Communicating Annuls Perfection

[PsychoticEpisode]

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

 

[lightgigantic]

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 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

 

[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.

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

 

[lightgigantic]

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)

 

[lightgigantic]

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

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.

 

[greenberg]

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.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.

 

[Michael]

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

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?

 

[greenberg]

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?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.

 

[greenberg]

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?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

 

[lightgigantic]

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

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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.