Do you believe in God?

[Spurgy 777]

US say "pants", UK say "trousers".

US say "panties", UK say "pants".

I didn't put it very clearly

I knew what you meant, but somehow I read the opposite of what you meant

 

[Liquid]

US say "pants", UK say "trousers".

US say "panties", UK say "pants".

I didn't put it very clearly

And in this case the UK is slightly wrong. Pants are the same as trousers. Kinda generic. Underpants are your knickers or boxers because they go under your pants.

Otherwise, if pants is short for underpants, it should be 'pants.

 

[Dotini]

We are still on the nexus of underwear and religion.

Important to Mormons, and to African ladies wishing to be nearer to Jesus. Nice, if you're Jesus!

 

[TenEightyOne]

And in this case the UK is slightly wrong. Pants are the same as trousers. Kinda generic. Underpants are your knickers or boxers because they go under your pants.

But you have the Welsh flag - how can you say "the UK is wrong"?!

'Trousers' is a displacement of 'trowse' from the Gaelic 'triubhas'. Pants is inherited from pantaloon and pantalons, which themselves are not from a British root, they come from the various usurpers, intruders, invaders and other General Mainland Scourge.

'Underpants' are not limited to boxers or knickers, that's like saying 4-legged animals are restricted to being dogs.

In the post that I was specifically answering the confusion was between panties and pants. Don't concern yourself with other undertrouserage.

 

[JDM SRE70]

I believe that all gods of all religions did exist at some point. However, i don't believe in them as "Gods". They are average people, no one is superior. They were simply theorist, and philosophers. I believe that they all had the same idea, with different ways to approach a peaceful society. To me, religion has become the worlds biggest game of "Chinese whispers" over time the ideologies morph as society progress in age. However, this is just simply my own belief.

 

[dxld]

50 ¶ So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith


David killed him with a stone and then killed him again with a sword. :top:

Goliath had 2 lifes it seems...

No he had one life, but there is such a thing as Overkill.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's probably the result of a subtle translation error where something that originally had two subtlely different meanings has become a phrase that only has one meaning, in this case 'to kill'... such errors are practically unavoidable in a text that has been rewritten, edited and translated many times... in any case, all the more reason to avoid a strict literal interpretation of every word in the Bible.

 

[zzz_pt]

If there was a God who wanted to left a book to his creation, would be a book with no errors or contraditions.

You know... because god "is" perfect, he only could create perfect things.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just swinging by to drop this little bombshell on you.

My favourite bit of that:

"Bombshell 201x"

"Previous website: Bombshell 2012"

It's almost like he's got bored of updating it to actual numbers every time an apocalypse doesn't happen.

On a partially related note, people like him fascinate me. I almost want to meet him to see what he's like in person, like Louis Theroux would do.

 

[Imari]

If there was a God who wanted to left a book to his creation, would be a book with no errors or contraditions.

You know... because god "is" perfect, he only could create perfect things.

He is the only one who could create perfect things?
Or he could only create perfect things?

I'm aware that English probably isn't your first language, but there's a distinct difference.

And probably neither are true. There's no real reason why someone else couldn't create something that was perfect. And if God is omnipotent, he is just as capable of creating flawed things as he is of creating perfect things.

A master painter doesn't always create masterpieces. Sometimes he just creates trash for ***** and giggles.

 

[zzz_pt]

He is the only one who could create perfect things?
Or he could only create perfect things?

I'm aware that English probably isn't your first language, but there's a distinct difference.

And probably neither are true. There's no real reason why someone else couldn't create something that was perfect. And if God is omnipotent, he is just as capable of creating flawed things as he is of creating perfect things.

A master painter doesn't always create masterpieces. Sometimes he just creates trash for ***** and giggles.

He could only create perfect things.

A perfect beiing can't create unperfect things. It's a logical paradox.

That's the same as saying that god is omniscient and omnipotent. If god is omniscient and he knows what will happen tomorrow he is impotent to change his will, therefor he's not omnipotent because he can't change what he already knows about what will accour.

A master painter is not perfect.

The same thing goes to god is just and mercifull. If mercy is the suspension of justice (he won't give you something bad that you deserve to recieve), he's not just.
The same for god is just and gracefull. If grace is the suspension of justice (he's giving you something good that you do not deserve) he's not just.

ps: yes, my english is not perfect.



EDIT:

​

 

[Imari]

A perfect beiing can't create unperfect things. It's a logical paradox.

You're going to have to spell that paradox out a bit more clearly for me, I'm not seeing it.

 

[zzz_pt]

You're going to have to spell that paradox out a bit more clearly for me, I'm not seeing it.

See the 2nd argument

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Incompatible_properties_argument

A perfect beiing can not create a flawed object/creature.

 

[Imari]

See the 2nd argument

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Incompatible_properties_argument

A perfect beiing can not create a flawed object/creature.

This is what you're referring to?

The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

I'm questioning the reasoning for the third point.

If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

Why is that necessarily true?

A good artist can intentionally create a bad painting. I don't see why a perfect artist would be unable to intentionally create a bad painting. And that extends to any creative field, as far as I can see.

 

[zzz_pt]

You have to take in account the concept of perfection. It's a hard concept for us to grasp since there is nothing perfect in the universe we know...

A painter or any other person can not be an example because there isn't a perfect person.

A perfect beiing can only produce perfect things. Why? Because if it create a flawed thing it's not a perfect beiing. It would be like you and me.

The idea of god I'm talking about is the usual god (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, immutable, source of objective good, all loving, etc). If this god is not compatible with sin and assuming sin is the opposite of perfection, god can not be compatible with flawed creations / unperfection.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly, take Eve for example. She was a clone, and we know now the kinds of problems they have when they try to reproduce.

 

[zzz_pt]

Exactly, take Eve for example. She was a clone, and we know now the kinds of problems they have when they try to reproduce.

 

[Imari]

A perfect beiing can only produce perfect things. Why? Because if it create a flawed thing it's not a perfect beiing.

One could argue that the inability to create anything that is not perfect is a flaw in itself. Likewise, the lack of free will in choosing what one may create. In which case a prefect being is a logical impossibility.

If you want perfection to actually mean something useful, perfect beings need the ability to create less than perfect works if they so choose. Given that you're taking "perfect being may only create perfect works" as an axiom, I don't see any problem with changing that axiom to something that creates greater logical depth.

 

[zzz_pt]

One could argue that the inability to create anything that is not perfect is a flaw in itself. Likewise, the lack of free will in choosing what one may create. In which case a prefect being is a logical impossibility.

If you want perfection to actually mean something useful, perfect beings need the ability to create less than perfect works if they so choose. Given that you're taking "perfect being may only create perfect works" as an axiom, I don't see any problem with changing that axiom to something that creates greater logical depth.

Is a flaw in the same way as the Einstein's problem of the rock. If god is omnipotent can he create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it? Religion says no. It's a problem of logic. Apologetics now say: God can create everything logically possible.

The same goes to a perfect god. If god is perfect can he create an unperfect thing? If your ansewer is yes, every abrahamic religion goes down the toilet. Because if god can fail, he can not demand us to be perfect and condemn us to eternal hell for our failures. God is all knowing and we are not, so we have a lot more margin of error... and assuming that god can fail, we have no obligation to be right.

 

[Exorcet]

if god can fail

Here's the conflict. Making something imperfect willingly is not a failure. A perfect god can't fail but can create imperfection.

 

[Imari]

Because if god can fail, he can not demand us to be perfect and condemn us to eternal hell for our failures.

Why not?

 

[michrulejj]

To relate back a few posts about if "God was perfect then why are we not perfect, or the world being perfect, etc.". (Within the Christian belief) God created us (Adam and Eve) as his children/Representations of him. He Created man and calls us his children. My point is even if your children (His Creations) mess up, get in trouble, or do something dumb, do you love them less? Doesn't matter what they would do you will always love your child. And you will always stand by them. Thus he didn't just give up and restart when Adam and Eve first sinned. So you can't argue that we aren't perfect so God doesn't exist. Because if you believe in Heaven you believe in Hell also, and the devil can tempt you which causes imperfection. Thats why we aren't perfect.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The electron is god, and it has created us as host in its own image, as it has all life. The only purpose of life is to spread more life, more dna, and eventually when we have covered this planet some DNA will move onwards and outwards, and ever will it be thus.

We've got to get ourselves back to the garden (Joni, Woodstock 3:3)

 

[Exorcet]

To relate back a few posts about if "God was perfect then why are we not perfect, or the world being perfect, etc.". (Within the Christian belief) God created us (Adam and Eve) as his children/Representations of him. He Created man and calls us his children. My point is even if your children (His Creations) mess up, get in trouble, or do something dumb, do you love them less? Doesn't matter what they would do you will always love your child. And you will always stand by them. Thus he didn't just give up and restart when Adam and Eve first sinned. So you can't argue that we aren't perfect so God doesn't exist. Because if you believe in Heaven you believe in Hell also, and the devil can tempt you which causes imperfection. Thats why we aren't perfect.

This doesn't work because God is God and parents are parents. God did not have to start over when Adam and Eve messed up. He had to use his omniscience to know that it would work and make a universe that did work instead. Technically, this world being as it is doesn't imply God isn't perfect. He can be perfect, but evil, that would work too.

The only purpose of life

There isn't one. It just does things.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There isn't one. It just does things.

How do you know?

 

[Exorcet]

How do you know?

That implies the same question to your position.

The answer though is that there can't be an objective purpose for life (subjective purposes, like gods/aliens/ghosts wanting life to exist and then making it, are of course possible though).

 

[michrulejj]

This doesn't work because God is God and parents are parents. God did not have to start over when Adam and Eve messed up. He had to use his omniscience to know that it would work and make a universe that did work instead. Technically, this world being as it is doesn't imply God isn't perfect. He can be perfect, but evil, that would work too.



There isn't one. It just does things.

I was referring to this:

The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Number 3 to be exact. Of why this list is at fault and is not correct.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That implies the same question to your position.

D'oh! As soon as I replied I thought "I hope he doesn't ask me in return!"

That implies the same question to your position.

The answer though is that there can't be an objective purpose for life (subjective purposes, like gods/aliens/ghosts wanting life to exist and then making it, are of course possible though).

Yes, I'm glad you asked me that.

There is no objective purpose for life, I agree with that. We can only presume its purpose through our observations, and in all observations it replicates, all other actions serve that function. That just is. We're only just conceiving of what we are, it may be a long time before we conceive of why.

Or what Piers Morgan is for.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thus he didn't just give up and restart when Adam and Eve first sinned.

You're right. He just condemned the rest of humankind for all eternity instead. Nice bloke.

 

[zzz_pt]

Here's the conflict. Making something imperfect willingly is not a failure. A perfect god can't fail but can create imperfection.

Why not?

I was referring to this:

The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Number 3 to be exact. Of why this list is at fault and is not correct.

If you assume that god, a perfect being, can create (and created) imperfect things, you are assuming that religion doesn't make any logical sense. Abrahamic religions (chrisitanity, judaism, islam) assume that god is the origin of all good and perfect things and satan is the origin of sin and all imperfect things.*

If you open the possibility of a perfect god be able to create imperfect things, there is no worng with anything that's imperfect, there is no wrong with satan/lucifer, there is no wrong with sin and ultimately there is no wrong/evil.
If you assume that position, there are only created things, nor good or bad, because they both came from the same origin.

(This is more a deistic view than a theistic view of the world. A deist would say that a deity created the universe and that's all. Everything after that moment has no relation with that creator.)

I think it's a logical paradox to say that imperfection can came out from a perfect god. If god is perfect, everything he creates has to be perfect. If not, he's not perfect and he's not god.


* this idea has to many problems within it but I needed to use it because that's how religion says it is...