Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

I think you are generalizing too far here. I don’t belief my approach is the same with the majority of either the pro-life or pro-choice believers who are stuck [not give an inch] with the beliefs now till eternally.

My solution which is feasible and possible in the future will not end up with either the pro-life nor pro-choice stance. This dichotomy will be totally eliminated and humanity will move into another paradigm with no abortion issues at all.

Btw, I have not presented the details of my future plans, so it will be premature for you to brand me as a moral objectivist [which I strongly denial]. My approach re the Framework and System strategy is very novel which no one has officially implemented explicitly albeit it does exist implicitly in some degrees.

The critical problem re the abortion issue is ‘unwanted pregnancies.’
As such our objectives [in the future] will be ‘There will be Zero unwanted pregnancies’ (preventing the problem at source].
instead of what do to with unwanted pregnancies [fire-fighting the problem].
Note I mentioned about reframing the problem statement in another post.
The above is feasible and possible given the current very steep positive trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in all fields of knowledge, especially the new ones, like neurosciences, IT, and others.

As such when we approach from the above angle, there will be no issue of unwanted pregancies, abortion, pro-life and pro-choice and all other related fuss.

All these problems you raised are in the existing and old paradigm.

When we have the competence in the future [discuss now to implement in the future] to shift to the new paradigm, all your complains will be things of the past and irrelevant.

I anticipate you will insist what I proposed for the future is another intellectual ‘contraption’. I believe such a view is a bankrupt one.
Note over the history of mankind, humans has been speculating, forecasting and planning for the future and many plans had been implemented successfully. Note the airplane, going to the moon, my usual one on Chattel Slaver, the ‘impossible’ genome project, and tons of other projects.

That is your problem and that is why you are always stuck then suffer and poison your self with stress and its related toxins.

All humans problems [of experiential nature] start with the empirical but to resolve them we have to begin from the epistemological base then to the pragmatic doing. If not what and how else?

I don’t deny the above dilemmas exist but based on what we know we cannot resolve them based on the existing psychological states of the differing camps.

This is why I suggested if any one is standing on any side of the dilemma and faces psychological problems because the other side do not conform to one’s expectation, then one should take care of one’s psychological problem by focusing on one’s psychological self via the generic problem solving technique and know thyself.

If one focus and persist on the generic problem solving model and not the problem itself, it is likely one will have to shift one’s paradigm towards a problem that is feasible and possible.

For those not caught in the dilemma but nevertheless is a concern citizen of humanity, as with the above, the most effective solution is to find way to shift to a new paradigm by continually reframing the problem statement.

As you will note, you are stuck in one paradigm without the mindfulness and ability to try to reframe the problem statement to shift to a new paradigm.

Thus the most effective Problem Statement for the future [not now] would be,
How to ensure there is Zero murder [real or attempted].
If this is the case, there will be no dilemma related to murder at all.

@Prismatic

No, if God isn’t a chair, or a woman, those’re conditions.
In order for God to be unconditioned, it has to be both absolutely everything that is, and absolutely everything that could be, which also means, absolutely everything that could be, is.
See Pantheism.

Which also means if something could be, like say unicorns existing in another dimension, it does.

Why’re they perverts, why shouldn’t they like pain?

We’re all sadomasochists to a degree, we all like to dominate, humiliate and punish, and be dominated, humiliated and punished, it’s universal.

Some people think God can’t be perfect, because of the problem of evil.
If God is perfect, why is there evil in the world?

Zoroastrian gets around this by claiming God’s, or Mazda’s power is great, but not absolute.
They believe Mazda is opposed by a nearly equally powerful, evil entity named Ahriman.
It’s sort of like their version of Satan, but where as Jehovah created Satan, both Mazda and Ahriman are either uncreated, or were spawned from a neutral entity named Zurvan: father time.

Other religions may get around the problem of evil by claiming God isn’t perfect, that he is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent or omniscient, meaning there’s limits to what it can do/it makes mistakes, or omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent, meaning it’s partly or wholly sadomasochistic.

Others do away with the notion of good/evil altogether, they say good/evil are constructs human beings erroneously impose upon a fundamentally neutral cosmos God created for its/our amusement, or that good/evil go together, you can’t have one without the other, and so God, being a creator, wanted to create both, rather than letting there be neither.

If there was only a tree of good, how would you know it was good?

You could not. Good is a subjective call based on alternatives.

Regards
DL

And, of course, no issues about God and religion either. They don’t exist in your head now. And it’s only a matter of waiting for the future to yank them out of the heads of everyone else too.

Right. Just as the critical problem with No God is no immortality, no salvation and no divine justice. Does your “Framework and System strategy” have a solution for that too?

Thank God [if there is one] for the future. And the amazing capacity of didactic objectivists [mine not yours] to invent any number of hopelessly conflicting moral and political paradigms to go along with it.

Come on, my problem is that I refuse to accept your solution. Or, more to the point, that “solutions” themselves [in the is/ought world] would appear to be largely existential contraptions.

A classic substanceless response from someone who is only really capable of arguing through a series of numbingly abstract “general descriptions”. General descriptions of…of what exactly?

Certainly not of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars.

Cue the next Problem Statement.

[I apologize for the “tone” of this post. In part it revolves around my propensity for polemics, and in part it reflects my increasing reluctance to take you seriously.

We appear to be embedded in two very, very different ways of construing the world around us. The is/ought world in particular.]

Note Philosophers throughout the ages has deliberated on there can be no ‘ought’ from ‘is’.
There are also philosophers who has introduced views that has resolved these two contrasting dichotomy.

Note one among many is the Yin-Yang complementarity to interact the two opposites spirally into productive and progressive drives and waves that are positive to the individual and humanity.
Neil Bohr the father of quantum physics got his breakthrough from the philosophy of Yin-Yang and thus the Tao symbol in his Coat of Arms.


numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm

There are many other philosophers [notably Kant] who expounded the complementarity of 'is" and “ought” in interactive and ‘entanglement’ mode.

Your problem is you* prefer to be an ostrich to revel in your agony [mental] rather than take the trouble to lighten your philosophical and psychological burden.

  • I have encountered many like you [friends, relatives, posters, others] and it is unfortunate their brains are hardwired to such a state.

Indeed. The better secular law that you would not give up for your God’s laws.

Do you think you can get good morality from a genocidal God who kills and never does the moral thing of curing instead?

I think you are looking at satanic morals and think them good, just as you liik a a genocidal Yahweh and think that prick to be good.

Regards
DL

What natural phenomenon exists that is not absolutely perfect? And what is imperfect about it?

The critical element of the question is ‘absolutely perfect.’
Absolutely perfect meant a perfection that is ‘totally unconditional’.

E.g. of perfection that is conditional;
A perfect score of 300 points in a 10-pins-bowling game is perfect only in accordance [as conditioned] to the rules of the Ten-Pin Association.
A perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is conditioned to the criteria set.
The above examples are thus not totally unconditional.
As I have claimed everything empirical and empirically possible is conditioned by something.

God is the only thing that is claimed to be totally unconditional, i.e. it cannot be conditioned by anything but exists by itself. Thus God’s perfection cannot be conditioned by anything else, it is absolutely unconditional, thus of absolute perfection.

I gave the reason why God MUST be absolutely perfect by default so as to avoid having to eat the shit of another greater God.

This is what has been going on within Christianity.
The Islamic God emerging within 610-632AD claimed as a God of absolute perfection condemned the Christian God as a bullshit God.

Quran 37:152 [Yusuf] “Allah has begotten children”? but they are liars!

For more, note this;
islamicity.org/quransearch/a … d=cv&-find

To counter the above St. Anselm -circa 1093 to 1109 came up with the idea of the Ontological God of absolute perfection thus keeping on par with the Islam claim on Allah.
If the Christian God is not an absolutely perfect God, then it will be subjected to the derogatory condemnation by Islam in the Quran, thus condemned to eat the shit of a greater God.

So the Christian God or any God has no choice but has to claim to be an absolutely perfect God and those who are aware of this limitation will change and shift their thoughts [which is so easy] to that of an absolutely perfect God.

Do you have any counter for this or you do not mind believing in a God that is inferior to another?

You didn’t answer the question of what natural phenomenon is not absolutely perfect.

Who cares what people claim? I don’t give shit. People claim lots of stupid stuff.

That makes no sense because the greater god cannot exist, therefore the lesser god cannot eat its shit.

So what? Let them claim it. They could claim they shit lollipops too.

Well, the christian god is not perfect. He flubbed up:

Gen 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

The NIV says:

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.

Perfect gods do not have regrets.

I’m fine with the inferior god. I said “deal” before and you said “nope”.

It is your discretion to accept an inferior God to another’s greater God. If that is the case, then your lesser God is vulnerable to have to eat the shit of the greater God.

Point is you are not the majority and in any group there are always perverts.

There are no greater gods. You have proven there are no greater gods, yet you still believe greater gods can shit.

If there are no greater and lesser Gods, who is God talking about with his first commandment?

Place no other God before me.

Regards
DL

Either God was a polytheist himself when he said this or he was suggesting that those other gods were not real, just facets of his Godness or misrepresentations, or poor symbols for some of Godspowers
and/or it was a human doing marketing.

Either God was a polytheist himself when he said this or he was suggesting that those other gods were not real, just facets of his Godness or misrepresentations, or poor symbols for some of Godspowers
and/or it was a human doing marketing.
[/quote]
Your last is likely right.

Someone said, the first religion was created when the first con man met the first sucker.

History has proven that that is likely a true statement.

youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

Regards
DL

I truly doubt that. I can go along with the monotheisms to some degree being like this, but shamanic religions come out of natural processes where we (in my sense) notice life and agency or (in the current scientific sense) assume agency when we should not (that is anthropomorphize). There happens in children and adults, I posted links to this in the Brain creates religion thread. For personal reasons atheists and others must make it a negative reason - cowardice, conning, serach for profit) a negative motive. Even if there is no God, there are other more likely explanations. I get and share the rage at organized religions, but it’s just a fairy tale that assholes or cowards are the root of this.

Actually, it took a while for the first con man to arise within religion after finding out that the first sucker was right about their idiocy in being stuck on God’s cock.

Religions are basically tribal units. They appease our need of fellowship.

Add what this link tells you about our natural tendency to have an itch that there is something else going on and think of the first con man who put two and two together and there you are.

youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM&t=369s

It might be a tad more complicated and likely is but without knowing the intent of the old shaman and medicine women etc., I doubt that we will ever know. Especially given that the oldest worshiping place I know of is 75,000 years old and it was a serpent worshiping cult or tribe.

Regards
DL

Your last is likely right.

Someone said, the first religion was created when the first con man met the first sucker.

History has proven that that is likely a true statement.

youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

Regards
DL
[/quote]
Actually, it took a while for the first con man to arise within religion after finding out that the first sucker was right about their idiocy in being stuck on God’s cock.
[/quote]
Ride, ride, ride.

Regards
DL

That’s certainly one truth amongst many.

it’s not an itch for everyone, just for the masses. For some it is regular experience that something else is going on, in additions to what the masses notice.

Shamans etc. are still here, there are unbroken traditions. Pantheists and others have always been around despite what the monotheists and technocrats have done to their societies. I take it your mentioning it was a serpent worshiping cult functioned as some kind of dismissal. Whatever works for you.

Not at all. I was showing a fact and I do not dismiss facts.

In fact, in the early CE, many if not most of the mystery schools had some serpent aspects to them. That is a truth even for countries on other continents.

That may be why Christianity vilified the serpent in Genesis as compared to the original Jewish view that did not vilify the serpent.

Regards
DL