God's Moral Authority

[Acriku]

Gunwounds, I said in the post you quoted that this is only if the person believes that the consequences will happen. I do not, so I'm not relevant to the discussion. As such, the people in my examples believe that the consequences will occur depending on their actions.

As far as your supposition in the end, I disagree on matter of perspective. There is no free will, but rather degrees of influence on the person. When I mentioned degrees of free will, I wrote it down wrong. Free will inherently involves no influence whatsoever. Thus, it cannot exist. Nobody lives in a vacuum.

Dante, your post begs the question: does morality exist separate from God, or does it exist from God? If the former, then there are rules beyond even God and therefore he is not omnipotent. If the latter, then saying God is good is just as futile as saying God is evil. If God is morality (the latter), then the millions of people praising God's ultimate goodness is incorrect. Saying God is good, God is great, etc, has no meaning. Therefore, like you say, saying God does things for the better good or for a greater cause is meaningless as well. I may just be repeating you after all, but oh well.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds, I said in the post you quoted that this is only if the person believes that the consequences will happen. I do not, so I'm not relevant to the discussion. As such, the people in my examples believe that the consequences will occur depending on their actions.

As far as your supposition in the end, I disagree on matter of perspective. There is no free will, but rather degrees of influence on the person. When I mentioned degrees of free will, I wrote it down wrong. Free will inherently involves no influence whatsoever. Thus, it cannot exist. Nobody lives in a vacuum.

Dante, your post begs the question: does morality exist separate from God, or does it exist from God? If the former, then there are rules beyond even God and therefore he is not omnipotent. If the latter, then saying God is good is just as futile as saying God is evil. If God is morality (the latter), then the millions of people praising God's ultimate goodness is incorrect. Saying God is good, God is great, etc, has no meaning. Therefore, like you say, saying God does things for the better good or for a greater cause is meaningless as well. I may just be repeating you after all, but oh well.

Well you got to be realistic about the situation.  If you get too academic on the issue... you wont get anywhere.  Obviously we dont need perfect Free Will.  Also lets define Free Will.  I define simply as the ability to make a choice yourself.   In fact it really doesnt matter if you're under duress or not.  What matters is that you can say yes or no.

You wouldnt have free will if someone else always answered for you.  Lets say, everywhere you went your mom followed you.  And everytime someone asked you a question... your mom answered for you.  You were unable to speak because she had your mouth wired shut.  You are unable to make a verbal choice because you simply cant... and your mother is making choices for you without any input from you.

Also it doesnt matter if you are under duress.  If someone held a gun to your head and said "Gunwounds renounce God" ...  my Free Will really isnt violated.  I still have a choice to say yes or no. If i feel strongly enough about God i will say no and take the bullet to the head.  My Free Will wasnt violated... he allowed me to answer the question. My Free Will would be violated if my mouth was wired shut and i wasnt allowed to answer the statement and instead they asked my mom to renounce God for me.

The same works for murderers... they know that the death penalty is the penalty for murder.  Especially if you live in Texas.  Thats not even based on faith.  Thats a reality.  However the Death penalty doesnt remove the murderer's ability to murder.  Thus the murderer's free will  (to make a choice to murder or not to murder) is in no way hindered by the penalty of death.   The only way to remove the free will of a murderer would be to lock him up in prison before he could commit the murder.  Then his free will  (to commit the murder or not to murder) would effectively be removed because it would be physically impossible for him to commit the deed he wants to commit.

Where as if someone holds a gun to my head and says renounce God.... they are not making it impossible for me to say "no", if they wired my mouth shut and then said you got 10 seconds to give us an answer or we kill you anyway.... yes then my Free Will is removed.

Now that i tihnk about it more.... it has nothing to do with human influence at all.  Free Will is imply the ability to make a choice.

[Acriku]

No, will is the ability to make a choice. Free will is making a choice freely, or without influence. Anyway, this is getting semantical. I almost completely forgot that free will is contradictory to God's omniscience (I think we debated this a long time ago?). If God knows all, then for an eternity prior to our existence our decisions were known and therefore cannot be changed. If our choices were known to God and can not be changed prior to us making those choices, then free will is simply an illusion.

[Dante]

Free will doesn't exist either, but for reasons that are seperate from god. And without free will there can be no really workable definition of morality.

Regarding whether morality exists independent of god, Acriku, then it depends whether one assumes his existence or not. If we take that to be the case then god is, by default, the origin of morality. God does not do good things, things are good because god does them. This of course removes any sort of context from the matter; if god decides to have puppies drowned in acid every Wednesday then that is also by default a good action. Good and evil, in the generally accepted sense, are arbitrary on the will of god.

Morality cannot exist outside of god because god is the ultimate everything and all that. God follows no rules but his own, for they are the bestest rules. This does not make god's moral authority meaningless, it simply makes it impossible to comprehend.

There is no point arguing the matter if one assumes the existence of god, because if you do that then you are already defeated. The argument is self-justifying and circular.

I didn't say that attempting to reason out or justify god's actions would be meaningless (though it is, for related reasons). I said that applying human moral constructs like pity or compassion to god would be futile, since he is beyond them.

Cant blame God for making us fleshy bodies. Thats just silly.

I don't imagine there's anyone better we could blame. Again, assuming his existence.

But that's beside the point. One more thing. If the whole point of this mortal life is to determine (or possibly 'demonstrate' would be a better word) our moral character and whether we make a free choice to serve god (and I'm making a lot of assumptions here), then why would god have his existence suggested at in the first place? Seems to me that the best way to find out if people are really good is to give them a completely free choice, as I believe Acriku is saying, without even a hint of god's influence.

This is of course impossible, since nothing is outside of god's influence, but the illusion of it would be enough for man.

This is also assuming that our reasoning can be applied to god, which it cannot.

I hope nobody is thinking I'm having a crisis of faith here. I'm still just as much an athiest as I ever was.

[Caid Ivik]

A tentative synthesis based on Caid's: Rationality, even Buddha's, smiles

It's not just rational (truth) as Gunwound's system seems to be (alienating emotions, severed from those lads who get slashed from the Earth- what Acriku criticises), it's passional (love):

Some Catholic grounds show, Caid ;)

Many Protestants would react by objecting that their faith is not "ideas" but passion. The whole Evangelical movement reacted to instituted Anglicanism for that.

I'd like to comment that what is meant by "intellect" with Plato or Plotinus is not necessarily to be taken as rationality by modern definition (or Kant's; in my opinion, it might actually have many parallels with Hume's perception... but I'm biased).

It seems to englobe a certain form of emotion, drive towards betterment (or drive towards the part of perfection we do not already have). But not all the "other" forms of emotion (they'd be for Plato's poets).

Consequence: It blocks someone to think that God is just rational in the modern sense, that which Gunwounds seems to apply ("the law is the law") and Acriku to criticize. It is not good to make of human emotions mere satellites to ideas of God rule (leading some to see God as rationalist absolutist- God is Love, absolute opposite of fascist).

"There is no fear in love."

Yes, to understand (neo)platonic or zarathustrian (let's leave Kant a little aside, for to find a way trough him would be rather hard for 2 hours I have for net left here ;) ) term of wisdom, it is good to see no difference between full knowledge, deepest love and perfect piety. I don't cover my catholicism in this, for it is the last reason why I still haven't converted. God shouldn't be a question here (btw in both kantian and 'rational absolutist' senses), the point is in what a man does and thinks. To think of God as one, who gives me reward is certainly not a sign of 'full knowledge, deepest love and perfect piety'...also who gives the reward then, father or spirit or whatever? Such a believe contradicts itself, thus with it one cannot be perfectly pious...

Of course there is the "Son" that gives us the personal side.. the actual existence to go to and ask for forgiveness.  This is probably where Egeides gets his quote of "There is no fear in love".  And in a sense this is true.  Jesus' most often repeated phrase is "Fear Not".  Now this doesnt mean "Fear not for the lord God is indulgent soft and sympathetic".  It means "Fear Not, there is a way for man to be united with God after this mortal life"

Or atleast thats how i view it.

...also why talk about the end, when God is here and now already? Unio mystica could be reached at any moment, not only 'after this mortal life'.

[Darth Kwisatz]

To me, the very notion of god is metaphysically unsustainable. Forget whether he is good/bad or indifferent for a moment. Suspend belief or disbelief.

Could god possibly exist?

- From whence could god have originated (since faith teaches of creation, yet science asserts that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed)? Surely religious men created god and have sought ever since to invert the whole philosophical relationship of creation and molecular physics?

- How can a metaphysical being logically influence physics by enacting creation?

Even assuming he did exist despite these, the bigger questions relate to divinity, purpose, omnipotence, omnipresence and perfection. The assertion of each of these as articles of faith is negated by the very human descriptors by which he has "revealed" himself to his faithful on Earth.

- If god is perfect, omnipotent and eternal, WHY the need to create ANYTHING? His mere existence would be a self-fulfilling prophecy and paradigm unto itself. That idea could at a stretch even extend to allowing his metaphysical presence in the universe, except for the supremely vain notion that he could a vested interest in intervention with sentient life.

- Unless the need to create arose from a hermaphroditic metabiophysical necessity, (in which case subsequent gods would be ghola gods), why create lesser metaphysical entities such as angels, mortals etc? Does not the establishment of a hierarchy in creation betray an imperfect spiritual realm more analogous to chaos and survival than perfection?

More about this soon...

[Darth Kwisatz]

- Why would this "perfect" god (if not out of absolute necessity vital to an imperfect existence) have any need whatsoever to "create" other spiritual entities? Is heaven, and omnipotence for that matter, really that boring? Was/is god lonely? Surely this betrays an emptiness more indicative of flawed imperfection? It would surely imply a quest to realise perfection from necessarily imperfect origins? Otherwise why bother? Was it therefore otherwise just a whim? Is a whimsical god worthy therefore of wondrous worship or pity? Is that question better directed to his mortal authors? Worship or pity them?

- How and why could a "perfect" god create originally perfect spiritual entities in a perfect spiritual realm, and yet these perfect beings could be flawed by imperfection of character, and be moved to rebellion? How could a perfect creator permit imperfection within his realm, except if he were either imperfect himself, or malevolent? The expected answer is that perfection in this brutal context represents balance of good and evil, and oscillation between the two represents perfect long-term harmony. If so, is god just a Libran, or actually schitzophrenic? Is mental illness in divinity to be worshipped or pitied?

- The urge to create implies artistry. Fine. God the artist. That of itself betrays tragic compensation for and expression of imperfection. The promise of fulfilment being pursued by one who is unfulfilled. Perfect? Hardly. Not even a prodigious artist, given his urge to destroy his work, unless destruction is artistry, which it surely is, except in its cruel indifference as a reward to the faith so exactingly demanded in return for nothing except for an unfulfillable promise of heavenly reward that cannot sustain even god himself. A perfect artist, unless his art is destruction, merely creates. Or is perfect god constrained by the all too physical constraint of displacement? Does absolute perfection require renewal? Is perfection subject to decay or atrophy? Is perfection therefore relative, and therefore imperfect? Is perfection merely hypothetical, like the hypothetically infinite length of a mathematical straight line?

[Caid Ivik]

Hm, first thing to mention when one speculates about metaphysics should be, that his thoughts go beyond the physical laws. How could God originate from something, when beyond physics is no quantity? How can be physical law influented, when it isn't created? How can one talk about hermaphroditism, when there is no biological (and thus also sexual) sphere? And little harder one to formulate, how can there be anything more perfect than what there is (here and now ;) sorry, I had too much of Husserl today)?

[Dude_Doc]

- From whence could god have originated (since faith teaches of creation, yet science asserts that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed)?

Yes, but aren't scientists basically saying that everything started in the big bang? And where did that come from, and the thing that created it, and so on? The question is if it ever stops at "The Beginning of Everything", or if it goes back infinitely.

- If god is perfect, omnipotent and eternal, WHY the need to create ANYTHING? His mere existence would be a self-fulfilling prophecy and paradigm unto itself. That idea could at a stretch even extend to allowing his metaphysical presence in the universe, except for the supremely vain notion that he could a vested interest in intervention with sentient life.

Ever heard the term "God is everywhere"? :)

Does not the establishment of a hierarchy in creation betray an imperfect spiritual realm more analogous to chaos and survival than perfection?

But since God already is perfect He is willing to create whatever it is He wants to be created. You can not become more perfect if you already are at the most perfect state to be in.

- How and why could a "perfect" god create originally perfect spiritual entities in a perfect spiritual realm, and yet these perfect beings could be flawed by imperfection of character, and be moved to rebellion?

But maybe that is the perfect creation? Intelligence is full of rebellion and disloyalty. What would be the point of creating something that could/would never think completely by itself? On the other hand, of course, that wouldn't matter since we have moral law. Maybe creation exist because God wants to test what moral law really is and how it is to be followed?

[Darth Kwisatz]

How could God originate from something, when beyond physics is no quantity? How can be physical law influented, when it isn't created? How can one talk about hermaphroditism, when there is no biological (and thus also sexual) sphere? And little harder one to formulate, how can there be anything more perfect than what there is (here and now ;)

I take it we agree then.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Yes, but aren't scientists basically saying that everything started in the big bang? The question is if it ever stops at "The Beginning of Everything", or if it goes back infinitely.

Ever heard the term "God is everywhere"? :)

But since God already is perfect He is willing to create whatever it is He wants to be created. What would be the point of creating something that could/would never think completely by itself? On the other hand, of course, that wouldn't matter since we have moral law. Maybe creation exist because God wants to test what moral law really is and how it is to be followed?

One imagines things would stretch back indefinitely. The question is what catalysed the big bang? Hocus pocus in a spiritual realm?

The mere act of creation betrays imperfection. Rebellion by perfect spiritual creations with perfect intelligence in a perfect realm suggests all was not perfect, surely? Free will doesn't come into the question if things are already perfect.

What "moral law"? A selective omnibus of folk tales collated, edited and rewritten by cunning men to promote superstitious fear of an absurd proposition?

[Acriku]

But since God already is perfect He is willing to create whatever it is He wants to be created. You can not become more perfect if you already are at the most perfect state to be in.

This is flawed rationale. God is perfect, therefore nothing is needed or wanted. God had no reason at all to create man. It was not to fulfill him, it was not part of a plan because God is supposed to be complete, and it was not because he needed us. There is absolutely no reason. And that brings a scary thought to mind, that we are created for no reason, killed 95% of us for no reason, and let us suffer in evil and injustice for no reason.

And what Darth was touching on, was the 1/3 rebellion of angels ("stars" - gee, could have the story been influenced by a meteor shower and hyperboled into a vast rebellion of angels and perfect beings?) against God. Obviously, something was seen as not right in Heaven or else these perfect beings wouldn't have rebelled.

[Caid Ivik]

I take it we agree then.

Not sure, I comment your inconsistent use of language, not evaluate truth of your assertions...

[Egeides]

Acriku:

I personally think that perfection is not "out of the physical world", meanging that one that is perfect and has any possibility to act in the physical world will do so. It is part of perfection to fully care for, and fully act (of act one's own perfect state). (Now someone might bring "Why doesn't He make Earth Paradise then?"... right? ;D Because it would be imperfect act, the world not being "freely" perfect as Him - perfect of its own, in a complete way)

And God being not just "interior to himself" and non-concious (empathically concious?) of the world, I leads me to Caid's union with God "right now".

- One can pass from criticism of the world (disbelief, as in a movie with discrepancies) to its acceptance.

- If we highen the strenght of an experience, the disbelief capacity goes down and more easily broken. Yet the initial situation expanded to universal is still there.

- Therefore union with God in this world is unperfect, as unperfect as these persons are in physical reality's orientation. I expect some jerk could reach oneness, or someone caring about "feeling good".

This is where I'm at until now anyway. I thought I had recognized Catholic roots in your thinking. As for trinity, I think that it is a bit like talking about a human "whole body"... conceptualizing that it has a deciding head, a body and nerves. Calling it "three parts" seems like a convenient simplification, but it's still a body. It's much theological reactions to answer Arianist and Gnosticist claims, no? It seems like exterior rational structures, tools as rationality has the habit of forming. An earthly version, given the earthly needs of bringing something simplified even if unperfect (and made sacred within a symbolist form to compensate).

Gunwounds: Isn't it exactly where Jesus' integration of "divine pardon" is so ... so... (so something;... so perfect?)

Besides, God in my sense is of no lenience, what his non-intervention is all about. Messing the world up just for having it "straight" would be imperfect as written above (and people would equal love in them as oppression...).

[Darth Kwisatz]

I don't assert the truth of what I say either. I am suspicious of those who assert truths of any kind.

I don't personally find truth except in paradoxes. An idea can only be true to me if its complete opposite is also equally true and therefore nullifying. A relevant and irrelevant example would be "God is Love and God is Hate". That would make sense to me; other things notwithstanding.

On the surface that would appear to contradict implied answers to my rhetorical questions surrounding the nature of a perfect god, through advancing his perfection by proving imperfection. Not necessarily so. The bigger questions are whether god is firstly possible, then capable, then necessary, then interested, and finally relevant.

Eternal damnation might paradoxically indicate perfect love via this line of thought, but this line of thought strips god of any and all moral authority due to the involuntary and non-consensual conscription of souls into a spiritually binding contract articulated only interpretatively and subjectively by flawed and often fraudulent human agents, and that carries no exit clause. The notion of sin is also moot and inconsistent with god's propensity to sin if and when it suits him, if the various writings of scripture are to be either believed or accepted as being the work of his channelled hand.

The catholics were at least smart enough to see serious logical flaws in the one-god myth by inventing concepts like limbo, purgatory et.c, keeping their masses in Latin until 1964, banning contraception to keep up numbers against the moslems and cooking up the supreme smokescreen of the sacred mystery. Marlowe was clever enough to spot them, sneaky enough to expose them through the character of Mephistophilis, and lucky enough to have worked in post-Henry England rather than Massechussets. Are catholics richer or poorer for the pope's recent abolition of limbo as theological currency? Faith can be curiously pragmatic and subjective when it wants to be.

[GUNWOUNDS]

No, will is the ability to make a choice. Free will is making a choice freely, or without influence. Anyway, this is getting semantical. I almost completely forgot that free will is contradictory to God's omniscience (I think we debated this a long time ago?). If God knows all, then for an eternity prior to our existence our decisions were known and therefore cannot be changed. If our choices were known to God and can not be changed prior to us making those choices, then free will is simply an illusion.

Just because all of our decisions that we will make are recorded and locked away in some corner of God's mind (which nobody else has access to and isn't used against us in a direct manner to influence us) .... what does that have to do with how Free Will FEELS to us on this material earth right here and now?  Regardless of whether God knows that we will commit a certain action, the fact is if we weighed the choices, thought about it for a minute, and then proceeded to act on what we wanted to do, then we did make a choice of our own volition.

Think of it like this....... Think about your past..... Think about all the choices you made when you were 13, 14, 15, 16, 17yrs old.  All the choices you made and their results are stored in your mind.  They are also stored in God's mind.  Now are they any less free will just because they are stored in your mind?  Or were stored in God's mind first?

Picture yourself in your mind in the past when you were about to go do something important, now stop and freeze that frame in your mind.  You know in your mind exactly what you were about to do and exactly what happened afterwards, does that make it any less of a choice? No.  So the fact is....regardless of whether there is a "mind" out there that knows your choices and consequences of them....be it the mind of a future human who reads your biography one day or be it the mind of a deity who also exists in the future (or any time frame)....it doesn't matter your choice is your choice.......

The main problem you have with Choosing God being a Free Choice is that it is basically a no-brainer.  True, understanding the ill effects of being cut off from God shows that accepting Him is a no-brainer.  But just because a decision or a choice is a no-brainer doesnt make it any less of a choice.

I know that using Noxema face wash makes my skin look wonderful..... I know that not using it will have me ending up with pimples.   Using Noxema is a no-brainer.  Do i always use it? No.  Why?  Cause I'm lazy, or dont feel like it.... or maybe i dont care about my pimples.  A no-brainer is still a choice.  You may not like the fact that something so huge is a no brainer, but there's nothing wrong with it being a no-brainer actually, and its something you just got to get over really.  I love my Noxema... because it cleans my skin and makes it look nice.... oh but according to you its not "true" love or a choice because the alternative is unfavorable? I'm sorry but that doesnt make my admiration for what Noxema does for my skin any less genuine.  And just because getting cut off from God (hell) has serious ill effects on a being doesnt make my admiration for His power and awesomeness any less genuine.  I'm still impressed by this universe, His creative abilities, and the magnitude of gifts He has shared (love and life), and what is yet to come.

But since God already is perfect He is willing to create whatever it is He wants to be created. You can not become more perfect if you already are at the most perfect state to be in.

This is flawed rationale. God is perfect, therefore nothing is needed or wanted. God had no reason at all to create man. It was not to fulfill him, it was not part of a plan because God is supposed to be complete, and it was not because he needed us. There is absolutely no reason. And that brings a scary thought to mind, that we are created for no reason, killed 95% of us for no reason, and let us suffer in evil and injustice for no reason.

And what Darth was touching on, was the 1/3 rebellion of angels ("stars" - gee, could have the story been influenced by a meteor shower and hyperboled into a vast rebellion of angels and perfect beings?) against God. Obviously, something was seen as not right in Heaven or else these perfect beings wouldn't have rebelled.

"Obviously, something was seen as not right in Heaven or else these perfect beings wouldn't have rebelled."

God created the angels perfect, but who is to say that perfection "given" cannot be lost?  God creates us as innocents and virgins..... but we lose that don't we?  When it is said that God creates things in a perfect state it doesn't mean that the being cannot "lose" that perfection, innocence, or virginity  thru actions of its own.  God cannot lose His perfection as He is the Source of it and was not "given" to Him.  Therefore i don't see anything wrong with Angels being created perfect (conditional) and then cutting themselves  from that source and losing the perfection.  Sorta like you may have perfect skin (conditional) but only because you use Noxema facial wash.... stop using the facial wash and your perfect skin turns into a pizza face.

"But since God already is perfect He is willing to create whatever it is He wants to be created. You can not become more perfect if you already are at the most perfect state to be in."

response: I don't think God is trying to become more perfect by creating stuff.  God creates because it is the nature of a creator to create.  The wind blows, waves crash, energy flows,  a creator creates.  Its something that He does.  There needs to be no other reason than that He Creates because it is His Will and Nature to Create.  If there was  a reason it was to share.  More on that below.

"God is perfect, therefore nothing is needed or wanted-, he is complete, He doesn't need to be fulfilled"

response: Who said God did it for Himself?  Perhaps God wants to share His abundance of life with others.  So He creates beings and gives them the gift of life.  He is sharing His power His life, His love with us.  You're thinking about it backwards.  We were created so WE could be complete, so WE could experience love, so WE could experience what it is like to be ALIVE, not Him.  However these gifts must be used/enjoyed responsibly.

Just like if i give you a gift of a 200 dollar bottle of Vodka for Christmas.... you should enjoy it responsibly and not guzzle the whole thing and go driving down the interstate drunk going 150 mph. Or you'll pay the price.

[Acriku]

As for free will, you'll agree with me that it is merely an illusion, since it only FEELS like we are making our own choices, right? That is merely what I am arguing.

As for angels being perfect, if they are any able to go from perfect to imperfect, then they weren't perfect at all! That voids the angels being perfect in the first place if they can simply become imperfect (much like our own 'downfall').

Of course, there's the problem of properly defining perfection. Which nobody can do, since it is an impossible concept. Entirely subjective, and purely non-existent.

[Caid Ivik]

That's an interesting point, what is 'perfection'? Minimalistically I see it so, the smallest amount of information, needed to describe all; maximallistically, the all which exists within a functional structure (mutually reactive - or able to objectively describe all of its aspects by its own parts; if we take human mind as a part of it). Minimalist perfection is thus most ideal, while maximalist seems to be most real. Coincidentia oppositorum  :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

As for free will, you'll agree with me that it is merely an illusion, since it only FEELS like we are making our own choices, right? That is merely what I am arguing.

As for angels being perfect, if they are any able to go from perfect to imperfect, then they weren't perfect at all! That voids the angels being perfect in the first place if they can simply become imperfect (much like our own 'downfall').

Of course, there's the problem of properly defining perfection. Which nobody can do, since it is an impossible concept. Entirely subjective, and purely non-existent.

Yea just like anything you see with your eyes is an illusion... we are actually completely blind to what is around us.....we never truly "see" anything.... we are seeing snapshots of photons entering our eyes that are bouncing off of objects.  So illusions arent always bad by default. Our illusory version of optical perception is just fine just as our illusory form of free will is just fine for us.  The fact is that Free Will by all purposes is real to us and thats all it needs to be.

As far as perfection goes.... how can perfection be incapable of being conditional?    Innocence and virginity are conditional, yet if they were lost we dont say that the object was never innocent/virgin to begin with?  If i had a perfect diamond but then it becomes shattered.... its no longer perfect.  Yea perfection is hard to define just like trying to imagine a infinite being with a finite mind is boggling.  But whether something can be defined or understood by our minds  is hardly the litmus test for whether it can be at all.  I'd say God is perfect and he is incapable of losing that perfection, we can be perfect too if we are linked to him somehow or in His presence, we become part of Him.  If we are apart then we lose the perfection.  I agree that pefection is ambiguous and perhaps would should use different descriptors for exactly what it is were are describing.  A general description of perfect would be "Best that it can be".  I would be curious to know what hebrew word exactly was use to describe perfection in terms of God, humans, and angels, as well as the universe.  It would be interesting to know if they are different or equal descriptors.  We cant really argue any further (with any meaning) until we obtain more information.  I'll maybe look it up when i have some free time.

[Acriku]

Yea just like anything you see with your eyes is an illusion... we are actually completely blind to what is around us.....we never truly "see" anything.... we are seeing snapshots of photons entering our eyes that are bouncing off of objects.  So illusions arent always bad by default. Our illusory version of optical perception is just fine just as our illusory form of free will is just fine for us.  The fact is that Free Will by all purposes is real to us and thats all it needs to be.

So let's accept that it's an illusion and continue to praise God for giving that illusion to us? Hardly.

As far as perfection goes.... how can perfection be incapable of being conditional?    Innocence and virginity are conditional, yet if they were lost we dont say that the object was never innocent/virgin to begin with?  If i had a perfect diamond but then it becomes shattered.... its no longer perfect.  Yea perfection is hard to define just like trying to imagine a infinite being with a finite mind is boggling.  But whether something can be defined or understood by our minds  is hardly the litmus test for whether it can be at all.  I'd say God is perfect and he is incapable of losing that perfection, we can be perfect too if we are linked to him somehow or in His presence, we become part of Him.  If we are apart then we lose the perfection.  I agree that pefection is ambiguous and perhaps would should use different descriptors for exactly what it is were are describing.  A general description of perfect would be "Best that it can be".  I would be curious to know what hebrew word exactly was use to describe perfection in terms of God, humans, and angels, as well as the universe.  It would be interesting to know if they are different or equal descriptors.  We cant really argue any further (with any meaning) until we obtain more information.  I'll maybe look it up when i have some free time.

Perfection and innocence/virginity are not the same at all. Something perfect cannot just become imperfect for any reason - perfection begets perfection. If it's perfect, it can't stop being perfect. That's how I see perfection anyhow.

[nemafakei]

Diamonds, like anything breakable, are usually riddled with tiny, invisible cracks, which create weak points which permeate when the diamond is subjected to various forces. That's why they break.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So let's accept that it's an illusion and continue to praise God for giving that illusion to us? Hardly.

Perfection and innocence/virginity are not the same at all. Something perfect cannot just become imperfect for any reason - perfection begets perfection. If it's perfect, it can't stop being perfect. That's how I see perfection anyhow.

Many things about us are an illusion Acriku.... when you touch something you never actually "touch" it.  Your electrons on your atoms of your flesh repel against the atoms of the object you are trying to touch there is always a small gap of air or void between anything you "touch".  The repulsive force of the electrons push back your flesh putting pressure on your nerves which sense pressure and you get an illusion of touch.  You vision is an illusion. etc, etc.  But they accomplish their purpose nonetheless, do you actually have to touch something in the realest sense to really get an idea of what it feels like? No.  Do you really have to see something as it really is without depending on a light spectrum to go about your daily life?  No.  Do you really have to have free will that is so free even an omniscient God cannot predict what you will do, in order to be able to make free choices?  No.  Our perception of Free Will is free in all aspects except for some corner of God's mind that has no effect on us to even be a factor to worry about.  YOu're making a mountain out of a mole-hille.  YOu can semantically call it an illusion but that doesnt remove the fact that the Free Will serves its purpose.  You're using hyperbole to  extend the undetectable illusion of Free Will to much more detectable illusions such as those found in a fun house.  Its apples and oranges, and i dont see you making the comparison with touch or vision or any other sense.

So you're upset that God didnt make us mini-Gods all with omniscience and omnipotence?  Well to each his own, but i will give thanks for what life and love has been given to me.  What i have is more than I deserve and expected.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Diamonds, like anything breakable, are usually riddled with tiny, invisible cracks, which create weak points which permeate when the diamond is subjected to various forces. That's why they break.

Right but we have a definition of a flawless diamond.  Does flawless equate to perfect?  Also think about this... even if the diamond was truly perfect and didnt have any cracks, you could still break it.  Acriku said that perfection begets perfection and something perfect cant become imperfect, but i just dont understand that.  To me perfection is a quality that can be held and lost, the only thing incapable of losing perfection would be a Deity IMO.  Or is acriku trying to say that the ability to keep perfection is part of perfection?  If so then i would like to know what hebrew words were used in each case when referring to perfect.  Perhaps when referring to God the word perfect means "perfect"  and when referring to creation perfect means "good".  Just in the same way there are many different forms of love in Hebrew.  Perhaps different forms or definitions of perfection.

Guns

[Darth Kwisatz]

Innocence is relative to knowledge and consciousness.

Virginity, well you is or you ain't.

Back to god: Perfection? Sounds like a movable feast from the contentions advanced here. Moral Authority? Not on the basis of lack of accountability according to basic precepts of reason and extreme variability of rewritten definitions every time the poor little divinity's integrity is questioned. Probability of eligibility and worthiness to be worshipped? Very slim.

I'm just not getting any indication here that god wasn't created by man. I see faith as the ultimate heretic blasphemy.

[Acriku]

Many things about us are an illusion Acriku.... when you touch something you never actually "touch" it.  Your electrons on your atoms of your flesh repel against the atoms of the object you are trying to touch there is always a small gap of air or void between anything you "touch".  The repulsive force of the electrons push back your flesh putting pressure on your nerves which sense pressure and you get an illusion of touch.  You vision is an illusion. etc, etc.  But they accomplish their purpose nonetheless, do you actually have to touch something in the realest sense to really get an idea of what it feels like? No.  Do you really have to see something as it really is without depending on a light spectrum to go about your daily life?  No.  Do you really have to have free will that is so free even an omniscient God cannot predict what you will do, in order to be able to make free choices?  No.  Our perception of Free Will is free in all aspects except for some corner of God's mind that has no effect on us to even be a factor to worry about.  YOu're making a mountain out of a mole-hille.  YOu can semantically call it an illusion but that doesnt remove the fact that the Free Will serves its purpose.  You're using hyperbole to  extend the undetectable illusion of Free Will to much more detectable illusions such as those found in a fun house.  Its apples and oranges, and i dont see you making the comparison with touch or vision or any other sense.

So you're upset that God didnt make us mini-Gods all with omniscience and omnipotence?  Well to each his own, but i will give thanks for what life and love has been given to me.  What i have is more than I deserve and expected.

Guns

All I'm saying here is that if we recognize it as an illusion then we couldn't honestly praise God for giving us free will, likewise say our creation has any more meaning than automaton robots because we have free will (referencing the argument why we are not created to just follow his commands in the first place). I appreciate the life I have very much so, but I don't attribute it to anyone or thing besides my mother and father.