Is God Perfect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by August Guelfen

so how can you be so ignorant ?

---

It's not that hard.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

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.

~

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.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by August Guelfen

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by August Guelfen

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by August Guelfen

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

4

Please remember to stay on topic. Thank you.

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stacy55

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.

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.

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

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

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.