Communicating Annuls Perfection

Simon Anders said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
PsychoticEpisode said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Interesting also that I am a theist but I believe God has made mistakes.
 
Jan Ardena said:
As I thought, your question is irrational.

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

Jan.
Click to expand...

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.
 
greenberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?

“ 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm I thought you were a theist..
 
Simon Anders said:
Interesting also that I am a theist but I believe God has made mistakes.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Myles,

Be you asked me what my qualifications are.
Click to expand...

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

JAN said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

So do I.
What's your point?
 
Jan Ardena said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
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).
Click to expand...
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?
 
Myles said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jan Ardena said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

This is your mistake.

jan.
Click to expand...
 
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?
Click to expand...
... 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
yes
its a hallmark claim of theists stabilized on an unsatifactory level of performance
(and thus an attractive argument for atheists to refute)
 
lightgigantic said:
... and does correlation = causation?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
PsychoticEpisode said:
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.
Click to expand...
... and that is precisely what you are correlating as sufficient
:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top