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

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:59 am

phyllo wrote:
Absolute [unconditional] Perfection
You know that there is something wrong when it's necessary to pile on more words so that plain "perfection" goes for a ride ... perfection -> absolute perfection -> absolute [unconditional] perfection -> absolute {totally unconditional] perfection.

Is this just the equivalent of yelling louder when people don't accept your argument? Or is it hiding behind the complexity of more words?
Nope.
Absolute = unconditional = totally unconditional is just an additional meaning and emphasis.

If you and others have understood what is 'absolute' easily I would not have to waste time explaining. Note;

absolute
ˈabsəluːt/Submit
adjective

1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More

2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More

noun PHILOSOPHY
1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"


God is usually presented as the 'Father of all absolutes' i.e. absolutely absolute.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:06 am

phyllo wrote:If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.
The term "perfection" fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of 'perfect'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word 'perfect' but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:31 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: Agree in general with the points you raised.
I have highlighted the difference between 'absolute perfection' and 'conditional perfection.'
The examples you gave are conditional perfection, e.g. a perfect score in an objective test, a perfect score 7/7 or 10/10 in a diving or gymnastic competition. Such conditional perfection are conditioned upon some agreed criteria within a group people.


We define a perfect game in Bowling as 12 strikes in a row in a 10 frame game. Meet that condition and you are perfect. But suppose the game of bowling consisted of 50 frames...or 100 frames? How much perfection then?

And Larsen pitched a perfect game because his performance fell within the defined parameters of what everyone agrees this means.

But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.

"Perfection" in human interactions will often revolve around a particular set of assumptions.

On the other hand, a diving competition precludes the sort of perfection that can be measured in a swim meet. You are either the fastest [measured by the clock] or you are not. But in diving there are too many opportunities for subjective interpretations of the dive. Conscious or unconscious.
The point here is we can have relative perfection but these are conditioned to the criteria set and agreed by a group of people.

But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.
The above is not an impossibility albeit odds are very very slim. The point this is nevertheless a relative perfection when agreed by a group of people but set with more higher standard.

The critical point here is the understanding of the difference between 'absolute perfection' [applicable only for God] versus 'relative perfection'.



Prismatic567 wrote: Re the highlighted above: But how on earth would we even begin to establish that which constitutes perfection in God?
The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason and cannot be a natural thing. Theists will claim God is a natural thing. If natural, then prove it naturally and this is not possible, i.e. impossible.


Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.

Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that "I" too am no less the embodiment of this gap.

How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?

I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?

And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?


Prismatic567 wrote: I agree an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God seem reasonable and possible but only within thought and definitely not within an empirical-rational reality.
I believe you are setting up an impossible ultimate limit, i.e.

.... ALL that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails ...

This is an expectation that can only be achieved by an omniscient God [if exists].

In this case, you will not be above to resolve your problem because of wrong view and wrong thought. [note the Generic 4NT-8FP problem solving technique highlighted the Dassein thread].

Note I mentioned Russell's there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a "certain" answers to any question - note Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty'.

I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].

Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.

Effectively we should always ground our problems on the known and extend outward into the possible unknown, not the impossible unknown as you have done. This is what the Buddha meant by one creating their own dukkha [problem].
This is also how Science proceeds to gain knowledge grounded on its Scientific Framework [with processes, assumptions, etc.]

I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.

Agreeing or not agreeing with what you think isn't the point from my frame of mind. Instead, the point revolves around your capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to agree. Here and now in other words, and not in some distant future where folks like you and I surmise that we will not even be around anyway!

To either confirm your prognostications or to experience a world in which they prevail.
Note your ALL and 'obligated' again which set an ultimate limit.
In this case, the target is the majority or a critical mass not ALL [100%].
Note the principles of the Bell Curve, human variables will always be widely distributed, i.e. we cannot expect ALL humans to be 6 feet tall, or 80 kilo in weight.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:53 am

Prism, this is the reference that you gave for "perfect";
perfect
[adjective, noun pur-fikt; verb per-fekt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type:
a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

Note that there is no conditional, but there is a "description of an ideal". So we are back to the fact that your definitions are screwy.

When I first explained that to you, you refused it, saying that such a definition involving an ideal is only "conditional". And yet right there from your own reference, it clearly states "absolute".

And as explained to you long ago, there is no "absolutely perfect" because that is redundant;
    "absolutely conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal".

Nor is there a "conditionally perfect" as that would be an oxymoron;
    "conditionally conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal."

But beyond that, the term "absolute perfection" has no descriptor or ideal mentioned. It is an incomplete thought. And thus certainly not a definition of anything.

So when you say,
    "P1- Absolute perfection is impossible"
You have made a nonsense statement (as was explanation to you from the beginning). It is like saying;
    "P1- Absolutely Larger than is impossible"



The first premise that you give is false
    "P1- Absolute perfection is impossible"

And even if it made sense, you would not be able to prove it to be true. It would still be an invalid premise.

      Thus your syllogism is INVALID.
And all of this was explained to you long ago. But now even YOU provided a correct definition which shows WHY you have been wrong this entire time.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:44 am

JSS wrote:The first premise that you give is false
"P1- Absolute perfection is impossible"

And even if it made sense, you would not be able to prove it to be true. It would still be an invalid premise.

Thus your syllogism is INVALID.
And all of this was explained to you long ago. But now even YOU provided a correct definition which shows WHY you have been wrong this entire time.

Note my reply to the above exposing your deception;
viewtopic.php?p=2689433#p2689433

Note my reminder;

Prismatic wrote:
phyllo wrote:If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.
The term "perfection" fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of 'perfect'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word 'perfect' but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:00 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.
The term "perfection" fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of 'perfect'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word 'perfect' but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.

I gave several examples on how it might be used, ffs.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:19 am

phyllo wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.
The term "perfection" fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of 'perfect'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word 'perfect' but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.

I gave several examples on how it might be used, ffs.
If those examples are the same as the one I highlighted

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect
Perfect
adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type:
a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose:
a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings:
a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail:
a perfect copy.
6. thorough; complete; utter:
perfect strangers.
7. pure or unmixed:
perfect yellow.
8. unqualified; absolute:
He has perfect control over his followers.
9. expert; accomplished; proficient:
She will need a perfect driving teacher.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree:
He made a perfect fool of himself.


then we should be in agreement with how I used the term perfect in my P1 and P2.

The above 'perfect' is applied to what is in the empirical world, but for a God which is supposedly infallible, such a God cannot be attributed with 'relative perfection' for humans, thus the 'perfection' attributed to a God must be absolute, i.e. unconditional.

By reason,
    P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]
    P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
    C.. Therefore God is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]

As I had stated,
since by reason the above is not tenable, there is no way one can even start to consider God exists as a hypothesis, i.e. God exists is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality.

The real reason why God exists within the consciousness of the human majority is due to inherent psychological reasons. I have provided evidences for this.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:21 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note my reply to the above exposing your deception;
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 3#p2689433

Note my reminder;

Prismatic wrote:
phyllo wrote:If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.
The term "perfection" fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of 'perfect'
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word 'perfect' but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.

And note mine at Your syllogism is an intentional deception.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:31 am

And Prism, let's not forget;

By your own definition of "Truth", "intersubjective consensus", you are wrong because everyone here agrees that you are wrong.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:53 am

James S Saint wrote:And Prism, let's not forget;

By your own definition of "Truth", "intersubjective consensus", you are wrong because everyone here agrees that you are wrong.
As I had said many times, your philosophical views as posted here are very shallow and narrow.
E.g. there are 10 meanings of 'perfect' in the dictionary, but you prefer the narrow and shallow path of merely choosing only one when there are so many related meanings which I had intended to use.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And Prism, let's not forget;

By your own definition of "Truth", "intersubjective consensus", you are wrong because everyone here agrees that you are wrong.
As I had said many times, your philosophical views as posted here are very shallow and narrow.
E.g. there are 10 meanings of 'perfect' in the dictionary, but you prefer the narrow and shallow path of merely choosing only one when there are so many related meanings which I had intended to use.

And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:42 pm

Prismatic wrote :
The above 'perfect' is applied to what is in the empirical world, but for a God which is supposedly infallible, such a God cannot be attributed with 'relative perfection' for humans, thus the 'perfection' attributed to a God must be absolute, i.e. unconditional.

By reason,

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]


As I had stated,
since by reason the above is not tenable, there is no way one can even start to consider God exists as a hypothesis, i.e. God exists is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality.
You do realize that all you are saying is that the real god (if He/She/It exists) doesn't have this particular characteristic of absolute perfection which you and some theists insist that He must have.

IOW, you not disproving the existence of God, you're disproving the existence of an absolutely perfect God. (and "absolutely perfect" is your own definition of perfection)
The real reason why God exists within the consciousness of the human majority is due to inherent psychological reasons. I have provided evidences for this.
You have not shown that at all. Although it may well be true.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:53 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And Prism, let's not forget;

By your own definition of "Truth", "intersubjective consensus", you are wrong because everyone here agrees that you are wrong.
As I had said many times, your philosophical views as posted here are very shallow and narrow.
E.g. there are 10 meanings of 'perfect' in the dictionary, but you prefer the narrow and shallow path of merely choosing only one when there are so many related meanings which I had intended to use.

And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.
Which two?

Btw, where do you get the idea all the meanings listed in a dictionary for one word must all agree?
Note:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gay; homosexuality, joyful
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/general; common, a rank in military, etc.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:15 am

phyllo wrote:
Prismatic wrote :
The above 'perfect' is applied to what is in the empirical world, but for a God which is supposedly infallible, such a God cannot be attributed with 'relative perfection' for humans, thus the 'perfection' attributed to a God must be absolute, i.e. unconditional.

By reason,

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C.. Therefore God is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]


As I had stated,
since by reason the above is not tenable, there is no way one can even start to consider God exists as a hypothesis, i.e. God exists is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality.
You do realize that all you are saying is that the real god (if He/She/It exists) doesn't have this particular characteristic of absolute perfection which you and some theists insist that He must have.

IOW, you not disproving the existence of God, you're disproving the existence of an absolutely perfect God. (and "absolutely perfect" is your own definition of perfection)
The real reason why God exists within the consciousness of the human majority is due to inherent psychological reasons. I have provided evidences for this.
You have not shown that at all. Although it may well be true.
I agree with your points above.

My argument is very specific to only an absolutely perfect God.
I stated God-proper regardless must ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.

Thus if you claim a God that is not absolutely perfect God and has empirical elements, then my argument will not apply.
When you impute empirical elements [not absolutely absolute elements] into a God, then such a God is empirically possible.
But an empirical God by definition will be an inferior God to a God that is absolutely perfect. If you accept your God is an inferior God, that is your prerogative but such an empirical God will be subjected to the command of the superior God to kiss its arse.

For example you can believe in an anthropological [empirical] God like 'the gigantic bearded man in the sky, I will agree such an empirical based god is possible. Note below.

Image

But the point is, rationally, the possibility of such a God existing is 0.00..1 probable.

However the final test is, since it is empirical based, then bring the evidence [exactly as describe] for empirical testing and verification.

Theists can describe their God with whatever empirical qualities which not an impossibility, but the final test is bring the evidence to justify the empirical existence of God.

Besides the empirical God faced the question of 'Who created that God' and thus ending with an infinite regression which only reason can resolve.

Either way, it is checkmate situation for the theists' claim God exists.

As I has claimed, the only possible reason for how the idea of God arise in the consciousness of humans is due to psychological impulses driven by an existential crisis. You may have missed the explanations and evidences I provided to support this point.
See: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697
I have given links in other posts, e.g. this amongt others

Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby Dan~ » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:23 am

I am repeating myself, but, a lesser but kind god is preferable compared to a cruel god that was more strong and intelligent than the first.
I'm most familiar with Jehovah's Witness conception of might makes right.
Because he created you, he owns you, and you are a slave that must obey or die.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:28 am

Dan~ wrote:I am repeating myself, but, a lesser but kind god is preferable compared to a cruel god that was more strong and intelligent than the first.
I'm most familiar with Jehovah's Witness conception of might makes right.
Because he created you, he owns you, and you are a slave that must obey or die.

The reference is to greatest and an omni-good God which will do no wrong.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Over the course of, say, your entire life, has anyone ever come to define the words you use to encompass RM/AO more precisely than you have?

Can you provide us with some examples?

Not that this is at all relevant to the topic (but when are your questions ever), I learn from others, sure. Why don't you?


Again, note some specific examples. You thought one thing and then others come along able to persuade you to think something else instead.

Note particular instances of this: Not the details so much as the ideas themselves --- important ideas that were reconfigured.

As, for example, folks [and new experiences] came along reconfiguring my Christianity into Marxism into Leninism into Trotskyism into Democratic Socialism into Social Democracy into existentialism into nihilism.

Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.

But let's be clear...

Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?

That new experiences and new relationships and new sources of knowledge/information etc., may well come along in your life and change it?

Which is basically my own frame of mind here.

Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?

Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume "I" in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.

Certainty on this side of the grave intertwined somehow in your head with the Real God on the other side of it.

James S Saint wrote: And I have changed the words that I use on rare occasion. I realized that "RM" was not the ontology as much as the method for designing the ontology, thus it became "RM/AO" instead of just "RM". FC helped me with the wording of "self-harmony" as being more to the point than just "harmony". I don't use "SAM corporation" now merely because people associate it with those evil money hogging imperialists, but rather "SAM Co-op".


But this is still basically just an intellectual contraption. How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.

How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?

Are you ever really willing to bring the "definitional logic" embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?

Note to others:

Sure, maybe he has done so. I don't read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO's pertinence to the is/ought world.


James S Saint wrote: But of course what you and many don't get is that once you have done that for quite a while, doubting yourself in constructive ways, you eventually find that there is hardly anything left to doubt. And that is what bothers you so very much. You want everyone to be as frightened with self-doubt as yourself.


Sure, given the sheer complexity of human psychology in a world bursting at the seams with all those equally complex interactions between genes and memes, it's certainly possible that you have come closer to encompassing me than I have to encompassing you.

We can only allow others here to make up their own minds about that.

And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty. And, yes, it can be rather frightening when you have "succeeded" in thinking yourself into believing that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all of eternity in the obliteration of "I".

You got me there. That is what I have managed to think myself into believing is probably true regarding the "human condiditon".

But I still speculate in turn that what "frightens" objectivists of your ilk is that before you manage to drag me up out of the hole that I have dug myself into, I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.

Still, that doesn't make either one of our own contraptions here any less problematic. At least not until someone is able to actually demonstrate conclusively that what they think Reality is, is in fact what Reality is.

In other words, not just in their heads.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:54 pm

Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
So what if there is a gap?

You go out and learn about the world and you try to reduce the gap.

But it never goes away. Then you die.

So what?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

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

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:note some specific examples.

Why did you ignore the ones that I gave?

iambiguous wrote:You thought one thing and then others come along able to persuade you to think something else instead.

That's why I "verify" until there is nothing left to question or change.

iambiguous wrote:Note particular instances of this: Not the details so much as the ideas themselves --- important ideas that were reconfigured.
.
Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.

The fundamentals of RM/AO are immutable, but extended unproven theories can be modified, corrected, or just abandoned. For example (and don't ignore it this time) we were talking about the cause of red-shift. I proposed the theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism. Phyllo suggest a different possible mechanism. When I heard his theory, it was clear to me that his theory was more probable than mine, although the theories were not exclusive, so both would have influence. So after that, I kept watching for any details concerning the issue and eventually just accepted the much higher probability that phyllo's theory was the most significant and right.

But you should realize that in RM/AO there are thoughts that absolutely must be true and others that are mere extended personal theory. That is something that you don't seem to get. You appear to say "well if anything was wrong, everything might be wrong". That is false reasoning. There are different kinds of thoughts, some of which can never be wrong.

iambiguous wrote:Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?

What is "optimal" is contingent upon the circumstances. And there are many "rational" ways to explain the same reality. RM/AO is merely one ontology that, unlike public physics theories, is "complete".

iambiguous wrote:Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?

Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume "I" in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.

I don't know what you mean by "about the existence of Existence", but any "gaps" concerning RM/AO and fundamental existence are relatively insignificant. RM/AO answers many questions that public physics currently cannot answer without disagreeing with anything they have observed. RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute.

iambiguous wrote:But this is still basically just an intellectual contraption.

Any actual thinking is, to you, an "intellectual contraption". So who cares.

iambiguous wrote:How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.

How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?

Are you ever really willing to bring the "definitional logic" embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?

Sure, maybe he has done so. I don't read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO's pertinence to the is/ought world.

I have done that many times. Such things are not your concern. Your priority is casting doubt and insecurity, so stick with it.

iambiguous wrote:And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty.

That seems to be your comfort zone, so you are certainly not interested in leaving it behind.

iambiguous wrote: I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.

Not a chance.

iambiguous wrote: until someone is able to actually demonstrate conclusively that what they think Reality is, is in fact what Reality is.

"Demonstrate conclusively" is in the eyes of the beholder and guess what. You have demonstrated that you have no interest at all in getting out of your own dasien "contraption".

iambiguous wrote:In other words, not just in their heads.

All thoughts are "just in your head".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:12 am

phyllo wrote:
Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
So what if there is a gap?

You go out and learn about the world and you try to reduce the gap.

But it never goes away. Then you die.

So what?
I am all for Gap Management, i.e. between what is planned/intended and what is actually achieved, and to reduce the gap. This is critical for life as when one failed to plan, one had already planned to fail.

But as I had highlighted to iambiguous in the Dassein thread, his idea of
"all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself" in order make that gap go away ..
is an impossibility. So his proposition is not tenable.

For example with Science, we start from knowledge of the scientifically known and extrapolate from the known to the possible-to-be-known.
The "ALL" that iambiguous set up is an impossibility to be achieved or known.
This "ALL" is the same with the idea of God which is an impossibility.

The only exception for the requirement of 'ALL' is within the absolute morals of Philosophical of Morality.



In other cases, it would be more effective in life to adopt the Principles of Continuous Improvement from the current state -in baby steps or quantum leaps - toward possible goals [not impossible ones as iambiguous is expecting].

In general, when one set impossible goals and expect to achieve it or even near it, one is merely bringing sufferings to oneself.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.


The above is not an impossibility albeit odds are very very slim. The point this is nevertheless a relative perfection when agreed by a group of people but set with more higher standard.

The critical point here is the understanding of the difference between 'absolute perfection' [applicable only for God] versus 'relative perfection'.


From my point of view though, the critical point revolves around distinguishing between perfection we can point to empirically in the world around us, and perfection that is sheer speculation regarding an entity that one merely has faith in the existence of.

Or defines into existence. Or infers into existence by way of an intellectual contraption.

Then it's back to this:

Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.

Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that "I" too am no less the embodiment of this gap.

How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?

I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?

And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?


Prismatic567 wrote: Note I mentioned Russell's there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a "certain" answers to any question - note Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty'.


Yes, and this is applicable to each and everyone of us, each and every time we speculate about these things. The limitations of philosophy [and even of science so far] seems of paramount importance here.

There's human knowledge able to be verified; and then there's conjecture. Conjecture embedded in the unknown unknowns.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].

Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.


Okay, but this doesn't make the gap go away. There either is or there is not an "ultimate limit" of knowledge. And that either is or is not within reach of the human species here on earth.

How is it not reasonable then to set up the problem in this manner?

On the other hand, in my view, there are any number of objectivists who "solve" the problem by concocting one or another "world of words"; one or another set of intellectual assumptions. Here what is said to be true basically revolves around the definition and the meaning that they give to the words themselves.

Then others are invited up into the clouds to debate these definitions.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.


Okay, but: I have no idea how "for all practical purposes" this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of "I" on the other side of it.

How is this sort of "salvation" relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?

And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
So what if there is a gap?

You go out and learn about the world and you try to reduce the gap.

But it never goes away. Then you die.

So what?


So what?

Well, tell that to the religious fanatics and the political ideologues who [historically] insisted that not only is there no gap between what they believed is true and all one would need to know in order to determine this but that everyone else was obligated to believe it in turn.

Or tell that to the objectivists here who become incensed at others because they refuse to swallow their own TOE hook, line and sinker. Who then resort to huffing and puffing and name-calling and ad-homs.

If we live in a world without God, there does not appear [to me] to be a way in which to know "how one ought I to live."

Not essentially, objectively, deontologically.

And that makes all the difference in the world -- this one -- when it comes time for the folks in power to legislate into existence behaviors that are either prescribed or proscribed.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:21 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:note some specific examples.

Why did you ignore the ones that I gave?


My guess? Because we disagree regarding what constitutes an example.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:Note particular instances of this: Not the details so much as the ideas themselves --- important ideas that were reconfigured.

Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.

James S Saint wrote: The fundamentals of RM/AO are immutable, but extended unproven theories can be modified, corrected, or just abandoned. For example (and don't ignore it this time) we were talking about the cause of red-shift. I proposed the theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism. Phyllo suggest a different possible mechanism. When I heard his theory, it was clear to me that his theory was more probable than mine, although the theories were not exclusive, so both would have influence. So after that, I kept watching for any details concerning the issue and eventually just accepted the much higher probability that phyllo's theory was the most significant and right.


But isn't that what all of the objectivists note regarding their own TOE? And they either are or are not able to demonstrate if what they argue is true is in sync with what is in fact true. Speculations about the "theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism" are either more or less in accordance with whatever constitutes Existence itself.

But, again, the fact that you reconfigured your thinking here to be more in line with Phyllo's clearly indicates that this can happen again. And, indeed, that further information/knowledge may well be forthcoming that reconfigures the thinking of both of you.

And that is with respect to interactions unfolding in the either/or world.

James S Saint wrote: But you should realize that in RM/AO there are thoughts that absolutely must be true and others that are mere extended personal theory. That is something that you don't seem to get. You appear to say "well if anything was wrong, everything might be wrong". That is false reasoning. There are different kinds of thoughts, some of which can never be wrong.


On a thread devoted to theistic renditions of inferior Gods, how is this relevant? What here must be "absoultely true" in order to be in sync with RM/AO.

How is the Real God to be factored in here? For, say, "all practical purposes" in our day to day interactions?

Given that theology [the critical study of the nature of the divine] would seem to be greatly concerned with the extant relationship between the divine and human interactions out in a world of conflicting goods, political economy and oblivion.

iambiguous wrote:Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?

James S Saint wrote: What is "optimal" is contingent upon the circumstances. And there are many "rational" ways to explain the same reality. RM/AO is merely one ontology that, unlike public physics theories, is "complete".


Okay, note a set of circumstances we might all be familiar with and discuss these contingencies as construed from your own particular ontology.

iambiguous wrote:Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?

Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume "I" in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.

James S Saint wrote: I don't know what you mean by "about the existence of Existence", but any "gaps" concerning RM/AO and fundamental existence are relatively insignificant. RM/AO answers many questions that public physics currently cannot answer without disagreeing with anything they have observed. RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute.


That's my point: No one really knows what it means to discuss "the existence of Existence". Why? Because we are encompassed in it ourselves and [here and now] don't have access to all of the knowledge that would be needed to grasp it. It's just that there are folks [including some philosophers and scientists] who note that right from the start of any particular discussion. You claim that "RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute" but how have you actually demonstrated it?

Other than in claiming to have.

And by keeping RM/AO and the Real God as far removed from actual human interactions in the is/ought world as most such intellectual contraptions intend to.

iambiguous wrote:How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.

How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?

Are you ever really willing to bring the "definitional logic" embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?

[b]Note to others:

Sure, maybe he has done so. I don't read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO's pertinence to the is/ought world.

James S Saint wrote: I have done that many times. Such things are not your concern. Your priority is casting doubt and insecurity, so stick with it.


Note to others [again]:

He claims to have done this. Do you agree that he has? If so, note what you deem to be the best example of this.


iambiguous wrote:And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty.

James S Saint wrote: That seems to be your comfort zone, so you are certainly not interested in leaving it behind.


My "comfort zone"? I take comfort in being entangled in my dilmma embedded in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningingless world that will end for me with the obliteration of "I" for all time to come?!!!!

iambiguous wrote: I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.

James S Saint wrote: Not a chance.


This of course speaks volumes regarding the extent to which RM/AO has become a deeply engrained psychological defense mechanism for you, James.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, not just in their heads.

James S Saint wrote: All thoughts are "just in your head".


True. But I make that crucial distinction between those thoughts in your head that you believe are true and those thoughts in your head that you can demonstrate others are obligated to believe in turn.

For example, I think that Donald Trump is now the President of the United States. On the other hand, I've never actually been to Washington D.C. of late, and seen him in the Oval Office doing presidential things.

All I can suggest is that what I think is true here can be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us.

I merely shift the discussion from that which can be demonstrated as in fact true to those things that we believe are true, but: but instead seem to revolve more around the meaning I construe regarding the existential interaction of self, value judgments and political power.

For example, "I" believe that Trump is a terrible president.

But to what extent can I demonstrate that this is more than just a political prejudice, a subjective point of view rooted in dasein? How on earth would I be able to demonstrate not only that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same, but that this belief is wholly in sync with whatever needs to be known about the existence of Existence itself?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

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

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:My "comfort zone"? I take comfort in being entangled in my dilmma embedded in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningingless world that will end for me with the obliteration of "I" for all time to come?!!!!

Obviously you have no idea how such works. If you run out of things to whine about, you have to face having no excuse - comfort in staying afraid and desperately finding something to whine about.

iambiguous wrote:On a thread devoted to theistic renditions of inferior Gods, how is this relevant?

Exactly.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

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

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:08 am

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My "comfort zone"? I take comfort in being entangled in my dilmma embedded in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningingless world that will end for me with the obliteration of "I" for all time to come?!!!!

Obviously you have no idea how such works. If you run out of things to whine about, you have to face having no excuse - comfort in staying afraid and desperately finding something to whine about.

iambiguous wrote:On a thread devoted to theistic renditions of inferior Gods, how is this relevant?

Exactly.


Once again, my friend, I have managed to reduce you down to retorts.

On the other hand, your TOE remains intact. My guess? All the way to the grave.

Unless of course you're wrong.

Not a chance, right? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users