i wasnt going to... but eh ill (to use more cliches) lead the horse to water - how did I EVER say that I am right because I am right? heh cute eh? and ill go ahead and take some air out - i was simply stating one possible point of view did i ever say that what i believe was difinitive fact? and furthermore how is what i said about deminsions baseless (not verbatim from you but i cant remember but you said somthing about I am making up the whole deminsions thing) /me looks down.. looks to my left.. looks to my right.. YEP 3 deminsions here what about over there?
Craven de Kere wrote:I started no such game, I simply pointed out your argument's logical inadequacies to which you responded with vulgarisms clichés and adolescent repetitions along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"
Your tactics are to simply hurl names and claim no argument has been made, and to then repeat the terms used in reference to your argument's logical deficiencies.
visavis, this is no playground, and such tactics won't get much play here.
Have a good 'un.
ya so i wanted to enjoy my polish sausage and didnt reply in time.. heh oh well ya read my previous post and see what you reply to that
visavis and Craven playing a game of Ping-Pong,
meanwhile "God is playing dice with the universe, sometimes tossing them where no one can see". Maybe his dice are really large boulders, and he's trying to lift them, and he fails, and another one bites the dust...
lol ya any distraction from the realization that soon the world is probably going cave its 'self' in on its 'self' is welcome so ya.. thanks craven
curious... do you actually believe the mind numbing narrow minded views on this website?
http://www.godhatesfigs.com/
because one thing i cannot stand more than people who feel the bible is LAW and SPECIFICALLY and TRUELY God's words and follow it as such - is people who learn nothing and misinturpret what is written in the bible. lol.. God hates figs.. if you take the passage BY ITS SELF and pull it out of context then you can draw that ignorant conclusion.. but that passage clearly draws out 2 symbolic messages: First the obvious one of having faith will do things you didnt think could happen.. second of God (Jesus) was hungry and the fig tree (symbolically) did not give him sustinance. such like a poor begger on the street is hungry you give him food? ya im probably wrong though right craven?
ya well this is off topic but i thought i'd dabble to this since i saw it through your profile.. if you believe websites authors who under analysis and narrow thinking of picking apart things to make them sound bad and minipulating ANYTHING not just the bible.. then sir.. theres somthing wrong.. whatever
Hmmmm... a reply - ya well looked over some of our posts and lol.. got a confession.... is it that your post which followed my original post was not geared towards me that you said i shouldnt assume?
arg man.. alot could have been avoided if you'd be more specific.. (i am wrong dont get me wrong here not blaming you) just wish you would have said that lol anways.. i still stand firm about the God hates fig thing though..
I have learned in my short time (relatively) on earth that there are a lot of things I can do, but why would I?
Why should God be any different?
In my last post I tried to introduce the question of a nuanced "God", one that is, perhaps not perfect. Visavis' post following mine seemed to eschew this concept. He then proceeded to launch into the concept, that I originally questioned, of "I know my own mind, and in it God is unassailable" then attempted to, somehow, justify and defend his faith by conjuring up multi-dimensional universes and the philosophical ramblings of cartoon characters.
Visavis has every right to his faith and the proclamation thereof, but falls into the same secular trap as those of his more coherent and experienced brethren when attempting to use the tools of logic, science, and intellectual rigor. Faith is just that. Those that possess it are blessed but those striving for real world proof regarding its basis surely travel down a road fraught with disappointment, forever cursed with the task of fighting rear guard actions.
As we have seen CDK has striven to expose Visavis' tepid attempts at intellectual argument. Visavis has, in turn, tried to defend his beliefs with the dismissal of such calls for logical rigor, ad Hominem tactics and juvenile incoherence. Obviously they are talking past each other. The Faith of Christians (or any such belief) is not well served. Others here have expressed such faith with nobility.
Visavis, I do not wish be condescending, but when you respond to another's questions sans logical or even philosophical arguments, as you have in the past, it calls into question either your premise or those thought processes so involved. The good news is this is exactly the place to practice this. I am not an expert on logic or such arguments but these experts (or at least those more experienced) abound and you might wisely partake of their advice.
However, what about a more human God, one that freely admits disengagement? How about a God that feels it unnecessary to care about all our problems all the time? A God that feels "Hot Burritos" or rocks of any kind are undeserving of his attention and that might change the rules as he goes along? Is that not "Making it up as you go along"? Is such theological equine substitution during stream fording fair to us humans? Does this matter? If so, this might explain when bad things happen to good people. But isn't this slope somewhat slippery?
NRAEVIS was right when he blamed the Boulder Paradox upon us humans. We humans are totally responsible, not only for the paradox but also its roots. The creation of the Intelligent Designer and the boulder both lie in the thought processes of the human mind. Contrary to what the high priests would have us believe this is the good news.
JM
ya.. one thing thats been my problem has been expressing what i think in coherient ways lol.. fustrating yet true. with my replies that were juvenile and attacking craven were under a mistake of his reply to mine. it seemed to me he was being very non productive to a conversation when he was answering so brief and answering to other subjects when, what i felt anyways, was that he was avoiding what i said. but i mistook who his reply was directed to.. heh little mistakes get big sometimes. *shrug
God creating fallible beings?
It had been asked previously within this thread of postings as to why God, (The Christian God) would create a being that is flawed intentionally. Wouldn't this expose some type of pusillanimous nature on the part of "God"?
The answer is no and here is the reason as to why. In theory God is the very definition, essence and representation of absolute perfection absolutely, therefore anything or anyone (i.e. human beings) that is not God is then not absolutely perfect.
However this would then automatically from a human perspective bring to question why God does not simply create human beings to be perfect just as God is perfect. To "create" perfection would then implicate that God is not actually establishing completely separate and discrete entities apart from "God" but instead only establishing unique manifestations of God since God who is Absolute perfection is the one doing the creation. In other words God would not be creating creatures that are absolutely not God but merely manifesting in a multiplistic fashion.
However according to the "Christian" viewpoint regarding God human beings and all other forms of created beings are not actually God but separate discrete spiritual/physical entities created by God. Therefore based on this perspective the human soul/spirit is by default essentially the antithesis of the absolute perfection known as God. For one cannot be absolutely perfect and Absolutely not perfect simultaneously. (At least not from a humanly logical point of view)
Therefore we come full circle to the paradoxical question regarding the theoretical limitations of God. The question here being can God create an absolute perfect being that is an absolute discrete and separate entity apart from God even though doing so would seemingly in essence really be nothing more than simply an express manifestation of God since God is the very nature and definition of absolute perfection, thus negating the ability for God to create perfect beings at all? And if God could not do this then thus the question of "God" and Gods' omnipotence comes back into play.
In other words that may be less circuitous in phrasing, can God create a being that is absolutely perfect without that being actually being God?
If so how could this be, since God = Absolute perfection and the purposed condition would mean that a discrete Absolutely perfect being = absolute perfection and Absolute perfection = God.
Remember there can be no partiality made between Absolute perfection less it be relegated to a partial or limited Absolute perfection which in turn would negate the very meaning of Absolute in regards to perfection.
However the answer to this to paradoxical equation lies in the structure of God. This concept is a very abstruse one and may seemingly be nothing more than double talk however the logic if followed step by step is quite sound. We will break it down in the most simplistic form in order to express this reality within the confines of human logic and language.
Since God is Absolute perfection, all that is not God is Absolute imperfection. Therefore under the condition that God "creates" beings that are discrete from God they automatically are absolutely not perfect. However in regards to the limitation of God to "create" absolute perfect beings and yet these beings still be discrete and apart from him lies in the word CREATE.
God represents all that is perfect in the most absolute way, therefore by Gods very existence the very nature of what is absolutely imperfect is automatically established. One absolute absolutely defines another. There then is established an antithetical counterpoise that comes into existence.
This antithetical counterpoise is where the distinction of what is God and what is not God materializes. One is perfect the other is not. The one that is not is where the discrete beings such as humans come into existence. This very condition creates a duality and duality is indicative of choice. Therefore the very existence of God establishes an automatic choice between God and other that is not God. Choice is indicative of will and will is based on value.
Therefore human beings have the ability to choose, that which is perfection, which is God, and that which is not perfection, which is not God.
However to do so one must value the very antithetical nature against self in order to willingly choose perfection. However willing what is perfect requires perfection in itself, which the non-perfect clearly is not. Therefore it is necessary for God to supercede that which is not perfect. This can only be done volitionally by the imperfect beings desired will predicated on the replacement of absolute value. The replacement of absolute value from the inherent discrete being to that of God then affects the will however now both value and will are comprised of two beings that are working in absolute tandem thus becoming one being.
Once this is done the condition is such that the discrete being becomes apart of God thus establishing an absolute syllogismatic symbiosis whereby value and will represent the major and minor premises thus resulting in the symbiotic conclusion. The conclusion being that discrete being now becomes willingly apart of the axiomatic foundational perfect being but yet is still discrete due to the fact that choice remains an absolute option.
Therefore God can create discrete beings that become absolutely perfect and yet are not absolutely God due to the fact that God is the axiomatic foundational structure whereby the condition ever comes into existence thus remaining the absolute predicating basis for all that is. Thus God created a being that is perfect just as God is perfect without that being actually being god by establishing the condition of Choice, Value and Will.
