Maybe it’s your conception of good and evil that is imperfect.
I have the blue prints to the plan of a perfect existence in my head.
In this existence, we get whatever we want, learn whatever we want, have any possible state of consciousness we want without being able to possibly hurt any being. I can explain this in depth to you if you’re curious. I can prove that life/existence isn’t good YET! Maybe it never will be. But I can prove this.
One thing that You keep going on about, is the concept of deserve. EVERY POSSIBLE BEING deserves! heaven forever.
Also, when you state that you’ve gone into things extensively earlier… at best, it’s just a throw away sentence that’s simply an assertion.
You make the assertion that even though we’re all infinitely evil compared to god, and god made us to be exactly as we are (created our minds and hearts and already knows what we’ll chose before making us, that in spite of overwhelming logical evidence - there are still good and bad people, with no supporting argument.
My argument is actual. By your definition of god, every other being is infinitely evil (it logically follows from what you’ve outright stated in this thread.) God is the only good being, forever and ever… this is your god, not mine. So, what logically follows, is not what you say, you just make shit up as you go along, putting words into gods mouth which cannot be true by your own definition. By your own definition, we’re all necessarily, infinitely evil compared to god forever.
And when I state that god created our hearts and minds, you agree. When I state that god knows what we’ll do with those hearts and minds, you agree. And then you run into cognitive dissonance and flail about about how we choose, and what we deserve. You haven’t addressed this once in this thread, while stating that you’ve covered it extensively. That’s called a direct contradiction… and it’s in your entire thread.
I also stated that god can look at the option of creating evil and still decide not to create evil, but still allow freewill! What do you say? It’s disgusting, you say we can’t have freewill unless evil exists. It’s fucking disgusting dude.
That’s like me giving a 1 year old a cyanide capsule to “play” with. God already knows what’s going to happen if evil is created, and like ANY GOOD PARENT!!! Would say, “yeah, evil is not a good idea, scratch that idea, I’ll just give them freewill without creating evil”
But even more! Since god is actually the only being in existence who even knows what good and evil are (your definition, not mine - you’re claiming to be god here by the way by thinking you could possibly know the difference) - it’s absurd to punish people for cognitive defect that by your own admission, lasts forever, for everyone besides god, forever.
You say that god grants leniency to those who say, have brain damage and can’t help themselves … again, you, projecting yourself as god here, but then state that compared to god, every other being in existence besides god necessarily has a cognitive defect forever that is infinite in magnitude.
Again, I’m unpacking your arguments here so that you can see how this looks from the perspective of pure reason, which you always go on about how that’s what you’re doing here.
No, not every being deserves heaven forever. If we go by what religion says, we were in paradise, we acted unappreciatively towards God because despite God providing us with paradise, we still disobeyed God (almost as if we wronged God), but because God cannot be wronged, we lost paradise. So we only wronged ourselves. God being Forgiving and Merciful, and us responding to God with “if you do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will be of the losers”, resulted in us being here as opposed to the paradise we were in. Here we can willingly repent and reform. This life is that chance. Those who waste it, don’t deserve Heaven. Since nobody deserves to be wronged (including God), those who choose/consent to being evil in this life, will have Hell to pay. A just reward for what they chose/consented to be. Neither they are wronged, nor God.
A one year old doesn’t know what good and evil is, nor does he know what cyanide is. He should not be given cyanide. A man who decides to rape a woman, know what evil is, but still commits to it (instead of committing to God).
I think you are too emotional and biased for this conversation. It’s up to you to be fair, unprejudiced, reasonable, and sincere to a perfect existence. It’s in your best interest. Don’t be a loser. Commit to the best thing that you can commit to. Commit to God. Be sincere to reason and truth. Be sincere to God before it’s too late. Serve none other than God, for at all times, you are at the mercy of God.
Perfection = everyone getting what they perfectly/truly deserve. If x believes action y is evil but commits to it, then x committed evil. If x believe x is being evil but persists, then x is evil. That which knows it is evil, is evil. That which knows it is being insincere to reason and truth, knows it is evil. How can you not call a man who rejects truth evil on some level. To be unreasonable is to be evil. The more unreasonable, the more evil.
Do you disagree with the above?
I’ve told you 3 times already in this thread that everyone believes that they are a good person (with the exception of good people - who call themselves bad people).
A rapist generally believes that woman are asking for it; that women WANT to be raped!! They are wrong of course, but that’s what they ACTUALLY believe. Every one of them believes that. That takes a lot to explain about human psycho sexuality …
The point again, bad people always think they’re good and good people always think they’re bad. Sociological tests have proven this several times.
You’re not living in reality CR.
Then… you pull some weird Jewish shit out of nowhere … the book of genesis to be exact; which is super-easy to debunk (also Miltons paradise lost (which was a fantasy book)… if your argument is that we all started in paradise and disobeyed…
Prepare for a mental ass kicking from this board!
GO GO my step-bro Ecmandu showing the bitch where her place is!!!
I do not understand “beyond perfect” or “beyond infinity” either. I don’t see any need to bring such things into the discussion, do you? I hadn’t mentioned such a thing so far so I’m curious why you bring it up.
The only interpretation of such a thing that I think could be applied to what I was saying would be in relation to “beyond imperfect human conception of perfection”.
That is to say that humans necessarily have an imperfection conception, so even when we conceive of perfection to the best degree that we can, it’s still going to be imperfect to some degree by transitive property.
And the same goes for aliens with 20+ senses who see in 20+ dimensions etc.
As such, it’s absurd to expect imperfect human conception to be able to conceive of perfection, even if we try really hard and get to what we think must be perfection, and even if we think we’ve surely succeeded, we can’t escape our conception of it necessarily being viewed through a window of imperfection - outside of which we cannot conceive.
Your attempt is “everyone getting what they perfectly/truly deserve”.
Just to get it out of the way, this is already problematic because the definition contains that which is being defined making it circular and invalid - but let’s just omit “perfectly” from the definition and continue.
Are all of the things of which are humanly conceivable “enough” to cover what someone deserves?
One is tempted to say yes, because if they were afforded things they deserve beyond what they could conceive, they would not know any differently.
But this is testament only to the limits of humans to appreciate what they deserve, rather than a true “perfection” of what could be afforded to humans, in terms of what they deserve, by the “divine”/beyond human conception.
A human could get what they deserve to the extent that they couldn’t possibly consider it being bettered, and this still doesn’t say anything about perfection “beyond imperfect human conception of perfection”.
Nothing Godly or divine would be required for such a reward, because it’s all natural and mundane because it’s all within limited human conception.
If this humanly bounded conception of perfection suffices as “perfection” then we don’t need anything beyond human conception, such as God or the divine.
In this case, to return to where this response started, for God to be divine to us, Godly perfection would have to be “beyond perfection” - which we both agreed is absurd.
So if instead we allow perfection to only suffice as Godly and divine, we would never be able to experience this degree of perfection within our imperfect human conception.
It would only ever seem to be perfect to us in its imperfection, making it imperfect, and thereby “that which completes this imperfect picture” into a “perfect” one would be necessarily impossible for us to conceive. The necessary essence that “tops it off” as perfection is the one thing we cannot access.
So I don’t think swapping out God for perfection does anything for your argument, I’m afraid.
My spider sense suspects a “Motte and Bailey” strategy here, whether intentional or not, but I think I’ve quite successfully resolved things nonetheless.
Silhouette,
To be short and sweet. It requires the claim of personal perfection to make the perfect argument that there is a greatest perfection. Contradiction.
I’ll add to my last 2 posts CR.
God told them not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.
Of course without ANY PRIOR knowledge of what good and evil is (duh, it’s right there in the fucking book) Adam and Eve ate from it (they didn’t know the difference between right/wrong, correct/incorrect, good/bad yet!)
What was their enormous sin after eating from this tree? Covering their genitalia from god! LOL!!!
So then god casts all humans to hell forever. Cool fucking story right?!
Hey, I’m not the one who referenced it, that’s on you CR.
You know CR,
Fuck it! If you want to get into the Bible here:
Here’s the fucking deal… god wants us to be robots.
It’s right there in the fucking Bible!
The covenant set forth by Abraham was because Abraham agreed to murder Isaac because god told him to. At the last second, god told Abraham to stop. Abraham stopped. God said to the Jewish people, “you have been great robots, I will bless all your generations as my chosen”
Debate me on this and you’ll fail.
Don’t bring up the fucking Bible here dude. Argue instead from pure reason, as you claim to do.
Religion and science are both empirical matters. I think me trying to teach you about religion is like a scientist trying to teach a hardcore dogmatic creationist about evolution. The creationist will insist, why are there no more neanderthals whilst there are still monkeys? I probably shouldn’t have brought religion into this discussion. You said we should all be in heaven, I thought I’d highlight something that religion says for you.
I don’t see the point in us continuing our conversation. Nothing new is going to come from it as far as I can see.
I thought that’s what your argument logically amounted to. This is why I thought this:
You said: You can describe what you wrote about as something other than God/Perfection, because you have been doing so this whole time. There’s just a logical issue with the word choice due to the definitions involved.
I’ve only been talking about Perfection. And I’ve also explicitly said that God and Perfection denote the exact same thing. When you say I’m talking about ‘something other than God/Perfection’, I have to try to figure out what you mean by this.
You also said: So hopefully what I’ve said above clarifies why we can’t have any more than 0 understanding of God, thereby making even the subject of that sentence itself rather meaningless.
That which is Perfect is necessarily Omnipotent. This cannot constitute 0 understanding or meaning. djilsdgk constitutes 0 understanding or meaning. A 20th sense constitutes 0 understanding or meaning. So still, I have to try to figure out what you mean by me talking about ‘something other than God/Perfection’ whilst you describe God/Perfection as being meaningless.
I concluded, that the above can only be consistent if you do not understand “God/Perfection”. But I thought to myself, you cannot seriously believe that you do not understand God/Perfection. Perhaps you are thinking about beyond Perfect/Perfection. To back up this point, look again at what you said at the beginning:
This implies that you understand Perfect and Infinity. So what other rational conclusion can I make when you say:
So hopefully what I’ve said above clarifies why we can’t have any more than 0 understanding of God, thereby making even the subject of that sentence itself rather meaningless.
So my question to you is this:
Do you understand Perfection? If yes, then how can you say: So hopefully what I’ve said above clarifies why we can’t have any more than 0 understanding of God, thereby making even the subject of that sentence itself rather meaningless. If no, then why do you say: I do not understand “beyond perfect” or “beyond infinity” either. I don’t see any need to bring such things into the discussion, do you? I hadn’t mentioned such a thing so far so I’m curious why you bring it up.
I think (and I mean 0 offence by this) you are confusing the semantic of Perfection for beyond Perfection and calling it Perfection/God. Beyond Perfection is meaningless. Perfection is meaningful. Your replies suggest you believe Perfection/God is meaningless.
There’s only one religion on earth that teaches that we all started in paradise: Judaism
It’s offshoots talk about ‘the fallen’ throughout the heavenly hierarchies.
I came at you hard about your bible stuff, and you had no argument, because ultimately, you have no argument that existence is perfect when it really comes into delving deeply into the claim.
Your entire claim throughout this thread has been surface (paraphrasing you) “there must exist the greatest imaginable perfection, and it’s logically true that it’s manifest throughout the entire cosmos”
When anyone challenges this with facts, you just repeat the same thing, over and over and over.
How about this for a change? Perfection evolves. It’s not a completed “thing”. Is it ‘blasphemy’ To say that god evolves?
What’s most interesting to me in this thread (about you) is that you admit that the only being in existence who can be 100% sure that god exists, is god; yet you make the argument that you are 100% sure god exists , and what god believes about punishment or evil.
I know the sociological studies threw you for a loop, because it counters your idea that the wicked know that they’re wicked. That’s called science.
What do the studies show? Good people think they’re horrible people, and evil people think they’re good people. Sure, there’s a few outliers that have enough insight and clarity to be accurate. But it totally debunks your pseudo scientism of ‘pure reason’.
My perspective of you is that you need to get out more; become cosmically ‘street smart’.
Read above post as well…
I don’t talk about blasphemy as a concept very often.
Blasphemy literally translates in the spirit world as:
“No matter what you say or do, you’re in hell forever”
Now let’s think about this for a moment…
“You mean if I bring peace to all of existence, I’m still going to be in hell forever? “
“Yes. That’s the definition of blasphemy”
At a certain point, you have to really look at these religious nuts and think to yourself… man that’s some evil shit.”
But from your perspective (without critical thinking, empathy or compassion) you just fall into line as a sycophant.
If anyone’s having a bad day, I’m having a bad day.
Very simple process for me.
Why is god not this way?
But let’s extend this further…
Even if god were good (having a bad day if anyone has a bad day), you make god omnipotent. That means that god could stop all the bad days. But doesn’t.
That means god will have bad days forever. We have a term for that: masochist.
Perfection evolving seems something new from you. Perfection cannot improve because there is nothing for it to improve on. It is perfect. There is no better than perfect. There is no evolving to become more perfect. Other than that, I see you saying that I have said things that I have not, and I see you saying that rapists think that the woman they rape want to be raped. I suppose with your line of “reasoning”, the same can be said of all oppressors, dictators, pedophiles, ponzi schemers and so on. You are not sufficiently committed to truth here.
I’m just going to tell you straight up…
You do not understand existence. EVERY fucking evil person thinks that they’re doing the right thing.
I know this; you don’t.
The actual science of this counters your entire concept of guilt, because your entire concept of guilt is that a person chooses to be and knows that they chose evil.
That’s not the way existence works dude.
How about built in or inherited guilt? That appears to be generally prevalent across the board in most religions. Can such heredity defy the caused and effect principle? I would think, that such process would need to entail ‘objective’ criteria, within both literal and figurative connotations.
Let me explain what I am trying to say;
The objectivity as ascribes to common sense, depends on a large number of factors, most of which hides the basic ontological/phenominal distinction.and the objective of that is another underlay of connection that is very basic; one which both tries to connect naïve realism with later stages of perception.
But that process is as intrinsic with backward, and current levels, AND possible future ones, within which all possibility becomes progressively foreseeable. That foreseeability, is a transcendental transformation of imminence.
Guilt in this way becomes a post facto look back, where the idea of looking back tries to justify it’s Shakespeare’s question " To be or Not…"
The biblical look back in Sodom and Gomorrah has many layers of meaning, which have been associated with other ideas such as ‘don’t look back’ since that invites a repetitive need to reconnect with an earlier plane of existence in the past.
In fact, some learn to exclude the present and the future. by constant reference to back views of reality.
The retroactive guality is a constant reassociation with failures based on wrong choices made, choices that did not account for the learning of what the effects of those choices may be.
In accordance with that idea, the concept if sin at birth, is a logically necessary belief, in light of the other presumtion: that of the idea engendered from the separation that the allegory of the cave rationalizes previous Thetic descriptions.formed earlier, possibly from much more archaic sources: such as Persian …
That naive realism below a level which deconstructs the previous form of ‘naive’ reality, one which brings the earliest forms of immoral, pre-ethical manifestations of the cave, (albeit not the Platonic one ,but that of the world of the earliest specimens that man could envision) .is an argument without which more connected ideas could not be envisioned.
That world, nearer to a Jurassic antiquity, a. moribund world prevented a look by levels of smoke and mirrors.
A God would never want us to look back, for the eschotologycal layers could not implicate God as an ‘unmoved’ mover, in the sense that He may be unmoved to tears that He could not do better than admit His own failure to avoid guilt.
It is within the overall imminence of the plain of existence that looking back becomes a sin, beneath the current assumptions that seek to divulge what is undernearh: The original sin.
If sin is original, it is a necessary part of all the eons of assemblence, that tries to ritualize it away with the forward look.
That is why Nietzche tried to place an analogical limit to the birth of tragic pre-consequentialism to the evolving post consequentially determined moral category, knowing that the thinning of the in between scholastic plane would become an inducing result. We call it deconstruction. In fact it perfectly and necessarily suits an eternally recurrent cyclical process.
God becomes a necessary and recurrent simulation of this ‘intact’ -imminent memory.
It becomes taboo to transcend this imminence, or to connect it to God’s imperfection, since that reinforces the gap between His and human fraility, by an impossible total and general reduction to the point if no return.
This analysis of an omnipotent God, is not founded on faith related self hypnosis, but on a logically necessary periodic reconnection between what can be understood and what is believed by observation
That is where guilt by association becomes moribund, what level of associations can it be assumed that such will determine a certain kind of action?
The lower the level of associations, the less the implicit conscious will can ‘overcome’ the back look of 'objective" criteria.
This is where we get obscured by what those criteria entail, for most of them originate in the cave of our subconscious, rather then in some future model of common presumption.
The Object of a Deity is more of an anthropomorphism then the idea of a Superhuman, because the transcendental image exceeds the domain of imminent resurgance of a backward look.
It becomes sinful to conflate the two, because it would entail some kind of Man-God. But that is exactly what Superhuman beings are becoming.
Those are beings who have been able to die now, and relinquish their corporeal appearance. These/This God are alive and among us.
Ah! Well there’s an easy solution here - you’re going to kick yourself 
Just ask me! 
No need to try and work it out, because you might arrive at an incorrect assumption like you seem to have done.
I did actually worry that this needed more explanation to effectively communicate - so allow me to rectify my oversight.
By now you have probably twigged that by referring to “God/Perfection”, we are both talking about a contradiction, according to my argument. We absolutely can talk in this way, but we’re making no more sense than square circles, or “djilsdgk” - constituting 0 understanding or meaning, as you correctly put it.
But the thing is: if you don’t realise that you’re making no sense when you try to talk about what you think “God/Perfection” is, you’re actually taking about something other than God/Perfection. And that thing is of course not “beyond God/Perfection”, which as we agree is absurd. I meant that what you’re actually talking about is something within your human conception, which “God/Perfection” cannot be. To remind you what I mean by “perfection” to humans, I am talking about the “imperfect human conception of perfection”. Obviously by definition, when we are humanly conceiving of “perfection”, we are constrained by our human imperfection, and thus our best attempts to conceptually arrive at perfection are imperfect by transitive property - as I covered.
I offered you two mutually exhaustive options:
- “Perfection is within human conception”, but therefore any God being beyond our imperfect human conception (by definition in order to be divine over us), would also thereby have to also be “beyond perfection” - which we agreed is absurd.
- “Humans cannot quite conceive of perfection” (though they may be under the misapprehension that they can), leaving room for true perfection only to that which is beyond our human conception and divine/godly. As such, perfection is out of our remit, and to even attempt to conceive of it or try to talk about it directly contradicts the fact that it has to be beyond human conception, because by doing so one is humanly conceiving of what is beyond the humanly conceivable. Contradiction.
So it’s therefore inferred that with the first option being absurd, the latter must be the case, which necessitates that perfection (like God) has to be beyond human conception. The contradiction that this necessarily leads us to means the only conclusion is that God/Perfection cannot exist to us. Our best attempts necessarily fall short because the only thing we need in order to verify either is the one thing we cannot access by definition.
And now, when you say “Perfect is necessarily Omnipotent”, we logically conclude that omnipotence is just as meaningless as God, Perfection, square circles, and djilsdgk. All constitute 0 understanding or meaning.
Hope that clears up the last pieces of this puzzle for you
=D> This is the most coherent post of yours in friggin ages that I’ve come across. Quite enjoyable that the Meno of days gone by rears his head to roar again.
In fact the approach of the Holiday’s effect made me unearth some of Shakespeare’s spirit, …Tnks Wendy.