Does god make mistakes?

Jumping off the cliff when you know the result is a splat ahead of time is
anything but insightful.
 
We were talking about making, and not making, mistakes.
Purposeful actions with perceived negative, (supposedly), consequences, are not mistakes.
 
CASE 1:
Intention: 'God' wanted a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' knew a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God' made no mistake.

CASE 2:
Intention: 'God' did not want a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' knew a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God's an idiot.

CASE 3:
Intention: 'God' did not want a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' did not know a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God' made a mistake.


ANALYSIS:
There is plenty of biblical 'evidence' that 'God' didn't wan't Lucifer to
wig out on him. That means 'God' is an idiot, made a mistake, or is a liar.
Take your pick.
 
Either-
A) God is an idiot

or

B) you sometimes exhibit characteristics which would be defined by some as those consistent with being an idiot.

I choose B.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
ANALYSIS:
There is plenty of biblical 'evidence' that 'God' didn't wan't Lucifer to
wig out on him. That means 'God' is an idiot, made a mistake, or is a liar.
Take your pick.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you treat God as he would simply be a human being with infinite power. God is not a "person". God can't "want" something, he just does things. You can still SAY that God wants something... the Bible often gives God human characteristics (like jealousy) so that humans could have understood it easier 5000 years ago.

God has no need to think, because he already knows everything. Thinking is a path between not-knowledge and knowledge. God doesn't need to feel everything, because he already feels every emotion (he feels nothing). He has all personalities, so he has none. He has all possible karma, so he has none, and so on...

Life is never so simple as "this" or "that". You can't just say, this is the way it is, there are no other possibilities. People are limited, unlike God. They can say nothing about God (infinity). People use the word God, but they often talk about something whole different. There are always other possibilities, the limitations are in our mind.

God is not conscious, so he can never make mistakes. Or, I don't know... mistakes don't really exist, they're just illusions in human consciousness.
 
Why are we supposed to worship something that isn't even sapient then? Its a big freaking sliderule.
 
cole grey said:
Either-
A) God is an idiot

or

B) you sometimes exhibit characteristics which would be defined by some as those consistent with being an idiot.

I choose B.
Click to expand...

I think choosing B) exhibit's characteristics of cognitive dissonance.
 
Clockwood said:
Why are we supposed to worship something that isn't even sapient then? Its a big freaking sliderule.
Click to expand...

You don't have to "worship" anything anymore, if you don't want to. Religions tell us that we should believe in ourselves, in our higher self, which they call God. But God is not just that, he is (in) everything. It is not a good thing to become too fanatic, be it religion or atheistic thinking...
 
The idea that, B) you sometimes exhibit characteristics which would be defined by some as those consistent with being an idiot, is actually quite consistent with your posts and requires no dissonance at all.
Anyway, I'm just playing, just because you see things in a way which gives you the (perspective liimited) final word on things, doesn't make you an idiot, just normal.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
CASE 1:
Intention: 'God' wanted a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' knew a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God' made no mistake.

CASE 2:
Intention: 'God' did not want a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' knew a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God's an idiot.

CASE 3:
Intention: 'God' did not want a 'Lucifer' creation to freak out.
Knowledge: 'God' did not know a 'Lucifer' creation would freak out.
Action: 'God' created 'Lucifer' and 'Lucifer' freaked out.
Result: 'God' made a mistake.

.
Click to expand...

CASE 2 is doctrinal, save for result clause
 
cole grey said:
The idea that, B) you sometimes exhibit characteristics which would be defined by some as those consistent with being an idiot, is actually quite consistent with your posts and requires no dissonance at all.
Click to expand...

Your version has a different meaning. It implies that 'God's decision may seem
idiotic and may really not be. My version explicitly states that the act of
purposely choosing an undesireable result is idiotic. For your version to be
'consistent' with mine requires dissonance.

cole grey said:
Anyway, I'm just playing, just because you see things in a way which gives you the (perspective liimited) final word on things, doesn't make you an idiot, just normal.
Click to expand...

Reality gives the final word on things... not I.
 
Crunchy said:
Your version has a different meaning. It implies that 'God's decision may seem
idiotic and may really not be. My version explicitly states that the act of
purposely choosing an undesireable result is idiotic. For your version to be
'consistent' with mine requires dissonance.
Click to expand...


I was implying that the result is bearable, and perhaps, necessary for some purpose unknown to you, and that you are quite possibly incorrect. Either you are incorrect, or I am - at no time do I expect to reconcile the two ideas in any way.
 
cole grey said:
I was implying that the result is bearable, and perhaps, necessary for some purpose unknown to you, and that you are quite possibly incorrect. Either you are incorrect, or I am - at no time do I expect to reconcile the two ideas in any way.
Click to expand...

I guarantee I'm not correct. 'God' would have to exist to even make that
a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top