god is perfection?????????

[TruthSeeker]

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....

 

[caffeine_fubar]

God isnt perfect or he wouldnt make something imperfect

 

[Raithere]

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

 

[everneo]

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

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

God isnt perfect or he wouldnt make something imperfect

Everything that is separated from Him lacks something, doesn't it?

 

[TruthSeeker]

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?

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"...

 

[mis-t-highs]

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.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Good reply...!

 

[Raithere]

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

 

[mis-t-highs]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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...!

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?

 

[TruthSeeker]

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...

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

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).

 

[TruthSeeker]

..."pneumon"...

Ahhhhhhh! Now I understand....

 

[Red Devil]

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Another argument from ignorance......

 

[anotheressence]

Another argument from ignorance......

And how is that ignorance again?

 

[the preacher]

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

 

[TruthSeeker]

And how is that ignorance again?

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.....

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