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

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.

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

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

Place no other God before me.

Regards
DL

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

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

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

History has proven that that is likely a true statement.

youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

Regards
DL