If you were God...

[R_Daneel]

I’m always highly amused when I come across anyone equating incomprehensibility with **total **incomprehensibility.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. But adding the word “total” to incomprehensibility is just poetic, flowery language, and does not add one iota of information to it. If something is partly comprehensible, then it is not incomprehensible. If you say it is freezing cold outside, you don’t need to add “icy, freezing cold”. The freezing part already contains all the necessary information, the addition is just unnecessary “fluff”, or “filler”. (And don’t start another distraction about the beauty of poetic, flowery language!)

 

[tonyrey]

]Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Not if it is ironic…

But adding the word “total” to incomprehensibility is just poetic, flowery language, and does not add one iota of information to it. If something is partly comprehensible, then it is not incomprehensible.

You fail to recognise that there are degrees of (in)comprehensibility just as there degrees of intelligibility…

If you say it is freezing cold outside, you don’t need to add “icy, freezing cold”.
The freezing part already contains all the necessary information, the addition is just unnecessary “fluff”, or “filler”.

“freezing” indicates **a specific degree **of coldness whereas incomprehensible does not. Since its literal meaning is “unable to grasp completely” it does not necessarily rule out all comprehension. It is defined as “impossible or very difficult to understand”…

And don’t start another distraction about the beauty of poetic, flowery language!)

You are the one who introduced the distraction by evading the question with direct reference to the OP:

“**Who am I **to even assume I could be better in any way and in anything that He does?”

A question you have signally failed to answer - like others posed to you…

 

[Tuno]

R Daneel, got to be with Tonyrey on this one.

 

[_Locke]

R_Daneel, I think a better question to ask would be: “If you change anything in the world, or even a great many things, what would it or they be?” If people have a different answer from the original question then they are being inconsistent.

What’s at the core here is reconciling the obvious flaws in the world with the “God has a perfect plan” idea. What I find most astonishing is that so many people say they would change nothing, and then go about their lives trying to improve their condition and that of those around them. I’d like to know how they harmonize this seemingly hypocritical attitude.

 

[davidv]

R_Daneel, I think a better question to ask would be: “If you change anything in the world, or even a great many things, what would it or they be?” If people have a different answer from the original question then they are being inconsistent.

What’s at the core here is reconciling the obvious flaws in the world with the “God has a perfect plan” idea. What I find most astonishing is that so many people say they would change nothing, and then go about their lives trying to improve their condition and that of those around them. I’d like to know how they harmonize this seemingly hypocritical attitude.

An understanding of true love and it relationship to free-will would go a long way toward eliminating the “seemingly hypocritical attitude”.

 

[_Locke]

An understanding of true love and it relationship to free-will would go a long way toward eliminating the “seemingly hypocritical attitude”.

Explain.

 

[Tuno]

What I find most astonishing is that so many people say they would change nothing, and then go about their lives trying to improve their condition and that of those around them. I’d like to know how they harmonize this seemingly hypocritical attitude.

I’m one of those people, Locke. And while not agnostic or atheist, I do not believe in the Christian presentation of God. It is too shallow and materialist, enabling such questions as the OP to be even thought of. And as people tend to have a misconception of Eternity as having a factor of duration, so they imbue the God with personality and both the ability and motivation to intervene in human affairs. This is patently silly from a perspective more congruent with Reality and only believable at a certain order of awareness, even if the individual is very highly developed otherwise. There are good reasons for this.

But most of us are very happy where we are and liberally use denial and use logical proofs that have nothing to do with the domain where God as Such IS. All such things are in the realm of relativism and what is called the subject/object mode of human awareness. That would be the one we use to navigate the the ordinary consensus world as we perceive it, and use well enough to often not break a leg doing an errand or working.

So nothing can be changed about God. To speculate what I might change is close to the sin of the Light Bearer, which legend has deeply different meaning than ordinarily ascribed, similarly to the Eden story. And it is the imperative of Life to experience. Not necessarily grow, thought that happens involuntarily by acting, but chiefly to experience. Most of us like to go in the direction of more fulfillment in a variety of arenas. And we might be aided in that by what could be called prayer and devotion, but ultimately those are something rather more useful. So as the depth and breadth of awareness grows, and we mostly use that part of the mind which is subject object related, we try to “better” ourselves That is not a contradiction, nor hypocritical. It is how things work.

 

[In_Spiration]

I must admit: I’m a little disappointed that the sarcastic dismissal that I made on page 2 of this entire unfounded thought-experiment didn’t catch on and, by way of communal mockery, swiftly dissolve this thread into the nonsense it subtly assumes. Let’s see what I can add.

If I were God…

… then I would not be myself,
… therefore, God would not be me,
… and therefore, I would not be God.

Ergo, if I were God, then I would not be God.

But wait! If I were God, then where’s the problem? After all, if God is unable to both be and not be Himself, then He’s hardly omnipotent. Thus I conclude that if I were God, then I would assume a contradiction, i.e., contradict my very being, myself.

The only problem for this heuristic is that we cannot even think a real contradiction. However, it’s true that, as Wittgenstein noted, “we cannot think what we cannot think,” and still also true that we apparently can think what we cannot think (hence this thread). A contradiction is really true then.

So if it’s possible for me to be God, then it’s also not possible for me to be God, since contradiction would be allowed and possibly true.

…

Therefore, God exists. [Principle of explosion.]

 

[Tuno]

In Spiration: argument no workee. Silly thread? Maybe. But God is not amenable to logic or intellection.

 

[In_Spiration]

In Spiration: argument no workee.

You actually read the whole thing?

Silly thread? Maybe.

The assumption behind the thread is definitely silly; the treatment of the thread as a whole so far, I’m afraid, is still serious. I was hoping to change that, since it shouldn’t get such credit.

But God is not amenable to logic or intellection.

I couldn’t possibly have any idea what you’re talking about here. And if I could and did, I wouldn’t know why you think and say such about it. Of course, if I somehow did grasp the reason why, then it’s not like I’d know what it is your idea refers to – in any sense or on any real level whatsoever.

 

[Tuno]

You actually read the whole thing?

Yeppers

The assumption behind the thread is definitely silly; the treatment of the thread as a whole so far, I’m afraid, is still serious. I was hoping to change that, since it shouldn’t get such credit.

I think that it brings out an interesting feature endemic with faithers: they believe God to be a person, and therefore can actually have such considerations as this and take them quasi seriously at least.

I couldn’t possibly have any idea what you’re talking about here. And if I could and did, I wouldn’t know why you think and say such about it. Of course, if I somehow did grasp the reason why, then it’s not like I’d know what it is your idea refers to – in any sense or on any real level whatsoever.

That’s OK, don’t fret about it. I wasn’t talking to you. To someone on the same page as what I said it would be abundantly clear what I meant. Such are fora.

 

[davidv]

Explain.

I was calling you out on what I considered a cheap shot - calling the Catholics position hyprocritical.

God is a perfect being. He created the world and it creatures. By definition, the way way He created must be perfect. One aspect of this perfection is the provision for reciprocol love (mutual self-giving for the benefit of the others). This aspect requires that we be free to love. For love not freely given is not love.

It then follows that freedom to love includes the freedom to not love. Any improvements that humans pursue are attempts at increasing our choices to love as opposed to not loving.

 

[_Locke]

I was calling you out on what I considered a cheap shot - calling the Catholics position hyprocritical.

I think I explained myself clearly enough. What was cheap about it? (Or did you just not like the content?)

davidv:

God is a perfect being. He created the world and it creatures. By definition, the way way He created must be perfect. One aspect of this perfection is the provision for reciprocol love (mutual self-giving for the benefit of the others). This aspect requires that we be free to love. For love not freely given is not love.

It then follows that freedom to love includes the freedom to not love. Any improvements that humans pursue are attempts at increasing our choices to love as opposed to not loving.

Well the world is hardly perfect, is it? And this is what I pointed out, the inconsistency between intellectually maintaining that the world was created perfect and living out a life that says otherwise.

On a side note: You can’t just throw abstract phrases like “true love” and “free will” into a one-sentence rebuttal in a philosophical discussion and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[davidv]

I think I explained myself clearly enough. What was cheap about it? (Or did you just not like the content?)

Well the world is hardly perfect, is it?

That is human’s doing by exercising his free will.

And this is what I pointed out, the inconsistency between intellectually maintaining that the world was created perfect and living out a life that says otherwise.

And it appears that you are unwilling to make the distinction between God’s creation and the human decisions that have caused the imperfection.

On a side note: You can’t just throw abstract phrases like “true love” and “free will” into a one-sentence rebuttal in a philosophical discussion and expect to be taken seriously.

Then you must offer a definition of these terms or ask for them.

 

[_Locke]

That is human’s doing by exercising his free will.

And it appears that you are unwilling to make the distinction between God’s creation and the human decisions that have caused the imperfection.

Firstly, you ignored my question.
Secondly, can a perfect construct make itself less perfect? Could God’s creation, perfect in and of itself, decrease its own perfection? That would require imperfection, wouldn’t it?
And by perfect I mean “being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish.”

davidv:

Then you must offer a definition of these terms or ask for them.

No, sir, the onus is on you since you used them in a deliberately vague context. And you still haven’t brought “true love” into your argument, making me suspect it was pure obfuscation.

 

[davidv]

Firstly, you ignored my question.

How so?

Secondly, can a perfect construct make itself less perfect?

Yes. Point?

Could God’s creation, perfect in and of itself, decrease its own perfection?

Yes. It’s called sin.

That would require imperfection, wouldn’t it?

No. Just a execise of the human will against God’s will.

And by perfect I mean “being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish.”

No, sir, the onus is on you since you used them in a deliberately vague context. And you still haven’t brought “true love” into your argument, making me suspect it was pure obfuscation.

See post 152.

I believe you are equivating the meaning of perfect.

 

[_Locke]

How so?

Well I was wondering how I was making a cheap shot, but that’s irrelevant now I suppose.

davidv:

Yes. It’s called sin.

So you’re saying that a perfect creation/construct/whatever can sin. I’m not sure I follow you. It seems a contradiction in terms. If something can sin, it’s not perfect. Furthermore, the logical conclusion is that God is capable of making himself imperfect.

davidv:

No. Just a execise of the human will against God’s will.

Which is imperfection in your view, is it not? So a flaw in a perfect creation.

davidv:

I believe you are equivating the meaning of perfect.

I don’t know what equivating means, but if you’re trying to conflate the terms “true love” and “perfection” I simply can’t let you get away with it.

My final point would be this: philosophical argument aside, there’s simply no evidence for your position. Free will can only account for moral evil. Humans have only been around for, at most, 200,00 years, while disease, predation, and natural disasters have been around for billions more. All you have is an argument from religious authority. At best you make the case that an initial perfect creation was logically possible. (and at this point I don’t find us reaching that conclusion)

 

[Tuno]

Locke, this

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in mathematics because in mathematics there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. - Bertrand Russell

is a quote of great excellence an accuracy. Thank you.

 

[davidv]

Well I was wondering how I was making a cheap shot, but that’s irrelevant now I suppose.

So you’re saying that a perfect creation/construct/whatever can sin. I’m not sure I follow you. It seems a contradiction in terms. If something can sin, it’s not perfect. Furthermore, the logical conclusion is that God is capable of making himself imperfect.

Which is imperfection in your view, is it not? So a flaw in a perfect creation.

I don’t know what equivating means, but if you’re trying to conflate the terms “true love” and “perfection” I simply can’t let you get away with it.

My final point would be this: philosophical argument aside, there’s simply no evidence for your position. Free will can only account for moral evil. Humans have only been around for, at most, 200,00 years, while disease, predation, and natural disasters have been around for billions more. All you have is an argument from religious authority. At best you make the case that an initial perfect creation was logically possible. (and at this point I don’t find us reaching that conclusion)

Your final point is without evidence. You have failed to engage in the points made. It appears that you care not to understand the explanations given.

 

[_Locke]

Your final point is without evidence. You have failed to engage in the points made. It appears that you care not to understand the explanations given.

Don’t shut down so quickly, at least explain a little. What part of my final point is without evidence? What points have I failed to engage? (Remember, disagreeing with you is not the same as failing to engage)

I do care to understand, but just because I understand what you’re trying to say doesn’t mean I’ll immediately agree.