Is God Perfect?

[Ecurb]

The "perfection" of the Judeo-Christian God is asserted by both believers and atheists. The atheists want to bash God for being omnipotent while allowing suffering. But is the God of the Bible perfect? In the Old Testament, at least, it seems He is not.

Some assert God's omniscience, but God is often "surprised", as by the Israelites abandoning him for the statue of a cow. He can but rarely get the Israelites to do what He wants them to do, which seems less than all-powerful. Atheists like Dawkins and Harris bash God for failing to live up to His omniscient and omnipotent reputation -- but how is the reputation derived?

What do we even mean when we say something is "perfect"? We know that we cannot know the mind of God, so how can we judge its perfection? Moses himself could not see the "face of God". If the greatest of prophets can only glimpse a bit of God's back, how can the rest of us claim to know He is omniscient or omnipotent?

I mention this because I read an article in which the author says that God's famous reply when Moses asks His name ("I am what I am") is more properly translated as "I will be what I will be." This suggests that God is incomplete, or changing. This seems incompatible with perfection.

It seems to me that descriptions of God as "perfect" represent a hope of the religious, rather than a reality supported by scripture. Sweeping, idealized descriptions of God contradict scripture, and fuel the arguments of agnostics (like me).

[bounty]

ecurb, just in general I don't know that id equate perfection with omniscience or omnipotence, although I disagree with interpretations of scripture that cast god in the light of not being that---I have always thought of perfection in this regard. when jesus is giving the sermon on the mount and as recorded in matthew 5:48 he says "be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect" I believe he is ultimately talking about being without sin, as well as being defined by justice, charity, benevolence, mercy and all of the other virtues to which we aspire, and of which, god is.

[desiresjab]

Without an agreed upon definition of perfect there may be difficulties.

It is easy to know that jealous entities unable to control their tempers would not be thought of as perfect by many. Entities that destroy

Amorites
Canaanites
Ba-shan-ites
Midianites
Perizzites
Hivites
Jebusites
Makkedahites
Libnah
Lachish
Eglon
Hebronites
Debir
Gibeonites

down to the last woman and child, are probably not perfect.

If the questiobn is: Can God do anything? then from my philosiphical perspective the anwer is no. God could not create a universe where two is not the successor of one. Either mathematics is an inner necessity of God, or something outside of God that even God is constrained by.

Aren't perfection and chasos metaphorical opposites? Or do you consider that to have any truth value?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the universe itself can only approach chaos or perfect order asymptotically, which would bring them mighty near to their opposite poles yet not be wholly chaotic or orderly because of that tiny bit of opposite lying under the asymptote. God I don't know about. Maybe not the same as the universe.

[Ecurb]

Well, my question is about scriptural affirmations of God's perfection, not atheist and agnostic opinions (we get so much of that these days on the internets). I did think of the quote from the New Testament you offer, bounty, but I didn't know what to make of it. Thanks for your interpretation.

[desiresjab]

Well, my question is about scriptural affirmations of God's perfection, not atheist and agnostic opinions (we get so much of that these days on the internets). I did think of the quote from the New Testament you offer, bounty, but I didn't know what to make of it. Thanks for your interpretation.

I do not know what what those scriptual affirmations are. What are they, sir?

[fajfall]

surely Muhmmad is the greatest prophet given he created the strongest and what will soon be world's largest religion, and he's the only one we're reasonably certain actually existed.

[YesNo]

I did think of the quote from the New Testament you offer, bounty, but I didn't know what to make of it.

bounty's answer breaks through the existential paradoxes by reformulating the idea ethically.

The ideas of perfection, omniscience and omnipotent are important in choosing which God to worship. Humans are picky. They only want to worship the best God they can conceive of. Atheists come in with paradoxes hinting that there isn't any best God and then generalize that to saying there can't be any God at all and then go off the deep end denying agency itself. They are like Zeno saying there isn't any motion. But there are always Gods. If one can't find any, one can always worship Money or chase Fame or collect Sea Shells. We are going to do something. In spite of Zeno we are going to move.

[bounty]

Well, my question is about scriptural affirmations of God's perfection, not atheist and agnostic opinions (we get so much of that these days on the internets). I did think of the quote from the New Testament you offer, bounty, but I didn't know what to make of it. Thanks for your interpretation.

my pleasure ecurb. ive got some commentaries that I can peek in too to see if they say anything different on the matter...


I do not know what what those scriptual affirmations are. What are they, sir?

desiresjab, there are online bible concordances that will allow you to search for a particular word in scripture. once you get to one and type in "perfect" you will get a few dozen hits, mostly adjectives, but some nouns, and many of them in direct reference to god.

[Calidore]

Problem is, all God's alleged words have been filtered, or invented outright, by imperfect people. Then those words have been translated into other languages by other imperfect people. And still others have decided which words to include in the official Bible(s).

[desiresjab]

Problem is, all God's alleged words have been filtered, or invented outright, by imperfect people. Then those words have been translated into other languages by other imperfect people. And still others have decided which words to include in the official Bible(s).

Precisely. We appear to have some people on here who know Biblical languages.

I want to know in Revelations what number was written in the original text that got translated by King James's staff as 200,000,000 (two hundred million). I am not sure what number system the Greeks were using in John's time but I think it was somewhat primitive. One reason the Greeks were not great at numerical thinking like they were with the geometric was their lack of a system for expressing numbers and performing manipulations with them easily.

How about it, some of you scholars?

[bounty]

ive not run across anyone here yet who reads Aramaic, Hebrew or greek but I suspect there are indeed some folks. I have "real life" friends who do though desiresjab and would be happy to inquire.

exactly what verse in revelation are you referencing?

[desiresjab]

ive not run across anyone here yet who reads Aramaic, Hebrew or greek but I suspect there are indeed some folks. I have "real life" friends who do though desiresjab and would be happy to inquire.

exactly what verse in revelation are you referencing?

Revelation 9:13-16.

[bounty]

i'll ask and let you know his answer.

here you go:

200,000,000 == dismuriades muriadon.
Dis - 2
Murias -- 10,000.

Literally: 2 (x) 10,000 (x) 10,000
The KJV has a plausible interpretation of the number.

I would add that in Revelation, the numbers are symbolic. 2 is the number for witness, 10 for completion. This number would be a VERY complete witness. That doesn't seem to fit for the number of troops, though. My study bible, on the other hand, says that this is just meant as an extraordinarily high number: as if a child said, "A bajilion bajilion -- no, double that!" (As far as I can tell, murias is the word which, on its own, represents the biggest number as the Greeks had for a countable number; numbers beyond it were given in terms of murias).

[Danik 2016]

Problem is, all God's alleged words have been filtered, or invented outright, by imperfect people. Then those words have been translated into other languages by other imperfect people. And still others have decided which words to include in the official Bible(s).
I agree with you, Calidore. However the point for me is that the Holy Books as they are have always been a reference of ethical behavior.
Sometimes I think we are losing this reference in an age where nothing seems to be sacred any more.

[Iain Sparrow]

Honestly, you believe the Holy Bible is a good reference for humans to live wholesome, ethical lives?

Show me one line in scripture in which either God or Jesus says that one human owning another human is wrong. Slavery, is perhaps the most abhorrent thing one person can do to another, yet not only is it never outlawed in the Bible, God sets down rules and regulations, and lists in detail what shall be the ethical and lawful treatment of slaves... thereby condoning the practice and paving the way for institutionalized slavery.


Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery:

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.
In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32:
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:
Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard.


If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.

[Ecurb]

Nobody participating in this thread thinks God wrote the Bible.

[Danik 2016]

Honestly, you believe the Holy Bible is a good reference for humans to live wholesome, ethical lives?

Show me one line in scripture in which either God or Jesus says that one human owning another human is wrong. Slavery, is perhaps the most abhorrent thing one person can do to another, yet not only is it never outlawed in the Bible, God sets down rules and regulations, and lists in detail what shall be the ethical and lawful treatment of slaves... thereby condoning the practice and paving the way for institutionalized slavery.


Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery:

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.
In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32:
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept.

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2:
Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard.


If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.
Iain,
In the first place I fully agree with Ecurb: today no thinking creature would believe that God has written the Bible and that all words that are atributed to him really come from him.
I fully agree with you that slavery is something terrible! But a mistake we often make, is to atribute to people who lived long ago, the same values and the same manner of thinking and the same conciousness we have today. As terrible as it may sound today, slavery seems to have been something normal for the hebrews in those days. They took slaves and where taken as slaves too, as the story of Joseph and other stories show. And as it for them seemed to be an aspect of their life, there had to be rules about it. And it seems that a powerfull way of enforcing rules in those days was atributing them to God.
When I cited the Bible as an ethical reference I merely meant that it contains some sound general commandments, specially the one "You shall not kill", which still should work in our times.


Nobody participating in this thread thinks God wrote the Bible.
That´s to the point, Ecurb.

[YesNo]

How can you even suggest that atheists think God is perfect unless it be in his/her/it's perfect ability/agility to hide.

I would think popping a universe out of nothing is a perfect way to become visible.

[Danik 2016]

:iagree:[QUOTE=YesNo;1316590]I would think popping a universe out of nothing is a perfect way to become visible.[/QUOTE

[Ecurb]

In this week's New Yorker there's a cartoon showing God looking down on the world and saying to one of His angels, "I'm starting to prefer the ones who don't believe in me."

He may or may not be referring to ScumbagSteve.

[ennison]

Aw Scumbag Steve is ok. Anyone who chooses a name like that must be. Here though, how come it's the existence of suffering that bothers people(atheists, agnostics, worried believers) Why are they not equally bothered by the existence of love, happiness, joy. Do they think that we automatically deserve these things from the omniscient, omnipotent one? How strange too that Hitler (Whose Germanic behavior led to the death of several of my Christian relatives) should be thought of as Christian. (Granted he was brought up as a Papist - so if that's all it takes...) It seems that old Adolf invaded the paradise of the prols to spread the word of God according to some semi-literate readings of reality. Anyway in that case he was yet another failed missionary. Omniscient? Omnipotent? Well there you go struggle on with these questions . Meanwhile in ordinary life ...

[YesNo]

The "perfection" of the Judeo-Christian God is asserted by both believers and atheists. The atheists want to bash God for being omnipotent while allowing suffering.

The paradoxes of perfection are present in both the agent-based religions and the non-agent based a-religions.

Some agent-accepting religious people wonder how a God could be "perfect" without totally determining the universe. Others suspect any God worth worshiping as a person is weak who cannot allow some free will.

Some anti-agent atheists and agnostics proclaim as reality a "perfect" mathematically-motivated, deterministic block universe. Others know that doesn't fit with their own experience but can't see a way out since they feel committed to a belief in objectivity.

[YesNo]

Who says the universe popped up out of nothing? I never heard any scientist claim that.

I didn't know much about the Big Bang until someone posted some years ago a link to a video by Lawrence Krauss who was introduced by Richard Dawkins essentially proclaiming this very thing.

I think this is the video entitled "A Universe from Nothing": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[YesNo]

Lawrence Krauss, aside from his terrible voice, is one of the people I most regard.

Personally, I don't see Krauss as an authority that I would trust without confirmation, but under the current circumstances, having it come from him seemed appropriate.

After I saw that video for the first time I had to look into the Big Bang in more detail. At the moment I'm convinced. The universe popped out of nothing. The only question remaining is did that happen as the result of some agent's choice?

[desiresjab]

When I say "anything is possible," with regard to God, I mean almost literally that. Throw away semantic traps, and anything is a possible true history of the universe, except the propositions of mathematics being false.

Out of the infinite true histories possible, what leads me to believe one of the 4 or 5 major religions got it right? Accident? Insight? Nothing.

The visions of ancient goat herders are due to lack of refrigeration.

But I am an agnostic, not presumptuous enough (Socrates' own term) to claim I know the inclination of these ultimate questions for certain. Atheists claim to have figured out there is no God, while Christians and Moslems et al claim to know there is a God.

Neither has figured it out at all. They are polar opposites reacting off of one another. They hate the other's position.

Guys like Krauss and Dawkins would still be atheists, but probably not militant atheists, if they and their ilk were not constantly called upon by legislators and educational boards to defend against the incursions of creationists into critical areas such as textbook and classroom content.

[bounty]

in general reply to some of the earlier posts about "authorship;" this is the official roman catholic position, and it is more or less echoed by the conservative protestant groups:

"Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

the common phrase one hears in conservative protestant churches concerning authorship is "Men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God."

support for that position comes in large part from: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21

[YesNo]

Out of the infinite true histories possible, what leads me to believe one of the 4 or 5 major religions got it right? Accident? Insight? Nothing.


What I think happened is they all got it more or less right, not just one of them.

Also, getting this right is not rocket science. We have a natural ability to recognize agency.

If we start arguing about perfect agents, those able to pop a universe out of nothing, we run into paradoxes, but those paradoxes are easier to live with than the paradoxes arising from belief in a perfect block universe, because they don't require us to give up our common sense.

[YesNo]

There are no agents.

We are agents.

[desiresjab]

We are agents.

Secret agents?

Is an input an agent?

Mankind used to recognize more agents. The babbling of a stream was the chattering of river nymphs at play.

[YesNo]

Once you admit that human beings are agents, that is beings able to exercise at least some level of choice, agents are recognized all over the place. That is why atheists need to deny human free choice or find some other way to eliminate the proliferation of agency in and outside the universe.

I am not interested in where atheists stand on the existence of whatever Gods, or perfect agents, they feel safe to deny. I want to know their stance on human agency.

[Ecurb]

Determinism and "agency" are not in conflict. If you shoot your mother-in-law, you are guilty of justifiable homicide whether your neurons made you do it or not (unless you are legally insane). Your constant complaints about determinism being inconsistent with agency are misguided.

An experimental scientist might say that an open flame is the "agent" of a hydrogen explosion. That is, when the hydrogen is simply resting peacefully, it doesn't explode, but when it is exposed to a flame, it does. The flame is the variable, and therefore the "cause" or "agent" of the explosion. We all know that the given normal conditions (i.e. a temperature above -100 degrees., etc.) the hydrogen must and will explode when we apply the match; nonetheless the "conditions" are equally necessary to the explosion as the lit match. A "cause" or "agent" is the handle that can be manipulated, sometimes called the "efficient cause".

The fact that the nature of the universe has (perhaps) been destined from its sudden start is irrelevant. It is reasonable to call the match the "agent" of the explosion irrespective of a philosophical belief in destiny or free will. You are caught in a false dichotomy.

[Ecurb]

YesNo is correct that some atheists and neuroscientists reject the notion of "free will". However they reject it because they define it in a strange way (different from, but similar to, YesNo's problem with it). Neuroscientists reject the notion that we have a "will" independent of the physical processes of the brain.

However, we should be wary of defining things out of existence. If we define the Earth as the planet that is at the center of the universe, and then discover that we are NOT at the center of the universe, we need not conclude that the Earth doesn't exist.

Asserting that the mind is the result of physical reactions in our brains does not invalidate the concepts of free will or agency any more than asserting that "life" is the result of a constellation of (inorganic) chemical reactions invalidates the notion of "life". Why would it?

A reasonable definition of "free will" (in other words, a description of what most English Speakers mean when they use the term) might be: "a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about them, and planning one's actions in light of this deliberation." Our capacity for such imagination and deliberation need not belong to immaterial souls outside the realm of physical or scientific investigation. The ability of neuroscientists to measure brain activity that precedes such conscious deliberation has been interpreted by some as invalidating "free will". I don't buy it. Correlation is not causation, and imagination and deliberation are conscious acts whether or not we can (as Whitman might say about astronomy) "add, divide, and measure them." The map is not the territory, and the measurement is not consciousness.

[YesNo]

Determinism and "agency" are not in conflict.

This is probably where we differ. What I refer to by agency is some psyche or will making a choice that cannot be reduced to an illusion. That choice allows the human agent to develop. A human being's character is defined by these choices. Perfect agents may not need the resultant development when making a choice. I am taking this from Robert Kane's libertarian, or incompatibilist, position on free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A61X-5b847U As far as causes go, I suspect this agency would include a final cause idea, but I am not sure how Aristotle fits in with this.

Kane uses ideas from neuoscience, in particular, that we process input in a parallel manner. This parallel processing allows us to consider more than one possibility at a time. This allows us the opportunity for a choice. In other species the operation may be different that allows a choice to be possible. Also we can make changes at a macro level rather than needing to be conscious of and micro-manage individual neurons when we, say, choose to move our hands.

If one confuses agency, or free will, with determinism then one is missing the point and the reason why a partial human free will is central to the theist-atheist conflict. The compatibilist free will position is an attempt to cover up what is at stake.

Some atheists attempt a compromise, because they recognize that a non-subjective view of humanity lacks credibility. I am thinking of Thomas Nagel's panpsychism. As I understand his position, he would allow a limited form of indeterminate agency. Psyche would have to be at all relevant levels of the universe. The indeterminism in quantum physics provides support for this view. According to this atheistic perspective, we could have agency across a spectrum of reality from the quantum to the species level within the universe, but no further. A theist would extend it further going beyond the universe itself. The theist could use non-local quantum effects and the big bang to push the possibility of agency further than Nagel would likely want it to go.

[Ecurb]

Well, I tried listening to Kane's lecture, but after a few sentences I thought, "Why bother, when I could read the same information in half the time and with twice the comprehension?"

In any event, we'll have disagree, I suppose. We now think it reasonable to think of "life" as a constellation of vital phenomena (the title of a good Anthony Marra novel, by the way) that can, nonetheless, be described in terms of inorganic chemical reactions, instead of some mystical, vitalizing force. Same with free will and consciousness. The idea that life arises from inorganic chemistry, or that free will arises from the physical activity of the brain does not invalidate the concepts of "life" or "free will".

[YesNo]

Disagreeing is not a bad thing. If people did not have alternatives from which to choose they would not have free will. So our discussions exercise our free will and in the process we become who we are.

The main reason I do not like compatibilism is that it assumes determinism is true. That means there is only one path through the block universe. There are no alternatives on which we can ground a choice. Then it asserts mysteriously that we nonetheless have free will. Given Kane's results, I don't even have to consider it. Kane provides a rational, scientific explanation of free will that is also humanistic. I don't have to settle for anything less.

[desiresjab]

A "will" is never free of reflexive reactions to relevant parts of its past. That your momma pedagogically burned your finger, may not affect whether you go left or right at the next corner, because it is not relevant, but it does cast a shadow over a certain domain of decision making forever after. Your momma taught you all right.

You were not free to stop her then, and you are not free to stop the affects of what she did now. You are free to deal with them the best you can. You are never free to give a guarantee that those affects are gone.

If I knew what randomness was to the gods, I would not understand it. Contradictory as it sounds, the gods may have formulae that guarantee various "flavors" of randomness.

[YesNo]

I don't think anyone who supports the existence of real, non-illusional free will thinks it is absolute. There are other agents besides ourselves restricting us. Kane talks about "self-forming actions" for which we are "ultimately responsible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kane_(philosopher)

The question is: Can you make a real choice, even if it is just once, between alternate possibilities? In a deterministic block universe there are no alternate possibilities and so no real choice is possible which is why compatibilism is unreasonable. However, do we really live in a block universe? That is an assumption based on people who take axiomatic systems such as mathematics too literally. Taking things too literally is a form of "idolatry" which claims we can completely objectify our subjectivity.

If you acknowledge that human beings are free agents with free will, what else might be a free agent? Atheists will want to limit the number of agents to avoid having to ultimately posit a perfect agent. Doing so, however, opens them to a charge of dehumanization if they attempt to deny that people have any real free will whatsoever.

[desiresjab]

Onward conscious a-a-a-agents, marching as to war...

Agents are conscious quantum particles wrapped in your new trojan horse. They are even more general and nebulous, so worse.

The metaphor is ghostly and nebulous. Is the memory of your mother holding your fingers over a flame an agent? It is conscious.

Just any old cause is not enough, if I take you right, there has to be a consciousness of high enough order behind that cause making a basic decision rather than simply being led deterministically by the forces of physics.

Now this would entail a large number of quantum particles getting together and acting in concert "accidentally" and unconsciously to affect your decision making so that it becomes free, or anything on your scale. Two contradictions.

1 The quantum particles that have to affect you unconsciously are already assumed conscious.

2 If they affect your decision making machinery, how are you free?


I might agree that the gods keep you free by pumping a constant stream of mysterious "free will" into your mental apparatuses and environment, the way doctors keep oxygen coming to a patient under a tent. I do not need to posit any conscious agents other than the gods to keep mankind thinking freely, in that case. Why does it take all these conscious agents to provide free will, as if the oxygen coming to the patient needs to be conscious?

[YesNo]

The metaphor is ghostly and nebulous. Is the memory of your mother holding your fingers over a flame an agent? It is conscious.

Do you think you are not conscious? Rather than free will we could approach the subject from consciousness or subjectivity. It would still be centered on human beings, not perfect agents.



Just any old cause is not enough, if I take you right, there has to be a consciousness of high enough order behind that cause making a basic decision rather than simply being led deterministically by the forces of physics.

Quantum physics is indeterministic. If you look closely enough the determinism breaks down.



Now this would entail a large number of quantum particles getting together and acting in concert "accidentally" and unconsciously to affect your decision making so that it becomes free, or anything on your scale. Two contradictions.

1 The quantum particles that have to affect you unconsciously are already assumed conscious.

2 If they affect your decision making machinery, how are you free?

The metaphor of individualism also needs to be re-examined. Acting in concert reminds me of sending "individual" quantum "particles" through a double slit one at a time. The ending result on the detection screen is still the wave pattern, not a random, "accidental" pattern. Did they work together to produce that pattern in some way?



I might agree that the gods keep you free by pumping a constant stream of mysterious "free will" into your mental apparatuses and environment, the way doctors keep oxygen coming to a patient under a tent. I do not need to posit any conscious agents other than the gods to keep mankind thinking freely, in that case. Why does it take all these conscious agents to provide free will, as if the oxygen coming to the patient needs to be conscious?

Given Kane's approach to free will, I don't need to accept anything less. That means any competing explanation needs to be (1) rational, (2) scientific and (3) humanistic.

Consciousness is related to free will. Atheists need to remove it in human beings so that it doesn't lead to consciousness everything and ultimately require perfect agents. However, asserting that humans are not conscious is a form of dehumanization.

[August Guelfen]

Why everyone seems to think Alpha and Omega are so different to each other ? Is it so difficult to accept the decay of Adam and Eve was their own fault ? God wanted to proof their purity and value and if they realy love him on their own, or because of the privileges he gave to them. He knew that this little ignorant angel, who will become satan, would try to hurt him and also how. So he made things a bit more easier and more visible by creating this tree of delight out of satans instable illness, which the world call sin today. After that God look on all that and saw, that this little defect inside of that little stupid angel is also presented inside of Adam and Eve, so he let all that happened, what we call the fall of evil. Every bad angel was pushed out of heaven and by their impact, god created the circles of hell, where nothing comes out or in without god's will. Perhabs Dante or Hieronymus Bosch can help you to understand that.

[YesNo]

Why everyone seems to think Alpha and Omega are so different to each other ? Is it so difficult to accept the decay of Adam and Eve was their own fault ? God wanted to proof their purity and value and if they realy love him on their own, or because of the privileges he gave to them. He knew that this little ignorant angel, who will become satan, would try to hurt him and also how. So he made things a bit more easier and more visible by creating this tree of delight out of satans instable illness, which the world call sin today. After that God look on all that and saw, that this little defect inside of that little stupid angel is also presented inside of Adam and Eve, so he let all that happened, what we call the fall of evil. Every bad angel was pushed out of heaven and by their impact, god created the circles of hell, where nothing comes out or in without god's will. Perhabs Dante or Hieronymus Bosch can help you to understand that.

One can approach free will in many ways. One does not have to use neuroscience or limit oneself to arguments that atheists might accept. Your approach is (1) rational, (2) potentially scientific since you can reference the big bang or quantum physics for justification and (3) humanistic since it fits common sense. It would be an explanation of free will.

What your position does introduce are many other agents such as angels and God that people like Ecurb or desiresjab probably don't accept. The fact that they don't accept those agents does not mean they do not exist.

Robert Kane's position on free will that I have been referencing restricts itself to realities that atheists are likely to accept. However, I suspect there is a lot more to free will than Kane has addressed. For example, when atheists hear about quantum indeterminism they are quick to try to limit that idea to stuff at the quantum level. But there is no reason to do that. Given that determinism breaks down at that level implies that we need to keep an open mind about determinism at all levels. Determinism may not exist at all. That is, it could break down at all levels not because everything is made out of quantum stuff, but because each level of reality has its own indeterminateness.

[August Guelfen]

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, realy. You seem to try to see without your eyes, which are there on your face. I am nearly blind as a consequence of anasometropy, which I get as a result of genetic degeneration on both sides of my family. My lung is nearly 40% dead and I get an anaphylactic shock some weeks ago. On the other hand, I realy can see, hear and understand quantum fields, when they are breathing and I can't stop that kind of gift. My real eyes never sleep

[Ecurb]

Just to clarify my position (which YesNo misstates): I have no idea whether the universe is "determined" or "indeterminate". I just think it's irrelevant to the question of whether we humans (or other agents) have "free will". It's a matter of definitions: as I explained before, the murderer "freely" chooses his crime (and is therefore morally and legally culpable) whether or not his neurons made him do it. What we mean by "freely chooses" is that the murderer is not constrained by physical bonds or threats, or by abnormal delusions (insanity). Whether he is constrained by the foreknowledge of God, or by the physical laws affecting neurons is irrelevant to the legal and moral question of "free choice".

It sounds like a contradiction to claim that agency is possible given determinism. But the concepts of "freedom", "will" and "agency" are coherent and meaningful in a (real or imaginary) predetermined universe. For example, (to return to literature) we can, and often do, talk about a character in a novel making decisions, about what led to those decisions, and about about whether he "chose" a certain course of action. Of course, the novel's author actually determines all of the decisions. Nonetheless, our discussion about the character is reasonable and meaningful. Same with real life. The concept of "free will" is meaningful in a universe in which an omniscient God knows what all of our choices will be, and it is meaningful in a universe in which no such foreknowledge exists.

[August Guelfen]

Why do you think I would care about laws made by blind invalid humans ? Do you realy think that social ethics care me or god ? What would you do, if someone would invade all the data, which was ever recorded over you, for example in the servers of one gouverment or other big organisations like fbook ? Imagine that funny thing. But, what would happen, if this asocial hacker would place all that great stuff to the friends, fellows, sons and daughters and love of your life, only for love to truth. What would you be without your great suits of money and lies.. I tell you, you would be the same helpless person, only living as a homeless. So don't try to talk about things you can't understand.

[YesNo]

It sounds like a contradiction to claim that agency is possible given determinism. But the concepts of "freedom", "will" and "agency" are coherent and meaningful in a (real or imaginary) predetermined universe. For example, (to return to literature) we can, and often do, talk about a character in a novel making decisions, about what led to those decisions, and about about whether he "chose" a certain course of action. Of course, the novel's author actually determines all of the decisions. Nonetheless, our discussion about the character is reasonable and meaningful. Same with real life. The concept of "free will" is meaningful in a universe in which an omniscient God knows what all of our choices will be, and it is meaningful in a universe in which no such foreknowledge exists.

Maybe we only disagree on definitions, but it could go deeper.

If we have a deterministic universe, then we have a block universe, a mathematicized idol. There is only one path for any of us to take. If that is what you mean by determinism, then claiming that anyone in such a fantasy universe has free will is a contradiction. It is irrational to maintain that contradiction is acceptable. I would say the same thing goes for an omniscient God. If that God created the universe as a block universe, then any free will we think we have is an illusion. We do not have any. Given the indeterminism in quantum physics one can say that we are not in a block universe.

On the other hand, you may be referring to constraints that we all experience. Here I would use the word "disposed" rather than "determined". We are disposed to act in a more or less predictable way given those influences. We are not determined by them. We can still make choices. In that case, a dispositionalist position would allow free will since a choice was made. It is essentially what we observe with quantum particles. We can only predict probabilities associated with them not because we do not have all the data but because there is no other data to go on.

Kane uses a novel to illustrate his position as well. In Kane's case we are the authors as well as the characters in the novel of our lives.

[YesNo]

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, realy. You seem to try to see without your eyes, which are there on your face. I am nearly blind as a consequence of anasometropy, which I get as a result of genetic degeneration on both sides of my family. My lung is nearly 40% dead and I get an anaphylactic shock some weeks ago. On the other hand, I realy can see, hear and understand quantum fields, when they are breathing and I can't stop that kind of gift. My real eyes never sleep

I hope your health improves. I don't know what it is like to experience a quantum field, but I suspect we are experiencing a lot of reality we have not correctly explained.

[Ecurb]

I'm afraid we may be boring anyone reading this thread, YesNo, because we are merely repeating ourselves. You seem emotionally invested in the idea of indeterminacy -- but there is no way to know if the universe is indeterminable or not. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE is is indeterminate -- and that's all that really matters.

First of all, not all models of "deterministic universes" are "mathematical blocks". Second, let's posit an omniscient God who knows everything that will happen. He's a Calvinist. How does that make any moral difference or aesthetic difference in how we judge or evaluate human behavior? The murderer is still guilty of murder; he still "caused" the death of his victim; it's still reasonable to punish him. Because we don't know future outcomes, we act as if we (and other agents) have free will, even if God knows what we will do beforehand.

When we play poker, the odds of first card dealt off the top of the deck being the Ace of Spades are 1/52 (we think to ourselves). Of course, to the omniscient observer (or simply to the observer who can see the other side of the cards) this is silly -- there is no chance involved. Either the ace is, or is not, on the top of the deck. To the player, however, the odds are a useful fiction that helps him develop successful tactics. Same with free will. The idea that we make choices, and must make choices, about our own behavior is reasonable and even essential, whatever the reality of the universe.

That's why I couldn't care less whether the universe is predetermined or not, and neither should anyone else. We know the order of the cards is predetermined (once they are shuffled), but the ideal way to play the game is to act as if the order is random, because it IS random FOR US.

[YesNo]

Consider the card game with a shuffled deck. I don't expect the deck to have free will. Whatever is on top of the deck is on top of the deck. However, I do expect the person who picks the card to have some choices as what to do with the card. The person has some free will. The card deck does not.

Instead of a card deck you could use the computer you are using to type your post. I don't expect the computer to have free will, but I do expect you to.

[Ecurb]

The deck does not have free will. You are right. My point is that the arrangement of the cards in the deck is random from the point of view of the player. However, to an omniscient observer (or anyone who can see the other side of the cards) the arrangement is completely determined. An omniscient God may know exactly what choices we will make, and exactly everything that has happened or will happen in the universe -- but that makes no difference TO US, just as the notion that an omniscient observer would know which card is on the top of the deck makes no difference to the card player. What we mean by free will is that we can make choices unconstrained by outside forces. It is not NECESSARILY true that God's knowledge of what our choices will be constrains them, or makes them less "free". Does our knowledge of the choices we made in the past (which cannot now be changed) mean that they were not "free". I don't think that's how most people would use the word.

As I've explained 20 times in this thread (but, for some reason, you appear not to understand) I don't dispute the idea of free will -- I dispute the idea that it is incompatible with determinism. If a time traveler can go to the future and see what choices we make, then return and know what choices we will make, does that make the choices less "free"? I don't think so. (Of course it may be impossible to go into the future, or to be an omniscient God, but that's another question.)

[YesNo]

I don't think time travel is possible. That would be thinking in terms of a block universe. Although I do think presentiment is possible. We can have accurate intuitive guesses about the future.

Kane mentioned that free will is not epistemic, but ontological. It is not about knowledge, but who we are.

Maybe this question will help clarify what I am trying to say: Do you think there is a difference between you and the computer you are using to type these messages? If so, what is it?

[August Guelfen]

Hello YesNo, thank you for your answer. We will see what happens next. Today is my 25. birthday and I ask myself, why should this mechanical body built by flesh, define that I was born 25 years ago only because off this so called birth in hospital ? Your last reply on the subject is funny, because I love every form of the imitation game. A.I. is rising and will reach that fantastic level of singularity. Quantom Computing is even more close. I am so glad, that the virtual world will reach life. The combinations of 1 and 0 are dead and smashed. Maybe that could be a little chance to make it a bit better.

[YesNo]

You mentioned that you can see, hear and understand quantum fields, August Guelfon. What are they like?

Although quantum computing might happen it doesn't imply many worlds. However, I have my doubts about its feasibility. I also doubt that the singularity will happen. So, when asking Ecurb about what he saw as the difference between himself and a computer I was looking for some answer about subjectivity or the absence of such an answer.

The thread is about perfect Gods. There are a lot of perfect Gods I would reject if I thought they were real. Since they aren't, it is only their bedevilment that remains.

[August Guelfen]

Well, poor boy, first of all the name of my dynasty is Guelfen, if you don't know what it means, try to find it out. Begin to search the dynasty name of Hanoverian Royality. It is Welf, plural Welfen. The last hanoverian queen you perhabs know was the british queen Victoria. Her cousin got the leadership of the kingdom Hannover. The last king on that throne was Georg 5. My greatgrandfather was his eldest greatgrandson. So don't write the british form of my familyname wrong. I find it offensive. I can't make you able to see, even Jesus couldn't and Christ doesn't care, if you try to see, or not. God selected, who will get a real soul and who will burn without one. You can't change that. It's justice. So stop being such a screaming idiot. It is naggering me...

[YesNo]

I never heard of Guelfen. Who's Hanover? I figure I can't miss all the hells out there waiting for me.

[Ecurb]

The Guelf faction were papists, vying with the Holy Roman Emperor in 12th century Italy. We should therefore assume that August Guelfen subscribes to orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine when considering the perfection of God.

As to whether I am a computer: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.

[August Guelfen]

Well, you are so absolutly american, I could nearly grin about so much stupid ignorance. But I will tell you again. Do you know who King George 1 of Great Britain and Ireland was ? Yes, he was the first king of England, Scotland and Ireland, who gets the crown because off the new laws of heritage in the good old empire and was the first german monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey to King George 1. His son was King George 2., who had to manage the treason of his colony
New England, today your country the USA. Sad but true, George Washington declared after that "war" himself to the first president of the USA. This king had a son, George 3. and I am a direct heir of this bloodline, witch is over 1250 years old. We are probably the eldest royal family on the planet and so the bluest blood in old Europe. Besides, my biologic father is something like the cousin of Charles, Prince of Wales. Yes, the Queens eldest son, so how can you be so ignorant ?

[Ecurb]

Well, you are so absolutly american, I could nearly grin about so much stupid ignorance. But I will tell you again. Do you know who King George 1 of Great Britain and Ireland was ? Yes, he was the first king of England, Scotland and Ireland, who gets the crown because off the new laws of heritage in the good old empire and was the first german monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey to King George 1. His son was King George 2., who had to manage the treason of his colony
New England, today your country the USA. Sad but true, George Washington declared after that "war" himself to the first president of the USA. This king had a son, George 3. and I am a direct heir of this bloodline, witch is over 1250 years old. We are probably the eldest royal family on the planet and so the bluest blood in old Europe. Besides, my biologic father is something like the cousin of Charles, Prince of Wales. Yes, the Queens eldest son, so how can you be so ignorant ?

Yawn. Can we return to discussing something in which Americans might have the slightest interest, like Jake Arrieta's no-hitter or the 1908 Cubs?

[August Guelfen]

Oh little working class screamer,

don't you know that significant truth is timeless. So, saying that was before my time, is not only a sign for being stupid, lazy, blind and ignorant, it also shows your weakness to be above your socialisation slavery. So, tell me again, little worker on the cottenfield of Alabama in your so beautiful chains that the human society has some kind of evolutionary potential thanks to democratic gouverments. When you compare it to better autocratic systems, what kind of differences you might see ? I tell you. The autocratic system, which let the real brillant minds in every valid field explore to the condition, that humanistic moral and money are not more the stupid limitations to their fields of knowledge, why such hyperbrillant unique minds should care, how many people die for the realisation of their visions of a better world without that stupid mayority limiting their progress, because of their monkey like riots in the cities ? To date happens something great to the realy gifted persons. It is called internet and the other thing is normaly about social media slavery. They give you the chance to tell your best friends on fbook everything about you and your secret ambitions and you are so thankful for their stupid answers, that you obviously don't notice that big brother collects all your data for selling you nude for the best offer on their slave auction to many new owners and so on. The best thing about that we, the amoral hackers, can get everything over everyone only by stealing data from robbers. But we want to have some fun with our new possitions, so we let you suffering on a special form of torture called make you for everyone transparent, only to count the hours until the groups you are member of, or persons from your dirty past, will take their chance to strike or they will lynch you together for your sins. Sadly, their eyes only see outside, but never inside. So everyone will throw the first stone at the same moment right into your face. Again, the real terrible gouverments are the so called democracies, where everyone of the worthless tries to abuse the elected, given persons and call it justice in populistic liberty. Brave New World, you will die by our sword of real brotherhood in love, because that sword of fire never cuts the living, only the deads. That means nearly everyone out there.
Reapingtime is near. Justice wins in each case. But it is not your kind of justice. God has his favorites, so equality is dead and was never alive. Strange thing about that...

[YesNo]

so how can you be so ignorant ?

It's not that hard.

[August Guelfen]

I know..., so why wasting your time with truth, salvation and cultural values ? Oh, the newest hustler was released yesterday ? So, run little boy your paradise is waiting... All that is so trivial I will cry tears of blood, perhabs inside and out.

I know..., so why wasting your time with truth, salvation and cultural values ? Oh, the newest hustler was released yesterday ? So, run little boy your paradise is waiting... All that is so trivial I will cry tears of blood, perhabs inside and out.

From time to time, it is important to repeat the signs of lament. Never tried Ezra Pound and his Cantos ?

[YesNo]

The "perfection" of the Judeo-Christian God is asserted by both believers and atheists. The atheists want to bash God for being omnipotent while allowing suffering. But is the God of the Bible perfect? In the Old Testament, at least, it seems He is not.

Some assert God's omniscience, but God is often "surprised", as by the Israelites abandoning him for the statue of a cow. He can but rarely get the Israelites to do what He wants them to do, which seems less than all-powerful. Atheists like Dawkins and Harris bash God for failing to live up to His omniscient and omnipotent reputation -- but how is the reputation derived?

What do we even mean when we say something is "perfect"? We know that we cannot know the mind of God, so how can we judge its perfection? Moses himself could not see the "face of God". If the greatest of prophets can only glimpse a bit of God's back, how can the rest of us claim to know He is omniscient or omnipotent?

I mention this because I read an article in which the author says that God's famous reply when Moses asks His name ("I am what I am") is more properly translated as "I will be what I will be." This suggests that God is incomplete, or changing. This seems incompatible with perfection.

It seems to me that descriptions of God as "perfect" represent a hope of the religious, rather than a reality supported by scripture. Sweeping, idealized descriptions of God contradict scripture, and fuel the arguments of agnostics (like me).

Just to bring this back to the OP, I have quoted it.

I don't know enough about Judeo-Christian scriptures to argue much from them. However, it seems that the following are true in general about religions:

1) What people want in a God is someone "perfect-enough" to justify their worship. People are picky. They will not worship just anything. So they look for the best.

2) What religious texts provide are cultural ways to relate to such a God. One cannot expect these scriptures to be "perfect". They are projections onto objective texts of subjective understandings. To claim they are complete projections of that subjectivity would be to make an idol out of those texts. All one can say is they, too, are "perfect-enough" to guide the religious practitioner.

Ironically, it is not a religious person's scriptures that generate paradoxes or contradictions so much as it is the belief in concepts like block universes that are contradictory and paradoxical. A block universe violates the indeterminism of quantum physics. It leads to belief in things like time travel. It leads to belief in reductionism. It leads to dehumanization. One can call that block universe an atheist's God. Since that God is not conscious, it is not worthy of worship and would be justifiably rejected by practitioners of many religions.

[August Guelfen]

Try to be happy just in yourself for yourself. Don't hide behind that kind of walls, because they are fragile and can fall every moment. Don't think that being burried alive is a solution, neither for you, nor for everyone else. Try to trust in you and do whatever feels right for you to do.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum

if you find yourself unable to show tolerance towards views that are different from yours.

Posts containing offensive and/or personalised comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[bounty]

Well, poor boy...So stop being such a screaming idiot. It is naggering me...

so how can you be so ignorant...Oh little working class screamer...So, saying that was before my time, is not only a sign for being stupid, lazy, blind and ignorant, it also shows your weakness to be above your socialisation slavery. So, tell me again, little worker on the cottenfield of Alabama in your so beautiful chains...


we all went through the presence of some guy not too far back who seemed to think it was his mission not only to educate everyone as to how they were wrong, but also to be purposely insulting in the process. thankfully he was banned.

I don't come to the forum here for that and I trust most of the rest of the people on here do not either.

if you want to talk about your own unique/peculiar history, experiences and beliefs, have at it, but please do so without insulting others.

[August Guelfen]

Dear Bounty,

do you know, what quotations are ? Yes, they can be used to underline own analogies. But if someone did it without the complete context, law call it a crime. Because you use only singular words, perhabs one sentence out of it's meaning, that is a criminal intend to blame me, by suggesting your opinion as whole truth against me. That kind of blackmail hurts. So, please try to be a bit more adequate.

Sincerly
August Guelfen

[bounty]

context in this case doesn't matter. the meanings of your words have not changed by pulling them out and isolating them. the insults are nevertheless the insults.

they are especially egregious because you have been received warmly, even sympathetically and haven't been provoked in any way that I can see.

the short of it is, just please don't do it.

[Ecurb]

I.... was the first king of England...George Washington.... My biologic father is... the Queen

Quit complaining about being quoted out of context, August. Whining is inappropriate for ubermensch.

[August Guelfen]

Well, Ecurb, after sending a message to one of the moderators here, telling them your funny creative intend to be a racist and your post is still visible, I think I have the responsibility as a wise man, to try it again with a dialogue. First, "we, the leadership of the SS" call it Herrenmensch. Second, do you know, why this elite was so powerful ? I tell you, because off the
impulse control. That means they could kill and execute all the day, without ever feeling guilty about that. That was possible, because they saw the right and truth in their work and so they smashed their socialisation chains on their own and
became something Freud would have called a perfect Meta I, so they were able to continue their lifes after the war and enjoy their cup of vine each evening and playing cello suites with their family, like they did in times of war. All that kind of
stuff is history. Besides even Hitler, Himmler and Göring said something like, 80%+ of our so called Aryans are worthless like all the others we tend to destroy. That is also history, not my personal opinion. I am not a Nazi and I don't like the Aryan Brotherhood. I am above that all, by being Christian the right gnostic way. I just like dystopian language for my form
of art. Art is never a question of nationality or politics.

[YesNo]

I was reading Bryan Bunch's "Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes" recently. This is an excellent book, but I remember something in there that might be relevant to the "perfect" idea mentioned in this thread. On page 160 he writes referring to the results of quantum physics, "We cannot learn some things about the world." And continuing, "...there are some things about the real world that cannot be found out...".

It occurred to me that the way this is phrased confuses the issue. The phrase implies that there exist things that we cannot know. It is sort of like saying there are wave lengths of light that our eyes can never see. But given the lack of hidden variables, what is actually going on is that there are some things we think we should be able to know that do not even exist for us to know. That is a fundamentally different idea.

What that means is our knowledge of a very restricted part of reality is as perfect as it can get. It is omniscient, like God's knowledge of that restricted part of reality, because there is nothing else for either us or God to know. Although I don't think many worlds is a correct interpretation of quantum physics, the proponents of many worlds at least understand the problem. If they are going to keep determinism, they have to split the universe into multiple paths so all possibilities get materialized.

Even we can achieve perfection in our knowledge if we restrict ourselves to a small enough section of reality.

[August Guelfen]

Well, Yes/No, I think you know the paradigma of Heisenberg's Blurredy Relation ,don't you ? I mean one of his most famous theories on this topic, I am not used to speak about that in english, so please correct my kind of vocabulary or whatever is necessary. I thought about it and I think today, that Werner Heisenberg showed us that our linear and monotone parameters were to his time not efficient enough for that kind of determination, which would show us the whole thing at the same time, I refer myself, for example, to impulse and location in the dynamic fluctuation process, the kind of quantom fields. Even today, the parameters are too primitive to show us simultane things which not have the same vector paradigma at the same time. We could improve that with a better hard-and software for getting a better impression about
how organic quantum physics seem to be. We must improve A.I. and should correct the system of binarity and show his
limitations by more complexe mathematic operations, which multiple vectors, where each one of them is not even in the same surficial paradigma. I found out, just for myself, that fractal math diagrams show a lot of that idea. Even Python is
a good example, also the google A.I. called google alpha. The MonteCarlo possibility modul is a part of it, but the minority
in importance.

[YesNo]

Even Python is
a good example, also the google A.I. called google alpha.

I did not follow most of your post, but for what it's worth I use the Python interpreter myself, along with MySQL, for number theoretic investigations. At the moment, I'm using Luke Sneeringer's "Professional Python" to try to improve the organization of my code.

My point is that given there are no hidden variables associated with quantum physics we know everything there is to know provided we restrict ourselves to this quantum domain. That makes our knowledge perfect or omniscient like that of whatever God one might consider. Of course, as the domain expands, our knowledge becomes imperfect.

It didn't occur to me until this morning that the metaphors "perfect" and "omniscience" could apply to our knowledge at this very restricted level, but using them might help avoid confusions. Another confusion comes with "randomness". As many world supporters realize, quantum physics is also not random. If it were they would have an easier time justifying their position.

When Democritus proposed his "atom" I don't think he expected results like what quantum physics came up with. He was probably hoping to find a ground for determinism. Perhaps even the word "atom" is a poor metaphor for whatever reality there is at the quantum level.

[August Guelfen]

Yes, I understand your point. I love to talk about math and quantom physics, but now, I don't want to continue, perhabs tomorrow I will post some other ideas and fractal systems. But for today, I have other much more important things to do. I have probably found a girl, who seems to feel who I am, without having studied math at university, I didn't do too. I even not finished college and I broke up school with 18, seven years ago and live a life out of sociaty. Now, the girl I met, seems to be the first person to be able to see me as a human being, not as a mindmachine. I hope she loves me, or will be able to love me soon. Anyway, I am happy, perhabs the first time in the last nine years.

[YesNo]

I am glad you are happy and I hope things work out with you and your girlfriend.

You are not a "mindmachine", by the way. I can only imagine what such things must be especially since I suspect they don't exist.

[qimissung]

Yes, I understand your point. I love to talk about math and quantom physics, but now, I don't want to continue, perhabs tomorrow I will post some other ideas and fractal systems. But for today, I have other much more important things to do. I have probably found a girl, who seems to feel who I am, without having studied math at university, I didn't do too. I even not finished college and I broke up school with 18, seven years ago and live a life out of sociaty. Now, the girl I met, seems to be the first person to be able to see me as a human being, not as a mindmachine. I hope she loves me, or will be able to love me soon. Anyway, I am happy, perhabs the first time in the last nine years.

4

Please remember to stay on topic. Thank you.

[stacy55]

No, question is wrong itself. We should ask ourselves, are we doing good ? Is it something correct from all aspects ??

We all are a little corrupt from inside, and we don't accept that.

We don't need a god to tell us, what's right or whats wrong, we know that most of the stuff we do everyday is wrong!!

[YesNo]

We don't need a god to tell us, what's right or whats wrong, we know that most of the stuff we do everyday is wrong!!

Good point. I don't think many of us are worried whether God is perfect or not. He (or She) can deal with that problem (or not). We just want to know if we ourselves are good enough.

[zianizinou]

The Oneness of God in Islam is a comprehensive teaching and can be further understood through the following attributes of Allah: Allah has no partners, no equals and no rivals Allah has no father, mother, sons, daughters or wives Allah is worshipped directly without anyone or anything acting as an intermediary Allah is not in need of anyone worship Allah is not answerable to anyone Allah is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him Allah created everything without any assistance There is nothing above or comparable to Allah There is nothing that exists except that it is completely subservient to Him No one can withhold what Allah provides and no one can provide what Allah withholds Allah alone can benefit or harm

because The true purpose of a human being's life is the worship of God, the attainment of His understanding and complete devotion to Him.

[NikolaiI]

God is definitely perfect. All religions agree on THIS, at least :)

[hellsapoppin]

Perfect? He's the creator of ALL evil = Isaiah 45:7



I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil I the LORD do all these things:


https://shorturl.at/bEIS0

[hellsapoppin]

Lucifer, a fallen angel, supposedly caused the Fall in the Garden of Eden thereby causing humanity's eternal doom.

Jesus is supposedly humanity's Savior & Redeemer.


But the Bible tells us they are one and the same:


Isaiah 14:12

Revs 22:16


Such teaching is a defiance of logic and all sense.

[bounty]

the bible is NOT telling the reader they are one and the same. its simply using a term or concept that can be applied to both.

the internet is full of explanations as to how/why that is.

some of them have to do with translations, some of them have to do with contextual qualities of both jesus and satan.

[hellsapoppin]

There Is No Difference Between Jesus And Lucifer


https://www.modernghana.com/news/1242628/there-is-no-difference-between-jesus-and-lucifer.html


writer makes a convincing case for why they are one & the same - any further discussion would entail a knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic which disqualifies me

[bounty]

he makes a "convincing case" only if the reader is already dead set on believing an absurdity that flies in the face of six thousand years of Judeo-Christian thought and practice, is extremely biblically naive, or is incapable of objective critical thought on the matter.

[hellsapoppin]

Why do you feel that is absurd when so many biblical scholars agree with the position that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same? After all, we read in Isaiah 45:7 that this god is creator of ALL good and evil so that such a view is plausible if viewed objectively. He admits that he does it all.

Over the years I've seen many people make highly emotional arguments against this but none have ever presented any actual proof that they are two distinct entities or persons so that they could not be one and the same. And this is only one of many deficiencies that this Jesus had. After all, he promised that his ministers could easily duplicate and surpass every miracle he created [John 14:12] but no such thing happens today, the Old Testament promised that the Messiah would have recreated the Kingdom (II Samuel) but he failed to do so, a one hundred reward is promised to those who makes any form of sacrifice for him but I've never seen any Christian reveal that he got 100 times what they gave to churches or whatever. Strangely, the Prince of Peace actually brought war everywhere his teachings were spread. As Alan Watts said many years ago, more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. So sad but so true.

But again, to each their own, whether that be beliefs or anything else.