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

Being realistic from my point of view revolves around the manner in which those on both sides of the abortion wars here and now would react to your advice to “just focus on the present and plan for the future.”

Again: How does that “even begin” to make the conflicting goods here go away?

The “strait-jacket” I believe is worn by the objectivists. You either think like they do or you are wrong. Necessarily wrong. Why? Because they are necessarily right.

Not to worry though, right? In the future everyone who is truly rational and virtuous will come around to the “progressive” narrative/political agenda.

And then back again to slavery:

I rooted slavery historically in political economy above. Where have you demonstrated that it is necessarily immoral? Slavery [chattel or otherwise] is still rationalized in the world today. Indeed, the egoists and/or sociopaths need but argue that morality here revolves solely around what they perceive to be in their own best interest.

Yet here we are living in an age where once again the racists are on the march. Naturally, they have their own set of assumptions. In fact, many argue that it actually is “natural” to be racist.

I don’t think so. But how do I demonstrate that what I think here and now is that which all rational men and women are obligated to think there and then. In the future. And, as well, in any and all historical, cultural and experiential context.

Yet you predict the optimal psychological state whereby, in the future, all rational men and women come to embrace the one and only truly progessive Middle-Way. The embodiment of an “inherent drive to improve toward the better”.

Or something else as inherently vague and problematic as this.

Maybe. Or maybe you need to explore more rigorously what it is exactly that takes your own suffering away. How substantive is your own “world of words” here given just how far removed human interactions here and now are from the world as you imagine it in your head?

Are actually insisting that there is no chance at all that your own motivation here is rooted more in the psychological than the philosophical?

On the other hand [admittedly] I could just as easily have asked myself that all those years ago. When, for all practical purposes, I was more or less you.

On the other hand, “in the future”, lots and lots and lots and lots of things are “possible”.

Lucky for you. :wink:

You are not realistic at all because you are ignoring and diverting from facts.

Say, there are 10 schizophrenics reporting God spoke and is speaking to them.
In this case the first point of being realistic is to recognize the fact that their brains are connected in such a way that made them schizophrenics.
The next course of being realistic is to counsel them and explain why they are they way they are and the psychiatric conditions they are in. Some may understand to mitigate the situation.
The other reality is to threat the hardcore cases medically.

As far as the problem of schizophrenia is concern I will not advise the schizophrenics “just focus on the present and plan for the future.”
The above point is relevant to humanity as a whole. Humanity will have to tolerate with schizophrenia at the present but plan for the future to prevent schizophrenia down to zero in the future generations.

Applying the above “just focus on the present and plan for the future” to the abortion issues, meant;
‘humanity will have to tolerate with the abortion issue at the present but plan for the future to prevent abortion down to zero in the future generations or rewire the brains of the problematic ones to ensure humans are able to resolve whatever issues on abortion effectively.’ This pro life and pro-choice is a very extensive and complex but it is possible to resolve from the neural basis in the future [not now].

The problem will not go way immediately but only possible in the future.
The majority of individuals within the pro life and pro-choice issues are a lost cause at present and the only way is to tolerate them as long as there are no violence.

But for a rare group of the individual[s] at present we may advise them of “just focus on the present and plan for the future” i.e. strive to reframe their problem, cultivate equanimity and the Middle-Way.

Other than that humanity will have to tolerate with the existing individuals from the pro-life and pro-choice at present and strive for the Middle-Way in the future.

You are putting the “straight-jacket” on yourself because you are not aware of the facts or are deliberating ignoring them.

Yes, the objectivists [not me] are wearing their own “strait-jacket” with their ideology but that is a different issue from your “straight-jacket” in this case.

There is already trend of progress at present and thus hope that humanity can achieve very reasonable positive progress in the future to tackle the abortion issue.

I have used slavery because the evidence of the trend are clear-cut.
It is obvious ALL Nations in the World has adopted the UN resolution to make Chattel Slavery illegal. This is very objective to show what the protestors of slavery have been doing since 3000 years ago is now realized as truth at least as a milestone of progress albeit the legal perspective.
As with human nature, some humans will try to practice slavery in various forms but they now has to do it underground and not openly.
From this basis of progress, humanity will have to strive to lead all humans to a natural state of an aversion to all forms of slavery.

Again you are not focusing on the trend within humanity related to the attitude of racism as compared to 10,000 years ago.

From evolutionary psychology, racism as subset from tribalism was a critical necessity to facilitate survival when humans first emerged but tribalism is in general no more a critical need to facilitate survival in our modern society [except in the jungles of Amazon, Papua, etc.].

The trend is the roots of tribalism and racism must be inhibited* and modulated in our modern society due to more cons then pros and totally suppressed in the future. * The tribalistic drive is embedded deep in the brain and cannot be got rid of but only suppressed.

As I had stated we have to take note of the trend from the past [hundreds to millions of years] to the present.
The other perspective is to establish absolute moral laws as a guide [a different topic - complicated]

I stated there is not much we can do now -that is obvious because it is difficult to rewire the human brain to get instant change that are sustainable.
But is it very reasonable the change for the better [accompanied by change in the brain] is possible in the future as extrapolated from existing trends.

I understand, the default is ALL humans are born to suffer [dukkha].
Thus the rational approach is to understand what this suffering is all about and act to mitigate [rewire and change the brain] this inherent suffering to the optimal minimum.

In your case you are amplifying your own existing default suffering and make it worse by not acknowledging the facts of life.

Change is the only constant, yes, things can change for the better in the future but you are not making any change for yourself [stuck in a hole and digging deeper] or for humanity in the future.

William Barrett - Irrational Man
Btw, I have just read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and I can understand why you are so lost. The Book is full of complains of the perceived problem during his time [1958] and the existentialism presented therein is a very deformed philosophical kind.

Note the complains against Logical Positivism and Scientism common during his days till the 90s are outdated and not applicable at present in 2017.
Another complain of his i.e. academic philosophy [I don’t have a good impression of] has its pros and cons in the modern world.

Barrett also brought up the Analytic Philosophy versus Continental Philosophy issues but he was bias against the Analytic [Anglo-Saxon] and did not tread along the Middle-Way to tap what is positive from both sides.

Generally Barrett’s condemnation of the ‘other’ and bias to his own is all talk and no action.
This ‘no actions’ [to change and rewire the brain] is the most critical issue you are encountering and facing. Note I kept emphasizing ‘knowing’ must always be complemented with ‘doing’.
However in existentialism of the Continental kind, most of the elements are very superficial and advocate no practical actions for the individual to take after expelling the ‘subject’ into its version of ‘nothingness’ and the ‘absurd’ from a relative ‘somethingness’.

Again, what on earth does this have to do – substantively – with confronting the conflicting goods embedded in the “present” arguments from both sides so as to arrive at the most “progressive” “Middle-Way” assessment “in the future”?

We simply understand this is very different ways. And, in particular, how one goes about demonstrating the distinction between progressive and regressive behavior.

Here you can focus the arguments [the good] on the “natural right” of the unborn to life, or on the “political right” of women to choose abortion.

What I am looking for then is the argument that [philosophically, politically etc.] reflects the most rational manner in which mere mortals in a No God world can aim their behaviors so as to be construed by others as virtuous.

I’m not saying the argument doesn’t exist mind you, only that I [having abandoned moral objectivism here and now] have not come upon it of late.

And certainly not from you.

Instead, I get this:

A typical “general description” of…of what exactly?

Consider:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph … ion_debate

Now, what in your opinion can be gleaned from this such that Middle-Way progressive behaviors can [eventually] be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world?

After all, in the “ideal state”, Plato once proposed this: “The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.”

How close is this to your “progressive Middle-Way”?

On the other hand, much of the world today is clearly embedded in the global capitalist economy. Back again to the historical relationship between slavery and political economy.

But where is the philosophical argument that slavery is inherently [necessarily] irrational and/or immoral? In a No God world?

Basically, you are arguing this: that even though others might rationalize slavery from their own selfish points of view [historically, culturally, experientially], to the extent that these points of view don’t align themselves with your own, they are wrong.

Thus folks like Plato and Aristotle in particular really fucked up here.

The trend back then was wrong. The trend today is right. And our trend reflects the one and only rational manner in which any future generations must align their own political narratives/agendas.

With yours.

Though of course you are not being an objectivist here.

And that’s before we get to issues like abortion, the role of government, animal rights, gun control etc., in which political opinions are considerably more fractured.

I think your are messing and conflating lots of different things here.

If you are looking for an argument as highlighted above, then you should open a separate thread to discuss it.

My train of thought and discussion with ‘you’ is you stated you have a mental problem with conflicting goods and is troubled with it.
Thus what I have been discussing with ‘you’ is why are you so disturbed by ‘conflicting goods’ and my contribution to the discussion is to analyze and reveal the root cause [ultimate, proximate, others].

If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

This is why I am suggesting we tolerate the existing abortion issue at present in this case and focus on why ‘you’ are having an issue with conflicting goods which I believe is due to your being brainwashed with a deformed version of existentialism [Continental].

At present there is no way you can change the minds of the hardcore believers of the pro-life and pro-choice immediately. Can you? But it is possible in the future and this has to be discussed in a separate thread[s] so that we don’t mess with the personal issue you have with ‘conflicting goods’ and other existential problems.

As I had suggested, the above has to be addressed in details in a separate thread.

This again require a separate thread to get into the details.
There are very strong philosophical arguments from the secular perspective why slavery is immoral. One is the Golden Rule, i.e. who in the world would want to be a chattel slave to another human. There are other ways to ground the universal moral rule why Slavery is not permissible morally.

Please remember that.

As I had suggested, to discuss the above, raise specific threads in the relevant sections.
I believe you are too engaged with the forms rather than the substance of a problem.

My understanding from your posts is you are trapped in a deep hole you have dug yourself arising from your knowledge of existentialism. Why and how to get out? that is the substance of the problem we should focus on rather than diverging into the forms which could be infinite. Agree?

Yes, in the future lots and lots and lots and lots of things are possible. But in the present you seem intent only on avoiding a discussion that revolves around arguments that speak directly [and substantively] to the actual conflicting goods embedded in, among other things, the abortion wars.

Your progressive Middle-Way narrative has to start somewhere. But you and I seem far removed regarding the extent to which you are willing to go there.

Perhaps that can be rectified, perhaps not.

On this thread, or on any other thread, pertaining to any God or No God narrative deemed superior or inferior, I’m still entangled in my dilemma. But I’ll be damned if I can figure out how exactly you are not.

Not in the world of actual flesh and blood interactions.

@Prismatic

Christians, Muslims and Jews don’t believe God is say a chair, or a woman, so their God is conditional.

The point is some theists can and do believe in relatively impotent Gods.

I said other Gods, not any Gods.

If they don’t believe God is say a chair, or a woman, then they are striving toward believing in a God that is unconditional, i.e. not related or conditioned to a chair or woman.

Generally a normal human will avoid pain, but there are perverts like masochists and others who deliberate trigger pains for various reasons. But these humans are abnormal and comprised only of a small percentile of humans.

I agree there are theists [like the abnormal above and others] who will accept a lesser god for various reasons but the majority of theists in the know will never accept a God that is inferior to another due to the reasons I have highlighted.

Yes, things are possible in the future, but what is possible must be based on present experiences and justifications. Based on the existing trends I am confident humanity will be able to resolve the ‘abortion’ issue in the future.

It is not that I don’t want to go there.
Note my preference is this;
If you have specific issues in relation to conflicting goods, e.g. issues on abortion, etc., I suggest you discuss them in specific threads in the appropriate section of this forum.

You keep reminding me of the ‘abortion’ issue and I kept avoiding the issue.
My point is this;
Whilst I understand you raised the abortion issue as a ‘conflicting good’ I note it is complicated by other problems that you are facing.
Since there are various problems, I have redirect the issue to ‘How to resolve any problem on a generic basis?’

In this particular case, I am not interested in dealing with a specific issue, e.g. re abortion. Rather I think it would be more effective to discuss the general, i.e. How to resolve any problem?
Now if you good at resolving any problem, X, Y or Z, then you can easily resolve the abortion issue yourself, i.e. no need for me to get involved.

Here I am discussing an issue, i.e. God or No God but it is not entangled in any dilemma in relation to this question.
On this issue I can detach myself from the issue.

Actually I am not very sure what is the nature of your dilemma or should there be a dilemma at all in the first place.

A more obvious dilemma would be something like, if you in such a a situation;
“I [Iambigous] have just murdered someone and I am in a dilemma [conflicting on what to do] to confess [as per conscience] to the police or ran away to a foreign country, etc.”
If the dilemma is that clearcut, then I can give my views on how to resolve the above dilemma.

If someone is in a dilemma re abortion, it could be a simple dilemma like whether to go ahead with the abortion or not.

If someone is having a certain views re abortion but not actually directly involved in it, this is not exactly a real dilemma. This is only having a mental dilemma which can easily be resolved mentally by applying the generic problem solving technique I proposed earlier.

If God is not any of those things, then God is limited, for example God might be ONLY spirit and not found in nature. That would be one of the conditions of God’s existence.

The God(s) in question do not have to be inferior to other Gods, nor need there be other Gods for a God to have limited powers in some way. It was only the rise of rather weird theological arguments that a mathematically unlimited and perfect God arose. The God of the OT gets pissed off, changes his mind, competes with Lucifer. This is not some unconditional mathematically perfect and all powerful entity. Many religions grant other entities power over parts of creation and this includes Christianity.

Yes, but my argument here is that all of the other moral objectivists then tell me exactly the same thing. Like you, they are all convinced there is a way in which to resolve the abortion wars. But only if others are willing to accept that their own initial assumptions are the place to start.

That’s the part embodied in what I call the “psychology of objectivism”. It’s the being sure that counts far, far more than whatever it is that you/they are sure about.

The being sure is the subjunctive foundation for any comfort and consolation one can accumulate in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of human pain and suffering brought on by all manner of conflicting goods.

And I know how this works first hand because it was years before I was able to abandon my own objectivist narrative. It becomes engrained in “I” because without it “I” begins to fracture and fragment into the dilemma I am myself entangled in here and now.

And it is in avoiding this, in my view, that precipitates many of the hostil reactions I get. And then the irony being that I strive myself to yank myself up out of the hole. Recognizing all the while that the hole itself is just another existential contraption.

On the other hand, at least that is a source of hope, right?

And what the fuck difference does it make [to me] if I pursue that on this thread or on a new one? You are either able to demonstrate to me why you are not entangled in that dilemma yourself or you are not.

Though even here it is never a question of which of us is right or wrong. Why? Becasue that is embedded in the gap between what any of us think we know about these things “here and now” and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know this. Something that you obviously don’t think about in the same way at all.

Instead, you want this:

That’s not me though. You’ll need to pursue that “technical”, “analytic”, “serious philosophy” stuff with others here. And while I don’t argue that this sort of thing is unimportant, my interest revolves more around any conclusions that are reached and their applicability to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

How can I possibly make it clearer?

1] some argue reasonably that abortion is moral
2] some argue reasonably that abortion is immoral

They merely premise their arguments with conflicting goods: the right of the baby to life, the right of the woman to abort it.

Now, what then are philosophers/ethicists to make of this? What is the argument said to reflect either the optimal or the only rational frame of mind? An argument then used to precipitate the optimal or the only rational behaviors.

How are you not embedded in my own dilemma in assessing this? The part about dasein, the part about conflicting goods, the part about political economy.

Instead, all I see is you proposing here is yet another “intellectual scaffold” designed to convey to others how they ought to think epistemologically about conflicts of this sort.

But what of those who are not in a dilemma at all? They rationalize the murder given their own assumptions about the context. Or they rationalize all of their behaviors as the embodiment of self-interest in a No God world. Then their only concern is not being caught. In other words, the legal consequences of murder.

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.