Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, and Luminous, I am by no means trying to "protect the idea of a perfect creator," I have no idea whether the Spirit I perceive is a creator or not, nor do I care.
Well, there is the problem: your "understanding" is exactly backwards. If a universe has properties and processes that is simply the way they are; there is no right or wrong or " flawed" about them. The only "flaw" that comes into play would be thinking that they are (or even should be) different than what they are. An orbit in a planetary system, for instance, may be decaying and due to have the orbiting body fall into a particular sun. That is not a flaw in the system and processes of that universe, the flaw is in thinking that the orbit is (or should be) perfect. That is simply wishful thinking and completely divorced from reality:"flawed." Try thinking in real terms instead of nebulous "ideals."
It seems that, instead, your "understanding" is gravely skewed in this area. You are saying that there are no flaws in anything, that there is no Problem of Evil, that everything and every occurrence is perfectly fine and should all be accepted and not changed because it simply is the way it is. But again, that is self-contradictory, because it would mean that the perception of imperfection (and the work FOR change and the striving for "incorrect" ideas of perfection) would also be "perfect" and "unflawed" merely because it is what it is.
As "wishful thinking" in striving for betterment and perfection (Enlightenment) exists truly in reality, it cannot be viewed as "flawed" under your illogical constrictions (illogical for being self-refuting).
Your rationalization to protect the idea of a Perfect Creator is self-defeating from the start. Sure, logically and obviously a Perfect Creator could only allow a Perfect Creation and thus there would never be any fault in it. There could hardly even be flaws in the very presence of Perfection, and if its presence was Perfect it would be everywhere and in every which crevice and hell, so then everything everywhere at all times would be Perfect. Sure. But the "perception of flaws" is still a real thing which exists, which under your needless constrictions would make it "Perfect." Even a dove will strive for shade and run from pain, instead of merely "accepting both of them since they are what they are and are thus Perfect".
Then simply, you don't like the use of the word flawed to mean flawed because it contradicts a favorite premise of yours (that an original-ultimate Creator mind existed and was/is Perfect, and thus could only create and allow Perfection).
You go far beyond Pangloss in seeing this as "the best of all possible worlds" and instead see this as a Perfect Existence. There would thus be no need to strive selfishly and factionallly/tribally for Paradise or imagined heavens.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 04-29-2019 at 12:01 PM..
The resistance to God is based largely on the attributes assigned by humans that have no basis in anything other than their demands for God to qualify to be God in human eyes. This provides ample fodder for the atheists who argue against these largely self-contradictory Omni attributes and demands about what God MUST be.
The resistance to God is based largely on the attributes assigned by humans that have no basis in anything other than their demands for God to qualify to be God in human eyes. This provides ample fodder for the atheists who argue against these largely self-contradictory Omni attributes and demands about what God MUST be.
The resistance to any Gods is a personal decision. Your brand of religion is sort of like recognizing 1/2 of a battery's polarization. It wouldn't be so bad if only you believed it but you fundamentally desire/demand others to believe it too or else you will denigrate the person and their views...how are you any different from the ones you accuse of shutting out your definition of God? Can you not see you are just demanding as they are? I understand you are attempting to make belief palatable for some but does that have to come at the denigration of others?
Luminous, Do NOT read your ideas into what I say. Nothing that happens defies the properties and/or processes of the universe. What occurs within those processes may AFFECT us adversely, and we may WISH for things to be different but neither things as they are nor things we wish were different are a basis for judging the idea of "God," though they may bring into question some perceptions about "God."
Last edited by nateswift; 04-29-2019 at 12:07 PM..
Reason: Clarify the person to whom I responded
The resistance to God is based largely on the attributes assigned by humans that have no basis in anything other than their demands for God to qualify to be God in human eyes. This provides ample fodder for the atheists who argue against these largely self-contradictory Omni attributes and demands about what God MUST be.
I have no resistance to that which is true and good. Let God (or Infinitheism) be true and good and I welcome it happily. The rejection of that which is perceived as bad would occur regardless of the anthropomorphizations, anthro-popular-qualifications, or otherwise.
Assigning minds to what I perceive as unminded things is not something that I could perceive as good.
The same applies to similar ideas about perfection rather than (or along side of) mindedness.
Oh, and Luminous, I am by no means trying to "protect the idea of a perfect creator," I have no idea whether the Spirit I perceive is a creator or not, nor do I care.
Ah o.k. I was incorrectly assuming that you had a more average Christian reason to defend an idea of an Always Perfect Existence. I was only going along on my memory of you having called yourself "a Christian who believes in evolution" before (although that might have been more than a year ago).
The resistance to God is based largely on the attributes assigned by humans that have no basis in anything other than their demands for God to qualify to be God in human eyes. This provides ample fodder for the atheists who argue against these largely self-contradictory Omni attributes and demands about what God MUST be.
I am willing to concede this because it does appear to be the case with some.
I fully reject it for myself and others that I know do not use any of that in their reasoning.
I just did not see a reason to deny the existence of flaws and imperfects within existence other than to protect something dear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Nothing that happens defies the properties and/or processes of the universe. What occurs within those processes may AFFECT us adversely, and we may WISH for things to be different but neither things as they are nor things we wish were different are a basis for judging the idea of "God," though they may bring into question some perceptions about "God."
I happen to agree with what you have written here. But I would like to highlight that perceptions about "God" are a basis for considering, critizing, and judging "ideas" of "God(s)" existing.
I think ultimately, we were really originally just disagreeing on semantics mostly,
IN MY ESTIMATION, you wanted to define "flaw" as "something which is not as it should be (given the constraints of reality)"
but I wanted to define "flaw" as "something which is not as it should be (given the constraints of our ideas of particular perfection)"
As such, I still don't think that defining (as you implied quite directly in my estimation) flaw as "something which is not as it is" is a good or common way to define flaw.
Thus the flaw would still not be in the perceivers of flaws.
I am willing to concede this because it does appear to be the case with some.
I fully reject it for myself and others that I know do not use any of that in their reasoning.
I have to admit, I have not been discussing existentialist ideas with a lot of simple-minded or smart yet currently one-dimensional deniers of "all given" theisms and theologies lately.
I still remember discussing many many years ago with that one atheist that believed in ghost-hauntings and the acceptable possibility of lucky religious charms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
