Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

Is there a difference between truth and what is true? Because what is true certainly does change. For instance, it's true that the sky outside my window right now is blue, but soon it will no longer be true.

It's a fact the the sky is blue and that fact may change if it gets cloudy, but it will always be true that the sky was blue when you observed it as being blue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting, explain that ontological proof to me.

I already have...you remember that conversation don't you? It was in another thread. Every time I explained it to you...you stopped posting. Then you'd return the next day, ignore my post, and act like nothing happened.

For a guy who claims to be interested in the truth, you have a habit of ignoring it and then going on like it was never presented to you.

If I explain it again...will you at least acknowledge it? Or will you just ignore it and act like it never happened?

 

[Chriliman]

I already have...you remember that conversation don't you? It was in another thread. Every time I explained it to you...you stopped posting. Then you'd return the next day, ignore my post, and act like nothing happened.

For a guy who claims to be interested in the truth, you have a habit of ignoring it and then going on like it was never presented to you.

If I explain it again...will you at least acknowledge it? Or will you just ignore it and act like it never happened?

Sorry, I honestly don't remember that conversation. Point me to where this conversation is and I'll read through it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I honestly don't remember that conversation. Point me to where this conversation is and I'll read through it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/does-god-have-a-right-to-take-life.7902575/page-9

My last post on that page is one of the ones you ignored. You can read our back-and-forth leading up to it for some context if necessary. You come back to the conversation the next day I think, but only a few posts later, and act like it never happened.

If you need me to explain this again as a logical equation I can...but I don't want to bother if you're not going to address it.

 

[Chriliman]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/does-god-have-a-right-to-take-life.7902575/page-9

My last post on that page is one of the ones you ignored. You can read our back-and-forth leading up to it for some context if necessary. You come back to the conversation the next day I think, but only a few posts later, and act like it never happened.

If you need me to explain this again as a logical equation I can...but I don't want to bother if you're not going to address it.

Ah yes I remember that now. What your doing is blaming a perfect God for what he indirectly caused. You should be blaming the perfect beings that this perfect God created for what they directly caused when they freely chose a will oposite of the perfect God's will. These perfect beings that chose a will opposite Gods perfect will, directly caused evil. God did not directly cause evil, he indirectly caused it. So is it fair to blame something that indirectly caused evil or is it more fair to blame something that directly caused evil? Essentially God is innocent and satan is guilty.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah yes I remember that now. What your doing is blaming a perfect God for what he indirectly caused. You should be blaming the perfect beings that this perfect God created for what they directly caused when they freely chose a will oposite of the perfect God's will. These perfect beings that chose a will opposite Gods perfect will, directly caused evil. God did not directly cause evil, he indirectly caused it. So is it fair to blame something that indirectly caused evil or is it more fair to blame something that directly caused evil? Essentially God is innocent and satan is guilty.

So Satan created malaria, earthquakes, and diabetes?

Because free will has nothing to do with those. It looks like you're trying to dodge the question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Got real quiet in here. So much for "seeking the truth".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah yes I remember that now. What your doing is blaming a perfect God for what he indirectly caused.

I'll simply my point for you so you don't get tangled up in thoughts about free will.

You think god is perfect and that he created the earth.

Earthquakes happen because of the way the earth was made.

If god can create the earth, surely he could've created it so that earthquakes don't happen.

If god created the earth, and he created it in a way that earthquakes happen, clearly he cannot be perfect.

Do you get it now?

 

[paulm50]

Interesting, explain that ontological proof to me.

Explain why god is perfect.

 

[paulm50]

Which you should have expected by reading the op. I said a truth would be demonstrated and it was. I acknowledge I could have went about it in a better way but I'm learning new things here and ultimatly that is the goal

What truth has been revealed?

 

[paulm50]

Ah yes I remember that now. What your doing is blaming a perfect God for what he indirectly caused. You should be blaming the perfect beings that this perfect God created for what they directly caused when they freely chose a will oposite of the perfect God's will. These perfect beings that chose a will opposite Gods perfect will, directly caused evil. God did not directly cause evil, he indirectly caused it. So is it fair to blame something that indirectly caused evil or is it more fair to blame something that directly caused evil? Essentially God is innocent and satan is guilty.

Explain why god is perfect. Not something from your opinion, truth only.

So Satan created malaria, earthquakes, and diabetes?

Because free will has nothing to do with those. It looks like you're trying to dodge the question.

God created people who wouldn't do as he wanted.

 

[Freodin]

Every time I explained it to you...you stopped posting. Then you'd return the next day, ignore my post, and act like nothing happened.

For a guy who claims to be interested in the truth, you have a habit of ignoring it and then going on like it was never presented to you.

He does that a lot, doesn't he? And with this new forum system, it isn't as if you don't get an "alert" that directly tells you: "Hey, here is someone who made a direct response to one of your posts."

The main thing I don't like about internet discussions... it is just so easy to feign ignorance of a statement. Imagine that happening in a real life conversation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He does that a lot, doesn't he? And with this new forum system, it isn't as if you don't get an "alert" that directly tells you: "Hey, here is someone who made a direct response to one of your posts."

The main thing I don't like about internet discussions... it is just so easy to feign ignorance of a statement. Imagine that happening in a real life conversation.

I suppose I really wouldn't mind if he weren't making statements about his desire for the truth, and seeking the truth, or beginning with the truth. It's all lip service.

I can't recall one instance where a hard question was asked of me and I just ignored it.

I easily put the same question to him 3 times in that thread and got the exact same response as this one....he disappeared, then came back and acted like it never happened.

 

[paulm50]

Perfect.

What does it really mean to you?

Ah yes I remember that now. What your doing is blaming a perfect God for what he indirectly caused. You should be blaming the perfect beings that this perfect God created for what they directly caused when they freely chose a will oposite of the perfect God's will. These perfect beings that chose a will opposite Gods perfect will, directly caused evil. God did not directly cause evil, he indirectly caused it. So is it fair to blame something that indirectly caused evil or is it more fair to blame something that directly caused evil? Essentially God is innocent and satan is guilty.

 

[Freodin]

Second attempt at this response. The first one can be found at post #132.
I usually do not "bump" my own posts, but as Chriliman seems to make a habit of ignoring posts and points made in posts, and later claiming that he didn't get an answer, I think this exception from my usual style is justified.

I would consider assumptions that are not based on honest objective observation are false assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions I never want to make. After honest objective observation of atheists I felt safe to assume they would bring God into a conversation about perfection first and its unclear to me why they would do this since they don't believe in God. I never got a clear answer on this because the person falsely assumed I was lying.

You might not have gotten an answer from this specific person... but you did get a clear answer: from me. Post #103.
You didn't miss this post - you quoted it in your post #104, but didn't acknowledge it.

This is not a sign of objectivity or honesty.

So you're saying I shouldn't make safe assumptions after honestly objectively observing? How can I ever learn anything if I don't?

Rephrasing my point to something different and adding "so you're saying (something unrelated and contrary)"... not a sign of objectivity or honesty.
I was quite clear in my post: I showed you several ways for "learning" that do work, very well indeed, and some ways that do not work. Like making a really working logical argument, by a tried and tested method (reductio ad absurdum). Or by making an argument that is based on a logical fallacy. (Non sequitur: I have been correct here, that means I am correct in something unrelated also.)

You can't prove that perfect objectivity does not exist, so that's an example of a bad assumption. Also, if existence is currently perfect and you exist in this perfect existence, this would make you perfect, thus no reason to go out of perfect existence(if there is a reason please explain it), yet you contradict this view by saying you will go out of existence when you die.

Ignoring the statements you made for yourself when it suits you... not a sign of objectivity or honesty.
You said that people cannot be perfectly objective. Now when I say the same, you think that this is a "bad assumption".
Not acknowledging the answers you have been given... not a sign of objectivity or honesty.
I already answered the objection you made here, in my post #36. But again you chose to ignore it. As you did with the whole line of reasoning regarding "existence" that I presented in my post #92.

Yes, I am aware that missing posts and point can easily happen in a discussion of this form. It is not easy to have several parallel conversations with different people, following different lines of thought.
But this isn't something new, something unknown or unexpected. You are no newbie in internet discussions. Yet you deliberately started this thread, asking a whole group of people for a conversation.
And still you couldn't or didn't want to keep up. Not a sign of objectivity or honesty.

 

[Chriliman]

I'll simply my point for you so you don't get tangled up in thoughts about free will.

You think god is perfect and that he created the earth.

Earthquakes happen because of the way the earth was made.

If god can create the earth, surely he could've created it so that earthquakes don't happen.

If god created the earth, and he created it in a way that earthquakes happen, clearly he cannot be perfect.

Do you get it now?

Sorry I had to go to sleep, it was 1am here.

The earth in its current state was indirectly caused by God. You can thank satan for all the bad things you see in this current world because he directly caused them.

Your not being objective when you look at the current state of the world and try to shove a perfect God into it. To be objective you need to start from a perfect Gods perspective which is that a perfect God would first create perfect beings with free will.

 

[Chriliman]

I guess I have to let people know when I'm not going to be available to respond or else false assumptions will be made, so I may not be available to respond for the next few hours. Fyi

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry I had to go to sleep, it was 1am here.

The earth in its current state was indirectly caused by God. You can thank satan for all the bad things you see in this current world because he directly caused them.

Your not being objective when you look at the current state of the world and try to shove a perfect God into it. To be objective you need to start from a perfect Gods perspective which is that a perfect God would first create perfect beings with free will.

Oh? I didn't realize you were outside of the U.S.?

Sorry...but I didn't see the passage in the bible that says Satan controls earthquakes. They happen because of how the earth was made...you're saying Satan has the power to change god's creations? Are you just making this stuff up?

Why do you think earthquakes are "evil"? There's no intention or motive to them...the vast majority of them occur without any harm or damage. Again, they occur as a result of how the earth formed...tectonic plates and all that. Is Satan the cause of continental drift lol? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? If such vast powers are at Satan's disposal, why doesn't he just destroy us all?

Moreover...why didn't your "perfect god" create the earth in a way that earthquakes don't happen? Why did he leave this stuff out of the bible?

Edit- Also, does Satan control lightening strikes? Does he control all of them and just has really bad aim? Or does he just control the ones that hit people?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

In this forum I would like to engage honest atheists in a conversation about near perfect existence. I would like honest atheists to describe their versions of what near perfect existence would or should be like.

If you're an honest theist, I'd like you to just observe this thread as objectively as possible because a truth will be demonstrated eventually. I would ask that the first honest person (either atheist or theist) who observes the demonstrated truth to then at that time comment and reveal what the truth is that will be demonstrated.

Understand I'm making a prediction that a truth will be demonstrated through this forum, if my prediction is correct anyone is welcome verify by conducting a similar thread in an attempt to falsify the demonstrated truth.

So I'm asking all atheists to describe their ideas about what near perfect existence could or should be like, that is if you even believe near perfect existence is achievable by humans.

Thanks!

Perfect? Nigh Perfect?

In order to be perfect you realize everything... literally everything would have to be at the ideal "amount" or condition, right? How would that even work?

But MY perfect (or nigh perfect) existence would be

-AAA games being released without a patch the next day
-Wages high enough to not require me to work 60 hour weeks to get by
-Old people having their driver's licenses revoked to keep them off the road (It's my "social security" for you to get outta my way)
-College being free or significantly reduced
-International travel being free
-CO2 emissions not being high

Uhhh obviously I'm just nitpicking because kinda silly question

 

[paulm50]

Sorry I had to go to sleep, it was 1am here.

The earth in its current state was indirectly caused by God. You can thank satan for all the bad things you see in this current world because he directly caused them.

Your not being objective when you look at the current state of the world and try to shove a perfect God into it. To be objective you need to start from a perfect Gods perspective which is that a perfect God would first create perfect beings with free will.

So satan is able to do as he pleases to the world. Because he created us to do things he wanted or didn't want?

There are many things wrong with the Universe, all the dead planets seem to be a waste of time, except for banging into each other and killing any life on any planet it hits. The Earth has been hit many times. Then there are the natural disasters that kill so many, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, drought, floods, temperature changes, plagues, etc.

giving us free will was the right thing to do, us using it is the wrong thing to do.

Thank you for clearing up what makes a perfect life.