If not, then don't you dare aim to attack my logic, when your own is muddied. ❌ [/B]
I'm not suggesting that we all don't make mistakes or have flaws in our logic, but the key is recognizing and admitting it when it's pointed out. Learning is not possible otherwise.
No, I don't know what you are talking about. That is the very point of this exchange. I disagree and am attempting to explain why. Apparently you have stopped trying to explain yourself.
Okay, I'll try this again. Your major point is the fact that God has not presented himself to us in a such a way that we can easily understand him (in an "imperfect" way) demonstrates that God himself is therefore not perfect. A very fair suggestion, but one that is by no means axiomatic or self-evident. However, I assert that imperfect presentation does not necessitate an imperfect presenter. Take the analogy of a parent or teacher helping a toddler learn to read. You can't just throw Artistotle or Shakespeare in the child's lap, it takes many, often times painful, steps - a slow process. Likewise, perhaps God needs to reveal himself to us in a similar process. Or take the analogy of our understanding of physics. Newton made quite a breakthrough in his day and seemed to discover closed and perfect laws of the universe. However, with Einstein's theory of relativity we discovered that Newton was not quite as perfect as we thought. But without first being presented with Newton's physics, Einstein's theories would be incomprehensible and inaccessable. Perhaps our understanding of God through history must follow a similar process. Now understand the purpose of my analogies is not to say that knowledge of God is exactly like reading or physics, but only to demonstrate that is indeed possible that an imperfect presentation may not be the result of an imperfect presenter. An imperfect presentation could be the result of an imperfect audience (flawed humans) or an intentional withholding (for benevolent or sadistice purposes). Ergo, an imperfect presentation by God to us does not mean that God is necessarily imperfect.
Any standard dictionary definition for perfect will do fine: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind; lacking nothing, unchanging.
If I am being illogical or unclear please point it out specifically so that we can try to correct it, or if I can't I'll admit it. What do you mean by mythological? When have I used a mythological argument? Don't stereotype and assume that just because I have presented myself as a Christian that I am just like every other Christain you've ever encountered.
Can I prove perfection exists? Can I prove God exists? What do you think? That's a serious cop-out on your part to fall back to that question. This thread is about "What made God." The very question implies that we have accepted the premise that God does in fact exist for purposes of the discussion. You asking that question is just as unfair as me demanding that you prove God does not exist and that he is not perfect. Can you?
As to whether God is perfect, I suggest that if God is the creator of the universe, that he must be perfect, because the thing that creates ex nihilo is necessarily outside of the system which he creates and will not be subject to its laws, much like an author of a novel cannot be subject to the goings on of the world created in the novel. Change, time, movement, etc., are products of the universe of creation. Outside that universe - where God dwells - there is no change.
And before you start trying to poke holes in my argument, remember that disproving my argument that God is perfect does not mean you have proven he is not pefect, only that my particular argument does not demonstrate it.
Don't dare attack your logic? Quite simply, there is no other possible way to argue philosophical and religious issues. How else do you presume I could assess your arguments? Instead of posting laughing symbols and restating my position followed by a head shaking NO, you could actually engage my arguments and attack MY logic.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What made God?
Originally posted by The Achiever
I'm not suggesting that we all don't make mistakes or have flaws in our logic, but the key is recognizing and admitting it when it's pointed out. Learning is not possible otherwise.
"Flaws" are subjective. How do we know what's truly right and wrong, or perfect and imperfect ? We don't. Society invents what it is.
What I see as a Flaw, you may see as a strength, and vise versa.
Originally posted by The Achiever
No, I don't know what you are talking about. That is the very point of this exchange. I disagree and am attempting to explain why. Apparently you have stopped trying to explain yourself.
The Bible is filled with contradictions and disunified testament. That's what I mean. The Churches that claim to represent him have tons of flaws and faults, not to mention a History of crime. How does a Perfect God have SUCH an imperfect representation of himself ?
Originally posted by The Achiever
Okay, I'll try this again. Your major point is the fact that God has not presented himself to us in a such a way that we can easily understand him (in an "imperfect" way) demonstrates that God himself is therefore not perfect. A very fair suggestion, but one that is by no means axiomatic or self-evident. However, I assert that imperfect presentation does not necessitate an imperfect presenter. Take the analogy of a parent or teacher helping a toddler learn to read. You can't just throw Artistotle or Shakespeare in the child's lap, it takes many, often times painful, steps - a slow process. Likewise, perhaps God needs to reveal himself to us in a similar process. Or take the analogy of our understanding of physics. Newton made quite a breakthrough in his day and seemed to discover closed and perfect laws of the universe. However, with Einstein's theory of relativity we discovered that Newton was not quite as perfect as we thought. But without first being presented with Newton's physics, Einstein's theories would be incomprehensible and inaccessable. Perhaps our understanding of God through history must follow a similar process. Now understand the purpose of my analogies is not to say that knowledge of God is exactly like reading or physics, but only to demonstrate that is indeed possible that an imperfect presentation may not be the result of an imperfect presenter. An imperfect presentation could be the result of an imperfect audience (flawed humans) or an intentional withholding (for benevolent or sadistice purposes). Ergo, an imperfect presentation by God to us does not mean that God is necessarily imperfect.
While it is true that just because representation of God is imperfect it does not automatically make God himself imperfect. That I will agree to.
But for God to make his presense so UNCLEAR and CLOUDED, and allow for such contradictions to represent him, I fail to see any possiblity of Perfection much less existance.
What is Perfection any way ? I think that's the question. Once we all know what perfection is, then we can argue as to whether God fits this or not according to our observations of data.
Originally posted by The Achiever
Any standard dictionary definition for perfect will do fine: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind; lacking nothing, unchanging.
If God is complete within himself then he needs no other, and he needs nothing from us. It's a contradiction in itself. Perfection, let's say meaning "essential as a whole", would contradict the Christian and Islamic Descriptions of God, because then God does not need us.
As well as the fact that the demands of humanity from the Bible contradict themselves and seem rather disorganized....I assume the Bible's intent is to bring Humankind closer to God, and thereby closer to perfection.
If you look at history, you will easily see the failure at the attempt at perfection being based on the Bible has caused...Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, Inquistion, etc.
Originally posted by The Achiever
If I am being illogical or unclear please point it out specifically so that we can try to correct it, or if I can't I'll admit it. What do you mean by mythological? When have I used a mythological argument? Don't stereotype and assume that just because I have presented myself as a Christian that I am just like every other Christain you've ever encountered.
No, every Christian is different just like every Agnostic is different. I am very much open to the possibility of God's existance, but I don't think your God exists.
The Christian idea of God is flawed and self contradictory in my opinion, or atleast based on collective idealogies I gathered from my discussions with other Christians and from the Bible itself.
Originally posted by The Achiever
Can I prove perfection exists? Can I prove God exists? What do you think? That's a serious cop-out on your part to fall back to that question. This thread is about "What made God." The very question implies that we have accepted the premise that God does in fact exist for purposes of the discussion. You asking that question is just as unfair as me demanding that you prove God does not exist and that he is not perfect. Can you?
I am glad you admitted that you have no proof. It's not a cop out, I am asking you for Honesty.
Other Christians claim their beleifs as Fact, and I wanted to make sure you weren't in the mistake of doing so yourself.
The fact that you just admitted that the idea of "God" and "Perfection" are simply your beleifs, and therefore you cannot claim them as Fact. Good Job 👆
Originally posted by The Achiever
As to whether God is perfect, I suggest that if God is the creator of the universe, that he must be perfect, because the thing that creates ex nihilo is necessarily outside of the system which he creates and will not be subject to its laws, much like an author of a novel cannot be subject to the goings on of the world created in the novel. Change, time, movement, etc., are products of the universe of creation. Outside that universe - where God dwells - there is no change.
How do you know there is no change where God dwells ?
If Perfection and Imperfection are concepts of this Universe, actually just concepts of Human Question, then perhaps God is beyond them. If that's the case, then he's NEITHER or BOTH....
Everything you told me is simple speculation and in no way evidense of anything.
Next time you claim that "God is Perfect" I will address it as pure opinion, and not take it that you seriously mean it as fact, or have the means to back it up.
Originally posted by The Achiever
And before you start trying to poke holes in my argument, remember that disproving my argument that God is perfect does not mean you have proven he is not pefect, only that my particular argument does not demonstrate it.
I know. 😉
I was never trying to prove God was imperfect. He may not even exist, so how would i prove it ?
Originally posted by The Achiever
Don't dare attack your logic? Quite simply, there is no other possible way to argue philosophical and religious issues. How else do you presume I could assess your arguments? Instead of posting laughing symbols and restating my position followed by a head shaking NO, you could actually engage my arguments and attack MY logic.
I'm fine with you attacking my arguments, and even attacking my logic as long as you understand that your logic is no more valid or invalid than my own.
What I should have stated was "don't be a hypocrit"
When you said that my logic was flawed, I was under the impression that you beleived your's wasn't. As long as you realize that both our logics are flawed, because BOTH OF US ARE FLAWED beings, then I'm perfectly fine with you attacking my logic. 🙂