Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Perfection and Satisfaction

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

If a perfect being exists, he made a change (at first there is no universe, then a universe). However, as we have already established, this seems to imply he was dissatisfied with his prior state. How can this be if he is perfect? A universe-free and God-filled state of affairs is perfect, thus this perfect being should be perfectly satisfied with it. If he was perfectly satisfied with just being perfect, why the heck would he create a universe? I just don't see why God would do such a bizarre thing.

Symmetry breaking is imperfect by its very essence. A perfect unchanging reality would seem to be fit a perfect being much nicer with exquisite symmetry and no change. However, God changes (from not creating a universe, to creating a universe).

The theist can say it is still logically possible (there is no law of logic that says conscious beings can only act if dissatisfied), but it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action, and why we do things. It just seems counter-intuitive to think that a perfect being, who would have been perfectly satisfied with his prior state of just him existing would suddenly feel the need to create this weird and bizarre universe we occupy. Creating and conscious action is the signs of a lesser being (one who has goals). A truly perfect being would just, well, exist. All achievements are already held; there are no "goals" for a perfect being. These are signs of a lesser being.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

You didn't even put any real thought into this document. The only reason you will go to bed is because you dissatisfied with going to sleep? Why not get you an X-Box? The truth is that we cannot survive without sleep. Wild animals have been know to fall sound asleep while evading a predator, and humans who go without sleep go through a whole series of worsening conditions leading to dementia and death. You only breath because you aren't satisfied with not breathing? Why not hold your breath for a week and get yourself in the Guinness book of World Records? Because you can't hold your breath that long without dying, that's why! You'll have sex because you want it, especially when you are young and your hormones are raging. What does any of this have to do with being imperfect??? Maybe there's a God who isn't perfect, but even if not, why couldn't a perfect being want something more, like good company?

If a perfect being exists, he made a change (at first there is no universe, then a universe). However, as we have already established, this seems to imply he was dissatisfied with his prior state. How can this be if he is perfect? A universe-free and God-filled state of affairs is perfect, thus this perfect being should be perfectly satisfied with it. If he was perfectly satisfied with just being perfect, why the heck would he create a universe? I just don't see why God would do such a bizarre thing.

He could have been dissatisfied with his prior state because his prior environment wasn't perfect, whether he was or not. If he had a mind like many humans then it would likely need constant challenge to hold the boredom at bay.

Symmetry breaking is imperfect by its very essence. A perfect unchanging reality would seem to be fit a perfect being much nicer with exquisite symmetry and no change. However, God changes (from not creating a universe, to creating a universe).

The theist can say it is still logically possible (there is no law of logic that says conscious beings can only act if dissatisfied), but it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action, and why we do things. It just seems counter-intuitive to think that a perfect being, who would have been perfectly satisfied with his prior state of just him existing would suddenly feel the need to create this weird and bizarre universe we occupy. Creating and conscious action is the signs of a lesser being (one who has goals). A truly perfect being would just, well, exist. All achievements are already held; there are no "goals" for a perfect being. These are signs of a lesser being.

Tell me why it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action? When you get bored don't you seek a change in environment or company? What if there was a God, and all his creations up to a point had been made without including any kind of free intelligence? Researchers today at various universities have shown that the best (perhaps only) way to create independent intelligence is for it to evolve throughout its own unique life. I really don't get what you are trying to assert with these comments.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

You didn't even put any real thought into this document.

I certainly did.

The only reason you will go to bed is because you dissatisfied with going to sleep? Why not get you an X-Box?

That's not what I said. I said the only reason one would go to bed is if we were dissatisfied with being awake; not asleep. You say I didn't put thought into the document, but you certainly didn't put any thought into your reading.

The truth is that we cannot survive without sleep.

Yes, I'm aware. Hence, if you go to bed, you are dissatisfied with being awake. This because, I am tired, and I need to to survive. I'm not sure how your statement above undermines anything I said.

Wild animals have been know to fall sound asleep while evading a predator, and humans who go without sleep go through a whole series of worsening conditions leading to dementia and death.

Yes, I'm aware of the above. How exactly is this a refutation of the idea I have presented?

You only breath because you aren't satisfied with not breathing?

I said conscious acts (again, you need to up your reading skills). Conscious choices and things of that nature are purely undertaken because of a dissatisfaction with a prior state. We breath naturally, and unconsciously most of the time, so for the most part the act of breathing doesn't fall into the logical sphere I am presenting.

Why not hold your breath for a week and get yourself in the Guinness book of World Records? Because you can't hold your breath that long without dying, that's why!

Yes, but it wouldn't be a conscious choice to stop holding your breath. It would be a naturalism survival mechanism forcing you to let go. I am talking about real conscious choices. Like, to go to the mall. I am not talking about things like breathing, or twitching. You are talking about something completely different.

You'll have sex because you want it, especially when you are young and your hormones are raging.

Exactly, this is what I am saying! You are dissatisfied with not having sex, that's why you do it. If we were 100% perfectly satisfied with not having sex, there doesn't seem to be any reason to why one would do it unless it was forced upon them

What does any of this have to do with being imperfect???

Everything. It seems as if only imperfect beings have a reason to do anything consciously. If I get up right now due to my own conscious free-will, it HAS to be because I was dissatisfied with just sitting. If not, then why would I do it?

Maybe there's a God who isn't perfect

If there is a God, that is probably most likely the case.

, but even if not, why couldn't a perfect being want something more, like good company?

Because this would suggest that he was dissatisfied with his prior state. This would be impossible if he was perfect, as a perfect being should be perfectly satisfied with his perfection. Why would he do anything consciously? It makes no sense, reality is already perfect without the universe if all reality is without the universe is this perfect being.


If a perfect being exists, he made a change (at first there is no universe, then a universe). However, as we have already established, this seems to imply he was dissatisfied with his prior state. How can this be if he is perfect? A universe-free and God-filled state of affairs is perfect, thus this perfect being should be perfectly satisfied with it. If he was perfectly satisfied with just being perfect, why the heck would he create a universe? I just don't see why God would do such a bizarre thing.

He could have been dissatisfied with his prior state because his prior environment wasn't perfect, whether he was or not.

This violates Christian philosopher Robert Moydale's principle that "perfection entails only perfection". If a perfect being exists, this entails he exists in some state of affairs. Thus, if God is perfect, his state of affairs has to be perfect. If you reject Moydale's principle, then you reject probably one of the strongest ontological arguments there is for God.


Symmetry breaking is imperfect by its very essence. A perfect unchanging reality would seem to be fit a perfect being much nicer with exquisite symmetry and no change. However, God changes (from not creating a universe, to creating a universe).

The theist can say it is still logically possible (there is no law of logic that says conscious beings can only act if dissatisfied), but it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action, and why we do things. It just seems counter-intuitive to think that a perfect being, who would have been perfectly satisfied with his prior state of just him existing would suddenly feel the need to create this weird and bizarre universe we occupy. Creating and conscious action is the signs of a lesser being (one who has goals). A truly perfect being would just, well, exist. All achievements are already held; there are no "goals" for a perfect being. These are signs of a lesser being.

Tell me why it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action?

I have. The only reason you are typing this right now, is because you were dissatisfied with not typing. If you were 100% satisfied with not responding to my post... Why do it? It makes no sense..

When you get bored don't you seek a change in environment or company?

Isn't "bordem" an imperfect human flaw? How can an ultimate being be "bored."?

What if there was a God, and all his creations up to a point had been made without including any kind of free intelligence?

Well, then this gets around the problem I raised just fine. However, that is a pretty big price to pay if you are a classical theist.

Researchers today at various universities have shown that the best (perhaps only) way to create independent intelligence is for it to evolve throughout its own unique life. I really don't get what you are trying to assert with these comments.

I am asserting that the only reason we seem to consciously act or make choices, is because we are dissatisfied with our previous states. If a perfect being created the universe, this suggests that he was dissatisfied with no universe. However, if God was perfect, how could he be dissatisfied? Dissatisfaction is an "imperfection", no? It assumes he wasn't satisfied with 100% perfect. That cannot be..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:53:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"What if there was a God, and all his creations up to a point had been made without including any kind of free intelligence?"

Actually, you were talking about humans lacking the free intelligence, not God. In that case, its still not clear how anything you are saying undermines my point.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea .....

The reason that the ontological problem emerges is that since the universe is "external to us, it is possible to be sceptical about its existence". The external universe displays characteristics that constantly impinge upon our inner life and threaten its stability and coherence. The threat of the external "real" universe to our inner "ideal" world is such that the former confronts the latter in the form of an ultimate threat" the threat of death and annihilation. Under these circumstances, the question naturally arises as to the ultimate nature of reality; is it a stable, fixed "ideal" unaffected by change or is it a constantly changing "real" where all appearance of stability and coherence is an illusion? In a very real sense the ontological problem is also a psychological problem. Consequently, we subject conscious experience to scientific and philosophical scrutiny in order to deepen our understanding of the ultimate nature of existence.
Even a cursory glance at our conscious experience reveals that "there is nothing static in my inner life; all is a constant mobility, an unceasing flux of states, a perpetual flow in which there is no halt or resting place". When we combine the fact that "change" is unthinkable without time" with the analogy of our inner experience we can say that "conscious existence means life in time". This evidences that our inner consciousness is related to "what we call the world of space". This part of our consciousness the "efficient self" and notes that it "is the subject of associationist psychology".
It is the practical self of daily life in its dealing with the external order of things which determine our passing states of consciousness and stamp on these states their own spatial feature of mutual isolation. The self here lives outside itself as it were, and, while retaining its unity as a totality, discloses itself as nothing more than a series of specific and consequently innumerable states.
The examination of consciousness that leads to the efficient self suggests that the ultimate nature of reality is flux, change, and instability" that there is nothing stable, coherent and permanent in reality.
Modern psychology has not advanced beyond the discovery and description of the efficient self. But philosophical inquiry into the nature of time, especially by Bergson, suggests that consciousness cannot be reduced to merely the efficient self. "A deeper analysis of conscious experience reveals to us what's called the appreciative side of the self". A closer examination of the appreciative side of the self shows that "the self in its inner life moves from the center outwards". Exceedingly difficult to recognize and observe because of our daily absorption in serial time, it takes a great deal of discipline to discover the appreciative self:
At this "centre of experience" we find that like the periphery of experience (at the level of the efficient self) there is movement and change. But with the appreciative self,
change and movement are indivisible; their elements interpenetrate and are wholly non-serial in character. It appears that the time of the appreciative-self is a single "now" which the efficient self, in its traffic with the world of space pulverizes into a series of "nows" like pearl beads in a thread. Here is, then, pure duration unadulterated by space.
The following description of "pure time" or pure duration combines the understanding of time furnished by careful analysis of consciousness with the insights gathered biological critique of mechanism;
Pure time"as revealed by a deeper analysis of our conscious experience, is not a string of separate, reversible instants; it is an organic whole in which the past is not left behind, but is moving along with, and operating in, the present. And the future is given to it not as lying before, yet to be traversed; it is given only in the sense that it is present in its nature as an open possibility.
In short, time is experienced by the appreciative self (pure duration) differently than it is experienced by the efficient self (serial time).
Up till this point, we engaged in a philosophical analysis of consciousness and time and two types of consciousness (i.e. the efficient self and the appreciative self) and two types of time (i.e. serial time and pure duration).
If we look at the movement embodied in creation from the outside, that is to say, if we apprehend it intellectually, it is a process lasting through thousands of years; for one Divine day, as of the Old Testament, is equal to one thousand years. From another point of view, the process of creation, lasting through thousands of years, is a single indivisible act, "swift as the twinkling of an eye".
It is exceedingly difficult to understand and appreciate pure duration using language that has been shaped, primarily, to help us deal with serial time.
According to physical science, the cause of your sensation of red is the rapidity of wave motion the frequency of which is 400 billions per second. If you could observe this tremendous frequency from the outside, and count it at the rate of 2,000 per second, which is supposed to be the limit of the perceptibility of light, it will take you more than six thousand years to the finish the enumeration. Yet in the single momentary mental act of perception you hold together a frequency of wave motion which is practically incalculable. That is how the mental act transforms succession into duration.
This illustration demonstrates that there is a part of the self that can transform "practically incalculable" motion, change and flux into stability, coherence and permanence in the twinkling of an eye. It is in this sense that the appreciative self is that part of consciousness where "the self in its inner life moves from the centre outwards".
The philosophical analysis of time provides a fuller description of consciousness and the psychological analysis of consciousness provides a fuller description of time.

The appreciative self, then, is more or less corrective of the efficient self, inasmuch as it synthesizes all the "heres" and "nows""the small changes of space and time, indispensable to the efficient self"into the coherent wholeness of personality.
A critical interpretation of the sequence of time as revealed in our selves has led us to a notion of the Ultimate Reality as pure duration in which thought, life and purpose interpenetrate to form an organic unity. We cannot conceive this unity except as the unity of a self"an all-embracing concrete self" the ultimate source of all individual life and thought.
The self is both prior to time and space and capable of doing what neither time nor space can do:
Neither pure space nor pure time can hold together the multiplicity of objects and events. It is the appreciative act of an enduring self only which can seize the multiplicity of duration" broken into an infinity of instants" and transform it to the organic wholeness of a synthesis. To exist in pure duration is to be a self, and to be a self is to be aself is to be able to say "I am". Only that truly exists which can say "I am".
Serial change is obviously a mark of imperfection; and, if we confine ourselves to this view of change, the difficulty of reconciling Divine perfection becomes insuperable" Change" in the sense of movement from an imperfect to a relatively perfect state, or vice versa, is obviously inapplicable to [the life of the Ultimate Ego].
To the Creative Self change cannot mean imperfection. The perfection of the Creative Self consists, not in a mechanistically conceived immobility, as Aristotle may have led to think. It consists in the vaster basis of His creative activity and in the infinite scope of His creative vision.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:22:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:40:19 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea .....

The reason that the ontological problem emerges is that since the universe is "external to us, it is possible to be sceptical about its existence". The external universe displays characteristics that constantly impinge upon our inner life and threaten its stability and coherence. The threat of the external "real" universe to our inner "ideal" world is such that the former confronts the latter in the form of an ultimate threat" the threat of death and annihilation. Under these circumstances, the question naturally arises as to the ultimate nature of reality; is it a stable, fixed "ideal" unaffected by change or is it a constantly changing "real" where all appearance of stability and coherence is an illusion? In a very real sense the ontological problem is also a psychological problem. Consequently, we subject conscious experience to scientific and philosophical scrutiny in order to deepen our understanding of the ultimate nature of existence.
Even a cursory glance at our conscious experience reveals that "there is nothing static in my inner life; all is a constant mobility, an unceasing flux of states, a perpetual flow in which there is no halt or resting place". When we combine the fact that "change" is unthinkable without time" with the analogy of our inner experience we can say that "conscious existence means life in time". This evidences that our inner consciousness is related to "what we call the world of space". This part of our consciousness the "efficient self" and notes that it "is the subject of associationist psychology".
It is the practical self of daily life in its dealing with the external order of things which determine our passing states of consciousness and stamp on these states their own spatial feature of mutual isolation. The self here lives outside itself as it were, and, while retaining its unity as a totality, discloses itself as nothing more than a series of specific and consequently innumerable states.
The examination of consciousness that leads to the efficient self suggests that the ultimate nature of reality is flux, change, and instability" that there is nothing stable, coherent and permanent in reality.
Modern psychology has not advanced beyond the discovery and description of the efficient self. But philosophical inquiry into the nature of time, especially by Bergson, suggests that consciousness cannot be reduced to merely the efficient self. "A deeper analysis of conscious experience reveals to us what's called the appreciative side of the self". A closer examination of the appreciative side of the self shows that "the self in its inner life moves from the center outwards". Exceedingly difficult to recognize and observe because of our daily absorption in serial time, it takes a great deal of discipline to discover the appreciative self:
At this "centre of experience" we find that like the periphery of experience (at the level of the efficient self) there is movement and change. But with the appreciative self,
change and movement are indivisible; their elements interpenetrate and are wholly non-serial in character. It appears that the time of the appreciative-self is a single "now" which the efficient self, in its traffic with the world of space pulverizes into a series of "nows" like pearl beads in a thread. Here is, then, pure duration unadulterated by space.
The following description of "pure time" or pure duration combines the understanding of time furnished by careful analysis of consciousness with the insights gathered biological critique of mechanism;
Pure time"as revealed by a deeper analysis of our conscious experience, is not a string of separate, reversible instants; it is an organic whole in which the past is not left behind, but is moving along with, and operating in, the present. And the future is given to it not as lying before, yet to be traversed; it is given only in the sense that it is present in its nature as an open possibility.
In short, time is experienced by the appreciative self (pure duration) differently than it is experienced by the efficient self (serial time).
Up till this point, we engaged in a philosophical analysis of consciousness and time and two types of consciousness (i.e. the efficient self and the appreciative self) and two types of time (i.e. serial time and pure duration).
If we look at the movement embodied in creation from the outside, that is to say, if we apprehend it intellectually, it is a process lasting through thousands of years; for one Divine day, as of the Old Testament, is equal to one thousand years. From another point of view, the process of creation, lasting through thousands of years, is a single indivisible act, "swift as the twinkling of an eye".
It is exceedingly difficult to understand and appreciate pure duration using language that has been shaped, primarily, to help us deal with serial time.
According to physical science, the cause of your sensation of red is the rapidity of wave motion the frequency of which is 400 billions per second. If you could observe this tremendous frequency from the outside, and count it at the rate of 2,000 per second, which is supposed to be the limit of the perceptibility of light, it will take you more than six thousand years to the finish the enumeration. Yet in the single momentary mental act of perception you hold together a frequency of wave motion which is practically incalculable. That is how the mental act transforms succession into duration.
This illustration demonstrates that there is a part of the self that can transform "practically incalculable" motion, change and flux into stability, coherence and permanence in the twinkling of an eye. It is in this sense that the appreciative self is that part of consciousness where "the self in its inner life moves from the centre outwards".
The philosophical analysis of time provides a fuller description of consciousness and the psychological analysis of consciousness provides a fuller description of time.

The appreciative self, then, is more or less corrective of the efficient self, inasmuch as it synthesizes all the "heres" and "nows""the small changes of space and time, indispensable to the efficient self"into the coherent wholeness of personality.
A critical interpretation of the sequence of time as revealed in our selves has led us to a notion of the Ultimate Reality as pure duration in which thought, life and purpose interpenetrate to form an organic unity. We cannot conceive this unity except as the unity of a self"an all-embracing concrete self" the ultimate source of all individual life and thought.
The self is both prior to time and space and capable of doing what neither time nor space can do:
Neither pure space nor pure time can hold together the multiplicity of objects and events. It is the appreciative act of an enduring self only which can seize the multiplicity of duration" broken into an infinity of instants" and transform it to the organic wholeness of a synthesis. To exist in pure duration is to be a self, and to be a self is to be aself is to be able to say "I am". Only that truly exists which can say "I am".
Serial change is obviously a mark of imperfection; and, if we confine ourselves to this view of change, the difficulty of reconciling Divine perfection becomes insuperable" Change" in the sense of movement from an imperfect to a relatively perfect state, or vice versa, is obviously inapplicable to [the life of the Ultimate Ego].
To the Creative Self change cannot mean imperfection. The perfection of the Creative Self consists, not in a mechanistically conceived immobility, as Aristotle may have led to think. It consists in the vaster basis of His creative activity and in the infinite scope of His creative vision.

Didn't read... Don't post novels.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

If a perfect being exists, he made a change (at first there is no universe, then a universe). However, as we have already established, this seems to imply he was dissatisfied with his prior state. How can this be if he is perfect? A universe-free and God-filled state of affairs is perfect, thus this perfect being should be perfectly satisfied with it. If he was perfectly satisfied with just being perfect, why the heck would he create a universe? I just don't see why God would do such a bizarre thing.

Symmetry breaking is imperfect by its very essence. A perfect unchanging reality would seem to be fit a perfect being much nicer with exquisite symmetry and no change. However, God changes (from not creating a universe, to creating a universe).

The theist can say it is still logically possible (there is no law of logic that says conscious beings can only act if dissatisfied), but it seems to go against all experience of what we know of conscious action, and why we do things. It just seems counter-intuitive to think that a perfect being, who would have been perfectly satisfied with his prior state of just him existing would suddenly feel the need to create this weird and bizarre universe we occupy. Creating and conscious action is the signs of a lesser being (one who has goals). A truly perfect being would just, well, exist. All achievements are already held; there are no "goals" for a perfect being. These are signs of a lesser being.

Even though I agree with you, I think it would be better said God would have no need to create the Universe (or do anything, for that matter.)

When cornered with the belief in the aseity of God and the need, or desire, for creation, Christians often, quoting from their creed, say all things were created for the glory and pleasure of God. However, being perfect, God would have no needs, not a few needs, no needs at all; and, this would include the need for self-satisfaction. The need for self-satisfaction would imply God is not completely, and wholly, satisfied, being alone, as though there were something God was missing.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

You didn't even put any real thought into this document.

I certainly did.

This I was wrong for saying, and I apologize. The basic premise of your argument seems to me to be that no perfect being would ever seek change, and therefore any God would have to be unchanging. But that means he would have to take no actions, either, as actions bring about change. For the life of me, I still can't understand why you would postulate that no perfect being could ever be dissatisfied with his/her surroundings and so would never want to change them. I myself have never considered anyone or anything as "perfect", but the argument still holds. The perfect being would have to be existing in perfect space and perfect time, and could have no personal preference, since that would like lead to dissatisfaction. What you are describing is a stone - some virtually lifeless being who is perfectly content just to exist with no interaction with any consciousness whatsoever. If God made man in his own image then we can be pretty sure that his intelligence is a lot like ours, and would lead him to ponder possibilities that may not even ever come to pass. I used to wonder why a millionaire with everything in life he could ask for would ever commit suicide, but now I am old enough to believe I understand. Placing God in such a position would be like placing him in the strictest of cages, where no movement is possible at all, since that again would be change. I've heard a lot of far-out philosophical arguments about the nature of God, but I have to say that this one really beats the rest.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, the idea of a perfect being who created the universe seems troubling. The only conceivable reason I can think of for a conscious being to act entails that they were dissatisfied with their prior state. For example, I am typing right now because I was dissatisfied with sitting here without sharing my thoughts. When I go to bed tonight, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being awake. When I turn over on my side, it will be because I was dissatisfied with being on my back. Only imperfect beings who are dissatisfied have a reason to do anything. I'll go to work tomorrow, because I am dissatisfied with only having the money I would have if I didn't work. I'll have sex, because I am dissatisfied with not having sex. The only reason one would go to the bathroom to take a number 2, is if they were dissatisfied with leaving it all in there. I can go on and on and on. Conscious beings only act for the very reason that we are imperfect, and dissatisfied with our imperfect states. If I was 100% satisfied, I would have no reason to do anything. I would not be experiencing any element which would compel me to change anything.

You didn't even put any real thought into this document.

I certainly did.

This I was wrong for saying, and I apologize. The basic premise of your argument seems to me to be that no perfect being would ever seek change, and therefore any God would have to be unchanging. But that means he would have to take no actions, either, as actions bring about change. For the life of me, I still can't understand why you would postulate that no perfect being could ever be dissatisfied with his/her surroundings and so would never want to change them.

I'm not talking about surroundings per say (by "state of affairs" I was relating it to possible world semantics) . I'm talking about God himself really ! If he is perfect, then he should be perfectly satisfied with only him existing (think about it, he is perfect, reality cannot get any better). If he needs more to exist, this suggests he isn't really perfect, because reality would JUST be God if no universe exists

I myself have never considered anyone or anything as "perfect", but the argument still holds. The perfect being would have to be existing in perfect space and perfect time, and could have no personal preference, since that would like lead to dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfiaction is an imperfection.

What you are describing is a stone - some virtually lifeless being who is perfectly content just to exist with no interaction with any consciousness whatsoever.

This is what a perfect being entails it seems like. As I said, if he chooses to act then this means he would be "bored". Being "bored" is an imperfection. Doing any conscious acting is an imperfection, because it presupposes dissatisfaction with a prior state, and dissatisfaction is an imperfection. A perfect being would just exist.

If God made man in his own image then we can be pretty sure that his intelligence is a lot like ours, and would lead him to ponder possibilities that may not even ever come to pass.

If he is omniscient then he knows everything already. The idea of him "pondering" assumes there are thoughts he is trying to grasp. This would be impossible if God existed, as all knowledge would be necessarily held. Either way, why create humans? It must have been to some imperfection of God, or else he would be content with himself. However, this is impossible if God exists as he is perfect. See the problem?

I used to wonder why a millionaire with everything in life he could ask for would ever commit suicide, but now I am old enough to believe I understand. Placing God in such a position would be like placing him in the strictest of cages, where no movement is possible at all, since that again would be change.

Movement would be possible, he just wouldn't move as he is perfect (he would be logically determined not to move, but internally and externally free to move).

Perfection is symmetrical, immutable, has no need to change as reality is already perfect (he is reality without the physical world). The idea of an "acting" God reeks of imperfection.

I've heard a lot of far-out philosophical arguments about the nature of God, but I have to say that this one really beats the rest.

It's not far out (a poster in here even agreed with me). It is based on self-evident truth based on how we know conscious beings to behave... The only reason a being would make a planned conscious choice is if he was dissatisfied with his prior state of existence. For example, the only reason you will type back to this, is because you are dissatisfied with your state of NOT getting your word out. You don't like seeing my words on the screen without your response there too; you are dissatisfied with that state. So, that is the reason why you act and decide to act. Reality is imperfect, so you are working towards one more perfection (having your words up on the screen). Conscious beings acting is about chasing perfection that we never have, this is the only reason to do anything. If God existed without the universe, and only him was existing; reality was perfect. It makes no sense to me to say that a perfect being made a planned conscious choice to do anything. These are the signs of something chasing perfection, if not, why do anything?! God cannot be "bored", that is a flawed human emotion. Acting out like we do is an imperfect. Being frozen in a perfect state of consciousness immutably is the sign of a perfect being. However, to create the universe he would have to change. He would have to go from "not-creating the universe" to "creating the universe". He broke symmetry. A perfect being would seem to be symmetrical and immutable.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This I was wrong for saying, and I apologize. The basic premise of your argument seems to me to be that no perfect being would ever seek change, and therefore any God would have to be unchanging. But that means he would have to take no actions, either, as actions bring about change. For the life of me, I still can't understand why you would postulate that no perfect being could ever be dissatisfied with his/her surroundings and so would never want to change them.

I'm not talking about surroundings per say. I'm talking about God himself really ! If he is perfect, then he should be perfectly satisfied with only him existing (think about it, he is perfect, reality cannot get any better). If he needs more to exist, this suggests he isn't really perfect, because reality would JUST be God if no universe exists

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being. The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings. For this to happen they would have to possess free-choice, the ability to reject him or choose him at will, for that is the nature of love. I admit I'm no expert, but that's how I understood it.

Dissatisfiaction is an imperfection.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth. I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way. As you said yourself, isn't the whole idea of God supposed to be one of love and caring? Why do people make him/it sound so cold?

This is what a perfect being entails it seems like. As I said, if he chooses to act then this means he would be "bored". Being "bored" is an imperfection. Doing any conscious acting is an imperfection, because it presupposes dissatisfaction with a prior state, and dissatisfaction is an imperfection. A perfect being would just exist.

Even an imperfect human can surrender their own happiness and satisfaction for the betterment of another's situation. Heroes are real, and altruism does exist. I will believe that to my dying day. When chemist George Price came-up with his scientific theorem of how altruism was simply a result of evolution it soon began driving him mad, because as soon as it was accepted and published he began to see acts of what he deemed true altruism all around him. He gave away everything he had in order to help the poor and down-trodden, and spent years trying to disprove his own theorem. In the end he discovered it could neither be proved nor disproved. He spent the rest of his life working for charities and dedicating himself to being altruistic. A perfect being could not love himself. Love can only come from others, and I believe it is the greatest feeling in the world. When my daughters give-up their whole weekend on father's day just for me, despite their ages of 17 and 21, it's the best weekend of the year for me. My oldest has majors in mathematics and mechanical engineering, yet she feels pretty-much the same as me, and my youngest wouldn't hurt anyone.

If God made man in his own image then we can be pretty sure that his intelligence is a lot like ours, and would lead him to ponder possibilities that may not even ever come to pass.

If he is omniscient then he knows everything already. The idea of him "pondering" assumes there are thoughts he is trying to grasp. This would be impossible if God existed, as all knowledge would be necessarily held. Either way, why create humans? It must have been to some imperfection of God, or else he would be content with himself. However, this is impossible if God exists as he is perfect. See the problem?

I don't believe in omniscience, because I believe in freedom of choice. If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed. I also don't believe that any being is perfect. There is always room to improve. I've already explained my understanding of why he created humans. It is for all of these reasons that I don't see the problem. I accept that if any god exists then he has thoughts just like I do, and the ability to decide and to change his mind. I also believe he would be subject to certain immutable laws.

I've heard a lot of far-out philosophical arguments about the nature of God, but I have to say that this one really beats the rest.

It's not far out (a poster in here even agreed with me). It is based on self-evident truth based on how we know conscious beings to behave... The only reason a being would make a planned conscious choice is if he was dissatisfied with his prior state of existence.

Let me give you an example of why a being would make a planned, conscious change despite being totally satisfied with his state of being. Suppose I'm driving down the street on my way home to dinner after a hard day's work, and all I can think of is being with my family. But then I see a car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up and some guy poking around the engine. Being totally satisfied, I could easily continue driving home to my anticipated evening. Or I could roll down my window and curb any guilt by offering to call a tow truck. But since I know a good deal about cars, I would most likely decide to stop and see if I could help. I would surrender the satisfaction of a much-anticipated dinner with my family to help a stranger on the side of the road. And people do things like this every day. The really strange thing is that when you really go out of your way to help another person, you almost always feel a surge of satisfaction for having sacrificed your own comfort in order to increase theirs. You actually gain more satisfaction instead of losing any.

God cannot be "bored", that is a flawed human emotion. Acting out like we do is an imperfect. Being frozen in a perfect state of consciousness immutably is the sign of a perfect being. However, to create the universe he would have to change. He would have to go from "not-creating the universe" to "creating the universe". He broke symmetry. A perfect being would seem to be symmetrical and immutable.

I believe that you are mistaking a perfect being with a perfect state of being, although I don't believe that even that can last without constant nurturing. And if you wanted to believe there was a single God, why not postulate that he's the last of his kind, like Superman? All he'd need to be is capable of love in order to have incentive to create others who he can love and who can love him. I know this is all theoretical, as no person could ever possibly know the nature of a God, but I do truly believe in good and bad. I believe in heroes and villains, and a lot in-between. I've felt this way since I was a little kid, and even though I know it could change at any time (we don't choose what we believe), I hope that it doesn't.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This I was wrong for saying, and I apologize. The basic premise of your argument seems to me to be that no perfect being would ever seek change, and therefore any God would have to be unchanging. But that means he would have to take no actions, either, as actions bring about change. For the life of me, I still can't understand why you would postulate that no perfect being could ever be dissatisfied with his/her surroundings and so would never want to change them.



I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being.

He already is conceited, and self-absorbed according to the Christian worldview. He wants nobody to worship any God's but himself, and the purpose of life is to know God (according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at least). Either way, there is nothing wrong with loving yourself if you are perfect. What is better to love?

The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings.

But I am saying if God existed, he wouldn't have created us at all. It shows imperfection, because a perfect being would just be satisfied with himself.

For this to happen they would have to possess free-choice, the ability to reject him or choose him at will, for that is the nature of love. I admit I'm no expert, but that's how I understood it.

We shouldn't even exist at all if a perfect being exists, is what I am arguing. Thus, mentioning scenarios assuming our existence is a red herring.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth.

If God can "grow", then he wasn't perfect to begin with! Growth entails improvement, but improving perfection is a logical contradiction.

I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way.

Because if he isn't that way, he isn't perfect. Unless you argue for a non-perfect God, in that case my argument becomes pretty void.

As you said yourself, isn't the whole idea of God supposed to be one of love and caring? Why do people make him/it sound so cold?

How can he be cold to anybody, if nobody else exists! Not creating anybody negates the idea of being "mean" or "cold" to anybody necessarily.

Even an imperfect human can surrender their own happiness and satisfaction for the betterment of another's situation.

You act like the two are mutually exclusive. This human would still be dissatisfied with not helping that person (due to guilt, or personal obligation), even if he wasn't satisfied in another area (he was late for work, or had to give up money). People who help people feel a sense of satisfaction out of doing so. So, you haven't negated anything I am saying.

A perfect being could not love himself.

To the contrary, a perfect being would love himself. This is because God is a being capable of love and wants to love, and if God exists, there would be nobody else more worthy of love, as he is perfect. Thus, he if doesn't love himself, this seems to produce another reason that contradicts his perfection.

Love can only come from others

There is many ways one can respond to this. One is the fact that a large portion of Christians are trinitarians. If we assume that this is who God is, there are three persons intertwined as God who could just spread love around themselves. If you reject this view, then I still don't see how love can only come from others:

"Love yourself first and everything else falls into line" - Lucille Ball

"Don't forget to love yourself" - Soren Kierkegaard

The idea of loving someone else is a great feeling, but it is only there are a survival mechanism with regards to emotional attachment (we are a social species). It is necessary for our collective existence as primates on this floating sphere. A perfect God just be perfectly satisfied with himself, and not need to grow, or improve (which would contradict perfection.

I don't believe in omniscience, because I believe in freedom of choice.

Well, omniscience is in The Bible, so I guess you aren't a Christian. Also, many philosophers believe that God's omnipotence and out "free will" can be reconciled.

I also don't believe that any being is perfect.

Then there is nothing else to talk about really ... This point I am making is against a perfect being. If you don't believe God is a perfect being, then...

It is for all of these reasons that I don't see the problem.

You don't see a problem because you don't believe in a perfect being. I am arguing against the plausibility of a perfect being.

Suppose I'm driving down the street on my way home to dinner after a hard day's work, and all I can think of is being with my family. But then I see a car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up and some guy poking around the engine. Being totally satisfied, I could easily continue driving home to my anticipated evening. Or I could roll down my window and curb any guilt by offering to call a tow truck. But since I know a good deal about cars, I would most likely decide to stop and see if I could help. I would surrender the satisfaction of a much-anticipated dinner with my family to help a stranger on the side of the road.

I already debunked this line of approach. You were dissatisfied in one regard (your weren't with your family, and didn't get your meal earlier), but you were satisfied in another (you got rid of your guilt, and felt good that you helped a stranger even though you didn't have to). The point still remains that you were dissatisfied with not helping him (you felt bad or whatever), and that's why you helped him.

The really strange thing is that when you really go out of your way to help another person, you almost always feel a surge of satisfaction for having sacrificed your own comfort in order to increase theirs. You actually gain more satisfaction instead of losing any.

Exactly, which is what I have been saying the whole time, and which undermines your whole theory. You just shot yourself in your own foot. They are dissatisfied with not helping, gained satisfaction, and became satisfied. Even though they would have been satisfied in one regards by having dinner with the family if they didn't help, they were still dissatisfied with not helping the guy on the street and gained the satisfaction. Thus, my theory still holds in light of your objection. Conscious beings only act because they are dissatisfied with a prior state. Even if they were satisfied with that prior state in one regard, they doesn't negate that they were still dissatisfied with that prior state in another regard. A perfection being would have 0 dissatisfaction. If we deny satisfaction as a great making property, we can deny any one.

I believe that you are mistaking a perfect being with a perfect state of being...

It seems that without the universe, God would be the only real state of being that would exist (assuming he exists of course). If he exists in some other heaven and it stems from him, then it to would have to be perfect necessarily.

A perfect being self-evidently has the modal property of:

(i) Necessarily being the necessary condition for only perfection

If not, he has the weak property of:

(ii) Possibly being the necessary condition for imperfection
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry I never came to know before you're reluctant to opposite views. But without reading novels how would you gotta know what the novels are. Anyway, really sorry for length as I admit I couldn't comprehend that. Actually I personally don't know in detail but just posted for a trial to turn the rigid discussion into a world of multidimensional possibilities of ideas.

Key point was described there in the form of differentiating the "change" type in two categories. One is imperfection, other is the essence of perfection. It's up to you now, how would you deal with it, I'm not of that typo who use light to teach a blind what is a light look alike. So I'm not throwing a point for resistance rather a substance to grease the motion.

Hope now you can differentiate between novels and philosophical arguments.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:
Sorry I never came to know before you're reluctant to opposite views.

No, just views from people who can't express their view without writing a novel. You know the old "didn't read" meme? It's to make fun of people who cannot express their views in a decent fashion without walls-of-text.

But without reading novels how would you gotta know what the novels are. Anyway, really sorry for length as I admit I couldn't comprehend that. Actually I personally don't know in detail but just posted for a trial to turn the rigid discussion into a world of multidimensional possibilities of ideas.

I just saw your post like "whoah I aint reading that". It had nothing to do with opposing views. If I didn't want to hear other views I wouldn't have the amount of debates I have under my belt would I? If you want to have wall-of-text wars, then lets debate. I am not wasting my time writing a novel in the comment section without getting a win on my record. If I am going to waste time responding to a book, then give me a real debate.


Key point was described there in the form of differentiating the "change" type in two categories. One is imperfection, other is the essence of perfection. It's up to you now, how would you deal with it, I'm not of that typo who use light to teach a blind what is a light look alike. So I'm not throwing a point for resistance rather a substance to grease the motion.

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.


Hope now you can differentiate between novels and philosophical arguments.

There is no difference as far as your concerned.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:56:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being. The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings. For this to happen they would have to possess free-choice, the ability to reject him or choose him at will, for that is the nature of love. I admit I'm no expert, but that's how I understood it.

This would make God sound as nothing. If God is perfect and perfection is immutable, tensed qualifiers make no sense; God is not conceited, self-absorbed ; and, actions betrayed by your use of verbs are meaningless. Action speaks of a process, and process speaks of change; so, in other words, a perfect god does nothing; so, God doesn't want for anything. A perfect God is not tensed; so, making statements like "God is" and "God was" is meaningless.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth. I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way. As you said yourself, isn't the whole idea of God supposed to be one of love and caring? Why do people make him/it sound so cold?

Because, dissatisfaction speaks of need, and if God needs anything, then, God is incomplete. Growth speaks of change. If something is perfect, why change it? It's like the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Even an imperfect human can surrender their own happiness and satisfaction for the betterment of another's situation. Heroes are real, and altruism does exist. I will believe that to my dying day. When chemist George Price came-up with his scientific theorem of how altruism was simply a result of evolution it soon began driving him mad, because as soon as it was accepted and published he began to see acts of what he deemed true altruism all around him. He gave away everything he had in order to help the poor and down-trodden, and spent years trying to disprove his own theorem. In the end he discovered it could neither be proved nor disproved. He spent the rest of his life working for charities and dedicating himself to being altruistic. A perfect being could not love himself. Love can only come from others, and I believe it is the greatest feeling in the world. When my daughters give-up their whole weekend on father's day just for me, despite their ages of 17 and 21, it's the best weekend of the year for me. My oldest has majors in mathematics and mechanical engineering, yet she feels pretty-much the same as me, and my youngest wouldn't hurt anyone.

I don't believe in omniscience, because I believe in freedom of choice. If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed. I also don't believe that any being is perfect. There is always room to improve. I've already explained my understanding of why he created humans. It is for all of these reasons that I don't see the problem. I accept that if any god exists then he has thoughts just like I do, and the ability to decide and to change his mind. I also believe he would be subject to certain immutable laws.

"If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed."

How can you change something that will never happen, in the first place?


Let me give you an example of why a being would make a planned, conscious change despite being totally satisfied with his state of being. Suppose I'm driving down the street on my way home to dinner after a hard day's work, and all I can think of is being with my family. But then I see a car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up and some guy poking around the engine. Being totally satisfied, I could easily continue driving home to my anticipated evening. Or I could roll down my window and curb any guilt by offering to call a tow truck. But since I know a good deal about cars, I would most likely decide to stop and see if I could help. I would surrender the satisfaction of a much-anticipated dinner with my family to help a stranger on the side of the road. And people do things like this every day. The really strange thing is that when you really go out of your way to help another person, you almost always feel a surge of satisfaction for having sacrificed your own comfort in order to increase theirs. You actually gain more satisfaction instead of losing any.

Your last sentence contradicts your first sentence. You can't gain more satisfaction, if you were completely satisfied, in the first place.

I believe that you are mistaking a perfect being with a perfect state of being, although I don't believe that even that can last without constant nurturing. And if you wanted to believe there was a single God, why not postulate that he's the last of his kind, like Superman? All he'd need to be is capable of love in order to have incentive to create others who he can love and who can love him. I know this is all theoretical, as no person could ever possibly know the nature of a God, but I do truly believe in good and bad. I believe in heroes and villains, and a lot in-between. I've felt this way since I was a little kid, and even though I know it could change at any time (we don't choose what we believe), I hope that it doesn't.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 1:56:20 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being. The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings. For this to happen they would have to possess free-choice, the ability to reject him or choose him at will, for that is the nature of love. I admit I'm no expert, but that's how I understood it.

This would make God sound as nothing. If God is perfect and perfection is immutable, tensed qualifiers make no sense; God is not conceited, self-absorbed ; and, actions betrayed by your use of verbs are meaningless. Action speaks of a process, and process speaks of change; so, in other words, a perfect god does nothing; so, God doesn't want for anything. A perfect God is not tensed; so, making statements like "God is" and "God was" is meaningless.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth. I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way. As you said yourself, isn't the whole idea of God supposed to be one of love and caring? Why do people make him/it sound so cold?

Because, dissatisfaction speaks of need, and if God needs anything, then, God is incomplete. Growth speaks of change. If something is perfect, why change it? It's like the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Dissatisfaction doesn't speak of need. I can have everything I need to live like a king and not be satisfied, or be so poor that I barely survive and yet still find satisfaction in the beauty and admiration of everything around me. Regardless, I still don't see why you would expect a god to fully satisfied. Even the Greek and Roman philosophers talked of how gods were dissatisfied were their own nature and jealous of humans for their ability to feel emotions.

Even an imperfect human can surrender their own happiness and satisfaction for the betterment of another's situation. Heroes are real, and altruism does exist. I will believe that to my dying day. When chemist George Price came-up with his scientific theorem of how altruism was simply a result of evolution it soon began driving him mad, because as soon as it was accepted and published he began to see acts of what he deemed true altruism all around him. He gave away everything he had in order to help the poor and down-trodden, and spent years trying to disprove his own theorem. In the end he discovered it could neither be proved nor disproved. He spent the rest of his life working for charities and dedicating himself to being altruistic. A perfect being could not love himself. Love can only come from others, and I believe it is the greatest feeling in the world. When my daughters give-up their whole weekend on father's day just for me, despite their ages of 17 and 21, it's the best weekend of the year for me. My oldest has majors in mathematics and mechanical engineering, yet she feels pretty-much the same as me, and my youngest wouldn't hurt anyone.

I don't believe in omniscience, because I believe in freedom of choice. If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed. I also don't believe that any being is perfect. There is always room to improve. I've already explained my understanding of why he created humans. It is for all of these reasons that I don't see the problem. I accept that if any god exists then he has thoughts just like I do, and the ability to decide and to change his mind. I also believe he would be subject to certain immutable laws.

"If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed."

How can you change something that will never happen, in the first place?

This makes no sense. Are you saying the future will never happen? So you don't plan on having a tomorrow? Your future will come, and you will affect it more than anyone else, which is why no one else can know what it will be.

Let me give you an example of why a being would make a planned, conscious change despite being totally satisfied with his state of being. Suppose I'm driving down the street on my way home to dinner after a hard day's work, and all I can think of is being with my family. But then I see a car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up and some guy poking around the engine. Being totally satisfied, I could easily continue driving home to my anticipated evening. Or I could roll down my window and curb any guilt by offering to call a tow truck. But since I know a good deal about cars, I would most likely decide to stop and see if I could help. I would surrender the satisfaction of a much-anticipated dinner with my family to help a stranger on the side of the road. And people do things like this every day. The really strange thing is that when you really go out of your way to help another person, you almost always feel a surge of satisfaction for having sacrificed your own comfort in order to increase theirs. You actually gain more satisfaction instead of losing any.

Your last sentence contradicts your first sentence. You can't gain more satisfaction, if you were completely satisfied, in the first place.

Sure you can, because you can't know the future. I can be perfectly satisfied with bread for supper, yet become more satisfied when I discover there is ham to go with it. You are simply using the word "perfectly" in an exact way, while I am using it in a general way. What matters most about a word is context. I know you learned that in elementary English.

I believe that you are mistaking a perfect being with a perfect state of being, although I don't believe that even that can last without constant nurturing. And if you wanted to believe there was a single God, why not postulate that he's the last of his kind, like Superman? All he'd need to be is capable of love in order to have incentive to create others who he can love and who can love him. I know this is all theoretical, as no person could ever possibly know the nature of a God, but I do truly believe in good and bad. I believe in heroes and villains, and a lot in-between. I've felt this way since I was a little kid, and even though I know it could change at any time (we don't choose what we believe), I hope that it doesn't.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being.

He already is conceited, and self-absorbed according to the Christian worldview. He wants nobody to worship any God's but himself, and the purpose of life is to know God (according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at least). Either way, there is nothing wrong with loving yourself if you are perfect. What is better to love?

I've already said that I'm not religious, and that includes the Christian worldview. There is nothing wrong with loving yourself as long as you love others, too, but if you love yourself alone is conceited, which is considered to be a fault.

The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings.

But I am saying if God existed, he wouldn't have created us at all. It shows imperfection, because a perfect being would just be satisfied with himself.

Haven't you ever read the story of Narcissus in Greek Mythology? He was satisfied with only his own reflection because he considered himself perfect. The gods punished him for it by turning him into a flower. It's where the word "narcissism" comes from, and it is considered a fault.

We shouldn't even exist at all if a perfect being exists, is what I am arguing. Thus, mentioning scenarios assuming our existence is a red herring.

No, it isn't, because I don't accept your argument, and I'm trying to explain why I don't, using examples.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth.

If God can "grow", then he wasn't perfect to begin with! Growth entails improvement, but improving perfection is a logical contradiction.

We are considered to be most perfect when we are babies, yet we grow. Youth is considered desirable in nearly all living things.

I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way.

Because if he isn't that way, he isn't perfect. Unless you argue for a non-perfect God, in that case my argument becomes pretty void.

Would you consider your own father more perfect if he was strict and stiff instead of loving and caring?

It is obvious that you and I have two totally different outlooks, and are speaking of two separate things. I'm speaking of objective life, while you are trying to make an unfeeling, totally objective philosophical point. I wouldn't consider God to be objective or totally philosophical. I would consider him to be as alive as you and I, and just as independent. Anyone who claims to know everything about God is simply making things up, as the early religionists did. They each wanted their own pantheon of gods to be more impressive than everyone else's, until finally they accepted one God with all the power that was possible. That is the working of human minds. If you are going to believe in a universal being, you are going to have to accept that he can't be known, and probably even keeps secrets like the rest of us. As I've said before, I am not religious, but I am spiritual, because I "feel" and observe a presence and order in the world which seems intelligent and right. There is no evidence in our world which would convince an atheist that God could exist unless he/she become open to the fact, so I don't bother trying. To use a version of one of your earlier statements, no matter how many people disbelieve it still doesn't affect the truth.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:51:20 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being.

He already is conceited, and self-absorbed according to the Christian worldview. He wants nobody to worship any God's but himself, and the purpose of life is to know God (according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at least). Either way, there is nothing wrong with loving yourself if you are perfect. What is better to love?

I've already said that I'm not religious, and that includes the Christian worldview. There is nothing wrong with loving yourself as long as you love others, too, but if you love yourself alone is conceited, which is considered to be a fault.

Only a fault for imperfect beings. If God is perfect, he would have been satisfied with just himself. The fact that he wants or needs other beings proves he is not perfect.


The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings.

But I am saying if God existed, he wouldn't have created us at all. It shows imperfection, because a perfect being would just be satisfied with himself.

Haven't you ever read the story of Narcissus in Greek Mythology? He was satisfied with only his own reflection because he considered himself perfect. The gods punished him for it by turning him into a flower. It's where the word "narcissism" comes from, and it is considered a fault.

He considered himself perfect, but he wasn't actually perfect (if he was perfect, there would be no other God's above him which could him into a flower). Thus, this is a false-analogy.


We shouldn't even exist at all if a perfect being exists, is what I am arguing. Thus, mentioning scenarios assuming our existence is a red herring.

No, it isn't, because I don't accept your argument, and I'm trying to explain why I don't, using examples.

Your examples aren't good though. Thus, it seems you have no reason to not accept my argument.


Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth.

If God can "grow", then he wasn't perfect to begin with! Growth entails improvement, but improving perfection is a logical contradiction.

We are considered to be most perfect when we are babies, yet we grow. Youth is considered desirable in nearly all living things.

A baby is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent? Don't be a retard. Nobody considers a baby perfect. I am talking about an actual perfect being (God), not a baby!


I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way.

Because if he isn't that way, he isn't perfect. Unless you argue for a non-perfect God, in that case my argument becomes pretty void.

Would you consider your own father more perfect if he was strict and stiff instead of loving and caring?

It is obvious that you and I have two totally different outlooks, and are speaking of two separate things. I'm speaking of objective life, while you are trying to make an unfeeling, totally objective philosophical point. I wouldn't consider God to be objective or totally philosophical. I would consider him to be as alive as you and I, and just as independent.

Then he is not perfect. A perfect being is independent (we are not). Thus, if he is just as independent as us; he is not very independent at all.

Anyone who claims to know everything about God is simply making things up, as the early religionists did. They each wanted their own pantheon of gods to be more impressive than everyone else's, until finally they accepted one God with all the power that was possible. That is the working of human minds.

I'm basing what God would do on common sense, and what cashes out from his nature. If you think a baby is a "perfect being" then this explains why you don't accept my argument; you have no idea in hell what I am talking about when I speak on perfection.

If you are going to believe in a universal being, you are going to have to accept that he can't be known, and probably even keeps secrets like the rest of us.

Certain actions of God can be determined if we ascribe a certain nature to him. If you disagree that he is perfect, then here is nothing to talk about; I am speaking about a perfect being specifically.

As I've said before, I am not religious, but I am spiritual, because I "feel" and observe a presence and order in the world which seems intelligent and right. There is no evidence in our world which would convince an atheist that God could exist unless he/she become open to the fact, so I don't bother trying.

Well, most things we believe in our open facts. The desk in front of me, the pepsi can besides me... Why is it so hard for God to be an open fact, but not a pepsi can? Lol

To use a version of one of your earlier statements, no matter how many people disbelieve it still doesn't affect the truth.

No matter how many people believe, that doesn't effect truth either. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean he exists.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:41:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 5:02:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:51:20 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being.

He already is conceited, and self-absorbed according to the Christian worldview. He wants nobody to worship any God's but himself, and the purpose of life is to know God (according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at least). Either way, there is nothing wrong with loving yourself if you are perfect. What is better to love?

I've already said that I'm not religious, and that includes the Christian worldview. There is nothing wrong with loving yourself as long as you love others, too, but if you love yourself alone is conceited, which is considered to be a fault.

Only a fault for imperfect beings. If God is perfect, he would have been satisfied with just himself. The fact that he wants or needs other beings proves he is not perfect.

I suppose we'll have to disagree on that. I don't think any "perfect" being could be stuck on himself, or immune from loneliness. In a sense, we must be able, in effect, to tell our nature that although we hear it and respect it, our mind, not our nature, will determine whether we are satisfied.

The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings.

But I am saying if God existed, he wouldn't have created us at all. It shows imperfection, because a perfect being would just be satisfied with himself.

Haven't you ever read the story of Narcissus in Greek Mythology? He was satisfied with only his own reflection because he considered himself perfect. The gods punished him for it by turning him into a flower. It's where the word "narcissism" comes from, and it is considered a fault.

He considered himself perfect, but he wasn't actually perfect (if he was perfect, there would be no other God's above him which could him into a flower). Thus, this is a false-analogy.

But the fact that he considered himself perfect determined his actions. If we feel hot then we turn down the heat, whether we are really hot or not. So feeling that you are perfect is a fault, whether you are perfect or not. If God was perfect he would feel the same as Narcissus did, and would act the same, so why would Narcissus be punished for having an identical reaction?

We shouldn't even exist at all if a perfect being exists, is what I am arguing. Thus, mentioning scenarios assuming our existence is a red herring.

No, it isn't, because I don't accept your argument, and I'm trying to explain why I don't, using examples.

Your examples aren't good though. Thus, it seems you have no reason to not accept my argument.

My examples seem perfectly good enough to me, and I am the one making my arguments. Should I just concede the argument even though I totally disagree? I find your points lacking, but I have yet to call them unjustified.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth.

If God can "grow", then he wasn't perfect to begin with! Growth entails improvement, but improving perfection is a logical contradiction.

We are considered to be most perfect when we are babies, yet we grow. Youth is considered desirable in nearly all living things.

A baby is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent? Don't be a retard. Nobody considers a baby perfect. I am talking about an actual perfect being (God), not a baby!

Here you seem to be purposely shifting your focus. We aren't talking about omnipotence now, but the value of youth. You said that if God could grow then he couldn't be perfect. I showed that babies can be perfect, yet still grow. Why not stick to the basic arguments instead of dancing-around whichever issue seems favorable?

I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way.

Because if he isn't that way, he isn't perfect. Unless you argue for a non-perfect God, in that case my argument becomes pretty void.

Would you consider your own father more perfect if he was strict and stiff instead of loving and caring?

It is obvious that you and I have two totally different outlooks, and are speaking of two separate things. I'm speaking of objective life, while you are trying to make an unfeeling, totally objective philosophical point. I wouldn't consider God to be objective or totally philosophical. I would consider him to be as alive as you and I, and just as independent.

Then he is not perfect. A perfect being is independent (we are not). Thus, if he is just as independent as us; he is not very independent at all.

Why are we not independent, at least in our choices? Sure we need food in order to live, but we can choose to go on a hunger strike and die. If someone holds a gun to our head and demands certain actions, we can choose to be shot. They aren't easy decisions to make, but they are certainly possible. If you accept that we possess an immortal soul which can't be destroyed, then we are independent entities.

Anyone who claims to know everything about God is simply making things up, as the early religionists did. They each wanted their own pantheon of gods to be more impressive than everyone else's, until finally they accepted one God with all the power that was possible. That is the working of human minds.

I'm basing what God would do on common sense, and what cashes out from his nature. If you think a baby is a "perfect being" then this explains why you don't accept my argument; you have no idea in hell what I am talking about when I speak on perfection.

If you are going to believe in a universal being, you are going to have to accept that he can't be known, and probably even keeps secrets like the rest of us.

Certain actions of God can be determined if we ascribe a certain nature to him. If you disagree that he is perfect, then here is nothing to talk about; I am speaking about a perfect being specifically.

Exactly. Men ascribe the natures to him, not God himself. We can't know all the natures of God.

As I've said before, I am not religious, but I am spiritual, because I "feel" and observe a presence and order in the world which seems intelligent and right. There is no evidence in our world which would convince an atheist that God could exist unless he/she become open to the fact, so I don't bother trying.

Well, most things we believe in our open facts. The desk in front of me, the pepsi can besides me... Why is it so hard for God to be an open fact, but not a pepsi can? Lol

Because God would be a living being with his own agenda. He wouldn't necessarily want to submit to your examinations. He might have his own agenda.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:58:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 5:41:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:02:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:51:20 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


I suppose we'll have to disagree on that. I don't think any "perfect" being could be stuck on himself, or immune from loneliness.

I don't think any perfect being would have primitive emotional flaws like loneliness. Loneliness is intuitively a flaw, if it wasn't, then we wouldn't try to wash it away by having company around us. Clearly, loneliness is a flaw; perfect beings don't have flaws by definition.

In a sense, we must be able, in effect, to tell our nature that although we hear it and respect it, our mind, not our nature, will determine whether we are satisfied.

This doesn't change the fact that the only reason a being would carry out a planned conscious action, was if they were dissatisfied with their state of not doing so. You haven't put a dent in my argument.

But the fact that he considered himself perfect determined his actions.

Perhaps, but this doesn't matter. If a perfect being exists, he would actually be perfect, and be worthy of loving just himself. This other god-like character you mentioned wasn't actually perfect, thus he was wrongfully just loving himself. If a perfect being exists, then nobody is more worthy of love, and loving only him is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, then he clearly cannot be a truly perfect being.

If we feel hot then we turn down the heat, whether we are really hot or not. So feeling that you are perfect is a fault, whether you are perfect or not.

No, it is really not. As I already explained, it is only a fault if you actually aren't perfect.

If God was perfect he would feel the same as Narcissus did, and would act the same, so why would Narcissus be punished for having an identical reaction?

Because he wasn't actually perfect. Duh (lol)... If he was then he couldn't have been punished, and he would have continued just loving himself. Just like a perfect God would.

Should I just concede the argument even though I totally disagree? I find your points lacking, but I have yet to call them unjustified.

I have already showed your examples were false-analogies in my last posts.

Here you seem to be purposely shifting your focus. We aren't talking about omnipotence now, but the value of youth.

Here you seem to be purposely shifting focus. We aren't talking about the value of youth, but the value of a perfect being.

You said that if God could grow then he couldn't be perfect. I showed that babies can be perfect, yet still grow.

Babies aren't perfect though! So your examples are rubbish...

Why not stick to the basic arguments instead of dancing-around whichever issue seems favorable?

You are the one dancing around the subject. A perfect being is one who has all qualities that are better to have than not. If he has to improve, then this negates that he has all the qualities that are better to have than not already. You are dodging the argument by talking about babies. What a joke, babies? They aren't perfect at all, they are the most flawed type of babies on Earth. They drool, can't even communicate, are you trolling me?

Why are we not independent, at least in our choices?

Now you are dancing around the topic. At first you said he was just as independent as us, now you say just with choices. This is shifting the goal posts.

Sure we need food in order to live, but we can choose to go on a hunger strike and die. If someone holds a gun to our head and demands certain actions, we can choose to be shot. They aren't easy decisions to make, but they are certainly possible. If you accept that we possess an immortal soul which can't be destroyed, then we are independent entities.

I don't accept that we possess immortal souls which cannot be destroyed, because neuroscience paints a different picture. Maybe you don't care about science, but I do.

Exactly. Men ascribe the natures to him, not God himself. We can't know all the natures of God.

We can know the nature of God's made up by man "like a perfect being". If you don't believe God is perfect, then there is nothing left to say.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:01:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 5:41:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:02:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:51:20 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:16:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being.

He already is conceited, and self-absorbed according to the Christian worldview. He wants nobody to worship any God's but himself, and the purpose of life is to know God (according to Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at least). Either way, there is nothing wrong with loving yourself if you are perfect. What is better to love?

I've already said that I'm not religious, and that includes the Christian worldview. There is nothing wrong with loving yourself as long as you love others, too, but if you love yourself alone is conceited, which is considered to be a fault.

Only a fault for imperfect beings. If God is perfect, he would have been satisfied with just himself. The fact that he wants or needs other beings proves he is not perfect.

I suppose we'll have to disagree on that. I don't think any "perfect" being could be stuck on himself, or immune from loneliness. In a sense, we must be able, in effect, to tell our nature that although we hear it and respect it, our mind, not our nature, will determine whether we are satisfied.

The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings.

But I am saying if God existed, he wouldn't have created us at all. It shows imperfection, because a perfect being would just be satisfied with himself.

Haven't you ever read the story of Narcissus in Greek Mythology? He was satisfied with only his own reflection because he considered himself perfect. The gods punished him for it by turning him into a flower. It's where the word "narcissism" comes from, and it is considered a fault.

He considered himself perfect, but he wasn't actually perfect (if he was perfect, there would be no other God's above him which could him into a flower). Thus, this is a false-analogy.

But the fact that he considered himself perfect determined his actions. If we feel hot then we turn down the heat, whether we are really hot or not. So feeling that you are perfect is a fault, whether you are perfect or not. If God was perfect he would feel the same as Narcissus did, and would act the same, so why would Narcissus be punished for having an identical reaction?

We shouldn't even exist at all if a perfect being exists, is what I am arguing. Thus, mentioning scenarios assuming our existence is a red herring.

No, it isn't, because I don't accept your argument, and I'm trying to explain why I don't, using examples.

Your examples aren't good though. Thus, it seems you have no reason to not accept my argument.

My examples seem perfectly good enough to me, and I am the one making my arguments. Should I just concede the argument even though I totally disagree? I find your points lacking, but I have yet to call them unjustified.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth.

If God can "grow", then he wasn't perfect to begin with! Growth entails improvement, but improving perfection is a logical contradiction.

We are considered to be most perfect when we are babies, yet we grow. Youth is considered desirable in nearly all living things.

A baby is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent? Don't be a retard. Nobody considers a baby perfect. I am talking about an actual perfect being (God), not a baby!

Here you seem to be purposely shifting your focus. We aren't talking about omnipotence now, but the value of youth. You said that if God could grow then he couldn't be perfect. I showed that babies can be perfect, yet still grow. Why not stick to the basic arguments instead of dancing-around whichever issue seems favorable?

I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way.

Because if he isn't that way, he isn't perfect. Unless you argue for a non-perfect God, in that case my argument becomes pretty void.

Would you consider your own father more perfect if he was strict and stiff instead of loving and caring?

It is obvious that you and I have two totally different outlooks, and are speaking of two separate things. I'm speaking of objective life, while you are trying to make an unfeeling, totally objective philosophical point. I wouldn't consider God to be objective or totally philosophical. I would consider him to be as alive as you and I, and just as independent.

Then he is not perfect. A perfect being is independent (we are not). Thus, if he is just as independent as us; he is not very independent at all.

Why are we not independent, at least in our choices? Sure we need food in order to live, but we can choose to go on a hunger strike and die. If someone holds a gun to our head and demands certain actions, we can choose to be shot. They aren't easy decisions to make, but they are certainly possible. If you accept that we possess an immortal soul which can't be destroyed, then we are independent entities.

Anyone who claims to know everything about God is simply making things up, as the early religionists did. They each wanted their own pantheon of gods to be more impressive than everyone else's, until finally they accepted one God with all the power that was possible. That is the working of human minds.

I'm basing what God would do on common sense, and what cashes out from his nature. If you think a baby is a "perfect being" then this explains why you don't accept my argument; you have no idea in hell what I am talking about when I speak on perfection.

If you are going to believe in a universal being, you are going to have to accept that he can't be known, and probably even keeps secrets like the rest of us.

Certain actions of God can be determined if we ascribe a certain nature to him. If you disagree that he is perfect, then here is nothing to talk about; I am speaking about a perfect being specifically.

Exactly. Men ascribe the natures to him, not God himself. We can't know all the natures of God.

As I've said before, I am not religious, but I am spiritual, because I "feel" and observe a presence and order in the world which seems intelligent and right. There is no evidence in our world which would convince an atheist that God could exist unless he/she become open to the fact, so I don't bother trying.

Well, most things we believe in our open facts. The desk in front of me, the pepsi can besides me... Why is it so hard for God to be an open fact, but not a pepsi can? Lol

Because God would be a living being with his own agenda. He wouldn't necessarily want to submit to your examinations. He might have his own agenda.

*They aren't perfect at all, they are the most flawed type of humans on Earth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:22:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/24/2013 1:56:20 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:57:13 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/23/2013 8:54:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:59:09 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:43:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I don't know . . . to me this would make God sound conceited, and a self-absorbed being is a non-loving being. The way I always understood the premise was that God wanted other beings to exist who would love him freely, of their own free choice, and not just be obedient because he was the boss and they were the underlings. For this to happen they would have to possess free-choice, the ability to reject him or choose him at will, for that is the nature of love. I admit I'm no expert, but that's how I understood it.

This would make God sound as nothing. If God is perfect and perfection is immutable, tensed qualifiers make no sense; God is not conceited, self-absorbed ; and, actions betrayed by your use of verbs are meaningless. Action speaks of a process, and process speaks of change; so, in other words, a perfect god does nothing; so, God doesn't want for anything. A perfect God is not tensed; so, making statements like "God is" and "God was" is meaningless.

Again, I have to ask why dissatisfaction is an imperfection? I would think that dissatisfaction is a necessary stimulus for growth. I know that religions tend to be very strict and stiff, and make their Gods out to be the same, but I see no reason to think that any God would be that way. As you said yourself, isn't the whole idea of God supposed to be one of love and caring? Why do people make him/it sound so cold?

Because, dissatisfaction speaks of need, and if God needs anything, then, God is incomplete. Growth speaks of change. If something is perfect, why change it? It's like the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Dissatisfaction doesn't speak of need. I can have everything I need to live like a king and not be satisfied, or be so poor that I barely survive and yet still find satisfaction in the beauty and admiration of everything around me. Regardless, I still don't see why you would expect a god to fully satisfied. Even the Greek and Roman philosophers talked of how gods were dissatisfied were their own nature and jealous of humans for their ability to feel emotions.

The word satisfy means to do enough or make sufficient , in other words to meet, or fulfill, one's needs, or requirements. If you don't believe me, look it up, for yourself.

Even an imperfect human can surrender their own happiness and satisfaction for the betterment of another's situation. Heroes are real, and altruism does exist. I will believe that to my dying day. When chemist George Price came-up with his scientific theorem of how altruism was simply a result of evolution it soon began driving him mad, because as soon as it was accepted and published he began to see acts of what he deemed true altruism all around him. He gave away everything he had in order to help the poor and down-trodden, and spent years trying to disprove his own theorem. In the end he discovered it could neither be proved nor disproved. He spent the rest of his life working for charities and dedicating himself to being altruistic. A perfect being could not love himself. Love can only come from others, and I believe it is the greatest feeling in the world. When my daughters give-up their whole weekend on father's day just for me, despite their ages of 17 and 21, it's the best weekend of the year for me. My oldest has majors in mathematics and mechanical engineering, yet she feels pretty-much the same as me, and my youngest wouldn't hurt anyone.

I don't believe in omniscience, because I believe in freedom of choice. If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed. I also don't believe that any being is perfect. There is always room to improve. I've already explained my understanding of why he created humans. It is for all of these reasons that I don't see the problem. I accept that if any god exists then he has thoughts just like I do, and the ability to decide and to change his mind. I also believe he would be subject to certain immutable laws.

Perfect just means complete. Are you saying you don't believe in a being that is whole, or complete?

"If anyone could know our futures then that would mean our futures were set, and couldn't be changed."

How can you change something that will never happen, in the first place?

This makes no sense. Are you saying the future will never happen? So you don't plan on having a tomorrow? Your future will come, and you will affect it more than anyone else, which is why no one else can know what it will be.

No. I'm saying whatever will happen, will happen. You can't say something that happens wasn't meant to happen; that makes no sense; for, if it weren't meant to happen, it wouldn't happen.


Let me give you an example of why a being would make a planned, conscious change despite being totally satisfied with his state of being. Suppose I'm driving down the street on my way home to dinner after a hard day's work, and all I can think of is being with my family. But then I see a car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up and some guy poking around the engine. Being totally satisfied, I could easily continue driving home to my anticipated evening. Or I could roll down my window and curb any guilt by offering to call a tow truck. But since I know a good deal about cars, I would most likely decide to stop and see if I could help. I would surrender the satisfaction of a much-anticipated dinner with my family to help a stranger on the side of the road. And people do things like this every day. The really strange thing is that when you really go out of your way to help another person, you almost always feel a surge of satisfaction for having sacrificed your own comfort in order to increase theirs. You actually gain more satisfaction instead of losing any.

Your last sentence contradicts your first sentence. You can't gain more satisfaction, if you were completely satisfied, in the first place.

Sure you can, because you can't know the future. I can be perfectly satisfied with bread for supper, yet become more satisfied when I discover there is ham to go with it. You are simply using the word "perfectly" in an exact way, while I am using it in a general way. What matters most about a word is context. I know you learned that in elementary English.

If you were perfectly satisfied with bread, then, you wouldn't want ham.


I believe that you are mistaking a perfect being with a perfect state of being, although I don't believe that even that can last without constant nurturing. And if you wanted to believe there was a single God, why not postulate that he's the last of his kind, like Superman? All he'd need to be is capable of love in order to have incentive to create others who he can love and who can love him. I know this is all theoretical, as no person could ever possibly know the nature of a God, but I do truly believe in good and bad. I believe in heroes and villains, and a lot in-between. I've felt this way since I was a little kid, and even though I know it could change at any time (we don't choose what we believe), I hope that it doesn't.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:20:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.

It affects when you differentiate between the serial time and pure duration. Then there remains no question for imperfection. Otherwise if you still think it doesn't affect, that's your part of explanation.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 11:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 5:20:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.

It affects when you differentiate between the serial time and pure duration.

What does that have to do with my argument?

Then there remains no question for imperfection.

Says who?

Otherwise if you still think it doesn't affect, that's your part of explanation.

Switching the burden of proof. If you believe your words undermine my argument you have to prove it. Nothing you are saying seems to have any relation to my argument.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:30:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 11:15:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:20:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.

It affects when you differentiate between the serial time and pure duration.

What does that have to do with my argument?
May be I'm getting it wrong that your argument is about the relationship of God's Perfection with the change that comes from creating something. If so then sorry for misunderstanding the thread.


Then there remains no question for imperfection.

Says who?


Otherwise if you still think it doesn't affect, that's your part of explanation.

Switching the burden of proof. If you believe your words undermine my argument you have to prove it. Nothing you are saying seems to have any relation to my argument.

I think here under forum, we're supposed to discuss something but it seems you have a debate mode_ all the time one winning-wish. I'm not trying to prove something, just gave a view that you didn't bother to read. Thank you!

(If you're going to reply with the idea that my proposed view was a novel for you that is what you already have said. No need to repeat that again, leave my faults, I'm leveraging you here, save your time)
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:30:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/25/2013 11:15:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:20:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.

It affects when you differentiate between the serial time and pure duration.

What does that have to do with my argument?
May be I'm getting it wrong that your argument is about the relationship of God's Perfection with the change that comes from creating something. If so then sorry for misunderstanding the thread.

It is about that. The question that then remains is how your comment relates to it... Are you going to give an answer? What does "serial time" and "pure duration" have anything to do with what we I am talking about?



Then there remains no question for imperfection.

Says who?


Otherwise if you still think it doesn't affect, that's your part of explanation.

Switching the burden of proof. If you believe your words undermine my argument you have to prove it. Nothing you are saying seems to have any relation to my argument.

I think here under forum, we're supposed to discuss something but it seems you have a debate mode_ all the time one winning-wish. I'm not trying to prove something, just gave a view that you didn't bother to read. Thank you!

(If you're going to reply with the idea that my proposed view was a novel for you that is what you already have said. No need to repeat that again, leave my faults, I'm leveraging you here, save your time)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 1:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:30:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/25/2013 11:15:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:20:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:16:03 AM, Dazz wrote:

How does that effect my argument at all? It just seems like rambling to me.

It affects when you differentiate between the serial time and pure duration.

What does that have to do with my argument?
May be I'm getting it wrong that your argument is about the relationship of God's Perfection with the change that comes from creating something. If so then sorry for misunderstanding the thread.


Then there remains no question for imperfection.

Says who?


Otherwise if you still think it doesn't affect, that's your part of explanation.

Switching the burden of proof. If you believe your words undermine my argument you have to prove it. Nothing you are saying seems to have any relation to my argument.

I think here under forum, we're supposed to discuss something but it seems you have a debate mode_ all the time one winning-wish. I'm not trying to prove something, just gave a view that you didn't bother to read. Thank you!

(If you're going to reply with the idea that my proposed view was a novel for you that is what you already have said. No need to repeat that again, leave my faults, I'm leveraging you here, save your time)

Also, its a debate website. You shouldn't have joined if you didn't want to interact with people in debate mode lol

Either way, nothing you are saying seems to have much relation to my argument. You seem more of a rambler and debater.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Also, its a debate website. You shouldn't have joined if you didn't want to interact with people in debate mode lol

Dear you are here posting for forum. For debates there is a separate section.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:37:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:05:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*rambler than debater

You are continuously and blindly repeating that none of my words are related to your argument. I can challenge you that this time you are clutched up in your own words. I expect you'll take back your words as much as I know about your seniority.

Either take some time to reconsider your words, or let me show you your mistake.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 4:45:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:37:44 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/25/2013 1:05:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*rambler than debater

You are continuously and blindly repeating that none of my words are related to your argument.

If you are going to state something, you have to show how it ties in with the topic.

I can challenge you that this time you are clutched up in your own words. I expect you'll take back your words as much as I know about your seniority.

Either take some time to reconsider your words, or let me show you your mistake.

I'm just waiting for you to say something relevant.. That's not too much of a request... Is it?