Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

No, my friend. I understand that you rather attack me than accept your own failures, but you are wrong here. For the first part of that statement for a reason you claimed as your own... for the second part simply because of what you are.

First point: you are not the arbiter of truth. You don't have the authority or the wisdom to simply declare your position as correct, and other positions as incorrect.
You yourself said, in a post that I now quote again, that you can "safely assume", as long as you are not shown wrong.


So, as long as you cannot give me a reason why I am wrong, I am safe to assume that I am right. Correct? Your reasoning.

Second point: I have a reason for my assumption. You might not like it, you might not want to consider it, but it exists.
Objectively (and honestly): can something be "better" than it is? I say: no, it cannot. The "thing" as it is exists. The "thing" as it is imagine to be - "better" or "more perfect" - does not. If it did, it would be the better "thing".
Change and extrapolations for future events are no exception or contradiction to that: a "thing" can change. It can even get closer to the subjective standard of "better" or "more perfect". But at that point, it will again be what it is.

So, nothing can be better than it is. Something that is better than its existing state does not exists. If something cannot be better than it is, it is perfect. All existence is perfect, because nothing else exists.

There you have the reason. My assumption is not false.

Third point: I am not the clearly dishonest one here. I stand by my statements. My statements do not contradict.
My statements and assumptions may be false... but I do not deliberatly hide that. My statements are based on your standard of objectivity and honesty.

So my assumption is not false because you disagree with me. I am not dishonest because I disagree with you.



And justifiedly so. Our views of "existence" are different.
It is obvious from your postings. You kept talking about "society" or "the perfect society". You talk about the circumstances within our existence.
I on the other hand made it clear from the start:



I have good reason to assume, thank you. Read above.

And as for "losing all respect" if my assumptions turn out to be wrong... well, if they do, I will "fess up". As yet, you haven't done anything to show they are wrong.
Now you on the other hand have repeatedly contradicted yourself - and I have shown that, with your own words. It is there, for all to read.

Yet it doesn't seem that the threat of "losing all respect" means anything to you. So why should I bother, to hold the respect of someone who isn't worthy of respect?


And if all fails, play the persecution card. You are not "hated" because you are chosen, or because you are not "of this world"... or even because Jesus was hated.

You are "hated" - in real terms that means "criticized and notified of your errors" - because you are wrong - obviously wrong - and unable to admit it.

I do understand what you mean when you say existence is perfect. Meaning the moment something exists it perfectly exists. But why? Whats the point of perfect existence if in the end it goes out of existence? Whats the point of non-existence being possible within perfect existence? Right now all you can say is that non-existence is a part of perfect existence, but there is no reason behind what you say.

I do agree that I perfectly exist, but I recognize imperfections in my reality, including myself as being imperfect. This informs me that since I perfectly exist there could be a more perfect reality that I could realize in time. Time is perfect in that it allows change, I believe I can be changed into a perfect being over time. The only control I have over this change would be my free will to accept what has the power to change me, which is God because God is unchanging.

You don't seem to view existence and time as allowing you to change over time into a perfect being, because you seem to think you are already as perfect as you can possibly be. This implies you're unable to recognize your own imperfections that could be improved over time. If you can recognize your own imperfection that could be improved over time then you admit you're not as perfect as you can possibly be at this moment in time.

Again, I'm only trying to make sense of your reasoning, but when I try to make sense of it, there ends up being no reason behind it, leaving it unreasonable, rendering me incapable of accepting your reasoning as reasonable.

If you just give a reason as to why something that perfectly exists should ever go out of existence, without asserting non-existence is just a part of perfect existence, then I might be willing to accept your reasoning as true. Until you provide sound reasoning for your view, I can't accept it as true.

 

[Chriliman]

Whoa wait a minute there bud let's back it up a second. In Exodus we have an entire set piece directly dedicated to God (the LORD) taking away the pharaoh's free will to let the people go. Directly. He "hardened his heart."

Care to explain that?

Great point and one that I struggled with too. I then realized God is all knowing, so God already knew Pharaoh would not choose God's will (God's will being to free His people from slavery in Egypt). Since God knew this, He can then say Pharaoh's heart was hardened, meaning the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened was already determined by God, but only because God already knew Pharaoh would never choose God's will. So God didn't directly control Pharaoh's will, He just already knew what Pharaoh would choose. It is an interesting dynamic God has with man, I'd suggest you study further to find an understanding that you can grasp.

How does that make any sense? Jesus was pre-determined matyr from the get-go. He even pleads out to God "why have you forsaken me?" because life had not been pleasant. I doubt Jesus really did freely choose any of that. Because I'm pretty sure he would have high tailed it.

Jesus saying "why have you forsaken me?", is a way for us to relate to Jesus in that many times in our own lives it may feel as if God has forsaken us, but its really only to teach and fulfill a greater purpose that we cannot see. As a man, Jesus was limited in His ability to see the will of the Father. As we are limited in our ability to see the will of the Father. Just beautiful theology!

Okay so how does God conquer something of his own creation? Why does he even have to put in any effort for that? He killed several (In very gruesome ways) people before but now he wanted to conquer death because? Really though, what happened to the millions who died to his hand before that point? Death seemed like the only way he dealt with things before then.

God only conquers what He did not directly cause. God directly created life and in doing so He indirectly caused evil, which He must destroy because it is not directly from Himself.

Evil is his own creation too. Direct quote from Isiah in the KJV 45:7:

I agree, if God had not created anything then evil would not exist. You would not exist either.

So what was his reasoning behind creating evil? To conquer it and make himself look good? Sin was a consequence to evil as well, something he did as well. What's the reasoning behind all this? Care to explain?

There is no reason for evil, which is why God has and is and will destroy it. God allows evil in order to teach His truth and His truth is that evil has and is and will be destroyed through Jesus Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

What do you make of Christians who don't believe in free will, such as Calvinists?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't agree with them. Any sub-sect of Christianity that draws its core belief from a man, like Calvinism does, is likely to be slightly off from what is true. A Christian must only get truth from believing in Jesus and asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't agree with them. Any sub-sect of Christianity that draws its core belief from a man, like Calvinism does, is likely to be slightly off from what is true. A Christian must only get truth from believing in Jesus and asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

Your method of getting the truth; wisdom from the holy spirit is one of the reasons, we have so many denominations of Christianity. People tend to perceive truth's from invisible sources, that meet their individual psychological needs.

 

[Freodin]

I do understand what you mean when you say existence is perfect. Meaning the moment something exists it perfectly exists. But why? Whats the point of perfect existence if in the end it goes out of existence? Whats the point of non-existence being possible within perfect existence? Right now all you can say is that non-existence is a part of perfect existence, but there is no reason behind what you say.

Yes, it is quite possible that there is no "reason" behind that. (A question instead of an assumption now, just for you: do you mean something like "intent" or "plan" when you use the word "reason"... or are you just referring to a causal relation?)

But I have given you the reason why I think existence is perfect, based on objectivity and honesty. And I can observe - objectivly and honestly - that things go out of existence. That is simply a case of identity... regardless of what you think about the Colossus of Rhodes, it doesn't exist any more. Memory, tales or images of an object are not the object itself. Different identity.

So let's look at it again: objectively and honestly.
Here I am, making my assumption on honest objective reasoning and honest objective observation. I may not have a "perfect" understanding of it, but my base assumption is sound - "safe" as you would say.
Now you, also making an assumption - after you have repeatedly said that you would only do that when it was "safe" - the assumption that existence is eternal.
You cannot base that on honest objective observation - we do not observe eternal existence. You also need to disregard and rationalize away existing honest objective observations - that things go out of existence.

So instead of making a "safe" assumption, you make an extremely "unsafe" one: one that goes against your own standard of reasoning.
And you will do anything to keep that unsafe assumption. Even if it has not yet been shown wrong, it has been shown not be adhere to your own standards.

I do agree that I perfectly exist, but I recognize imperfections in my reality, including myself as being imperfect. This informs me that since I perfectly exist there could be a more perfect reality that I could realize in time. Time is perfect in that it allows change, I believe I can be changed into a perfect being over time. The only control I have over this change would be my free will to accept what has the power to change me, which is God because God is unchanging.

That again is an assumption, not something that you could conclude. There are no observations to back that up... which, according to your own standard should mean that you could only question, not assume.

But that would mean dropping all your your assertions of "truth" here, wouldn't it? It would mean you would be reduced to assert your belief. Nothing wrong with that... but it seems you like to dress up a little more than that.

You don't seem to view existence and time as allowing you to change over time into a perfect being, because you seem to think you are already as perfect as you can possibly be. This implies you're unable to recognize your own imperfections that could be improved over time. If you can recognize your own imperfection that could be improved over time then you admit you're not as perfect as you can possibly be at this moment in time.

Nope, wrong again. These "imperfections" that you are talking about now are part of this subjective standard that applies within the circumstances of our (perfect) existence.
I do acknowledge them, even if I may have a different standard of this kind of "perfection" than you do. Shouldn't be surprising, considering that it is not an objective standard.

But whatever I will be, in whatever way I will change - to the better or worse on my subjective view of "perfection"... I will always perfectly exist. As I have explained in my last post... everything else is impossible. I am now as perfect as I can possibly be at this moment in time. When I change - and I will! - the new being will also be as perfect as I can possibly be at this moment. It will just be a different perfect being.

But a "more perfect" version of me at this moment in time does not exist... else you would be talking to him.

Again, I'm only trying to make sense of your reasoning, but when I try to make sense of it, there ends up being no reason behind it, leaving it unreasonable, rendering me incapable of accepting your reasoning as reasonable.

You are trying to make sense of my reasoning... and fail. That is as much my fault as it is yours: in this perfect existence I am not someone who can make others understand everything I say.

And if you are incapable of accepting my reasoning... well, you are not required to. I am hoping that you will understand, but neither you nor I lose anything if you don't.
What I am really trying to do is to make you understand that all these things that you say now keep you from "accepting my reasoning" and all the things you say are to provide you with "reasons"... all this is lacking in your own approach.
I cannot make you accept my reason that I offered... but you don't even offer a reason to accept your assumptions. You turn and wiggle each time when I point out that you contradict yourself, and you keep lashing out against other instead of analyzing your own mistakes.

If you just give a reason as to why something that perfectly exists should ever go out of existence, without asserting non-existence is just a part of perfect existence, then I might be willing to accept your reasoning as true. Until you provide sound reasoning for your view, I can't accept it as true.

Identity and change. Identity is something that really defines something... everything that makes something what it is. Not just single facets - everything.

In a previous paragraph you talked about time and change. That you could change, into a more perfect being.

The you that is a more perfect being is not the you that is not a perfect being. It is a different thing: similar, having continuity - but different. When it exists, the other, imperfect you, does not. Isn't it especially the Christians who say that you are renewed, reborn... that your old self died?

Now it is possible - and we observe it - that something changes so completely, so totally, that the identity is completely different from the old thing. A few thousand copper and tin atoms do not have the identity of the Colussus of Rhodes. The image of the Colussus of Rhodes does not have the same identity. The memory of it is the the thing itself.

The only thing that is, under our current honest objective observations, extempt from that reasoning is "everything". The identity of "everything" will always be "everything".

Change and time itself - part of existence - are the reason why things go out of existence.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Great point and one that I struggled with too. I then realized God is all knowing, so God already knew Pharaoh would not choose God's will (God's will being to free His people from slavery in Egypt). Since God knew this, He can then say Pharaoh's heart was hardened, meaning the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened was already determined by God, but only because God already knew Pharaoh would never choose God's will. So God didn't directly control Pharaoh's will, He just already knew what Pharaoh would choose. It is an interesting dynamic God has with man, I'd suggest you study further to find an understanding that you can grasp.

Hang on a second. The pharaoh wanted to let them go. He DID.

Exodus 7:3-4

But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,
he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.

There's an understanding even a 5 year old can grasp. What shall I study first? The sadistic nature of the god? Or his bloodlust? I'm actually insulted that you do these dances and insist I don't understand.

Jesus saying "why have you forsaken me?", is a way for us to relate to Jesus in that many times in our own lives it may feel as if God has forsaken us, but its really only to teach and fulfill a greater purpose that we cannot see.

Time out.

So this didn't happen? How does that take away from what I said?

As a man, Jesus was limited in His ability to see the will of the Father. As we are limited in our ability to see the will of the Father. Just beautiful theology!

Get outta here. Jesus was God in the flesh or not? I find it really odd how you lowball and highball him at different inconsistent points. How about you take a solid stance? Is God so limited that he can't see himself? Because he seemed to understand God's will really easily or else he wouldn't act as his incarnate.

God only conquers what He did not directly cause.

Like the Tower of Babel.

God directly created life and in doing so He indirectly caused evil, which He must destroy because it is not directly from Himself.

I'm not sure you know how logic works. But he has to take responsibility for things he can control. And he can control everything. He created the parameters for evil to exist. Therefore, he directly caused it.

I agree, if God had not created anything then evil would not exist. You would not exist either.

Explain yourself.

There is no reason for evil, which is why God has and is and will destroy it.

So why did he make it?

God allows evil in order to teach His truth and His truth is that evil has and is and will be destroyed through Jesus Christ.

Is he not smart enough to communicate his truth in another way? And can he not just snuff evil out without effort? Why the middle man?

 

[Eudaimonist]

A Christian must only get truth from believing in Jesus and asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

Isn't that precisely what Calvin did?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't agree with them. Any sub-sect of Christianity that draws its core belief from a man, like Calvinism does, is likely to be slightly off from what is true. A Christian must only get truth from believing in Jesus and asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

Seems like your bedtime coincided again with my question. So I'll ask again since you've moved onto other posts while ignoring mine...

Why didn't your "perfect" god create the earth so that earthquakes can't happen? I understand that you think Satan is the cause of death...but that's not what I'm asking.

Earthquakes can only happen because of how the world is made. So why didn't god make the world in a way that they don't happen?

If you're still having trouble understanding the question, I can ask it another way.

 

[Freodin]

Hang on a second.
***snip***

A truth will be revealed in this thread. This truth is that, sooner or later, it will be closed for being General Apologetics, and thus forcing Christians to debate the existence of God.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

A truth will be revealed in this thread. This truth is that, sooner or later, it will be closed for being General Apologetics, and thus forcing Christians to debate the existence of God.

I mean I'm granting him God exists for this exercise. Because his inconsistency is insulting at this point.

But this is how a majority of the topics in this forum go anyway when they address the atheists.

 

[Chriliman]

Seems like your bedtime coincided again with my question. So I'll ask again since you've moved onto other posts while ignoring mine...

Why didn't your "perfect" god create the earth so that earthquakes can't happen? I understand that you think Satan is the cause of death...but that's not what I'm asking.

Earthquakes can only happen because of how the world is made. So why didn't god make the world in a way that they don't happen?

If you're still having trouble understanding the question, I can ask it another way.

I'd suggest studying seismology to determine the objective truth behind why earthquakes happen. From my limited knowledge of seismology, earthquakes are caused my the movement of tectonic plates covering the earth. Tectonic plates move because the earths core is hot and causes the movement. We could go on and on determining the cause behind why the earth's core is hot and so on until we get to the cause of why the universe exists and at that point we realize we cannot determine an objective truth because if the universe has a cause then that cause would not be physical because if it was physical then it would be of the universe and I don't think is reasonable to determine that the universe caused itself.

If you want the truth to why death causes pain and sorrow, then I have a completely separate answer for you which I've clearly stated already.

 

[Chriliman]

Isn't that precisely what Calvin did?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I true follow of Jesus would not take credit for what Jesus taught them, obviously the credit should go to Jesus alone. I do believe Calvin's teachings have lead people to Jesus, but not because of anything Calvin did, only because of what Jesus did.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I'd suggest studying seismology to determine the objective truth behind why earthquakes happen. From my limited knowledge of seismology, earthquakes are caused my the movement of tectonic plates covering the earth. Tectonic plates move because the earths core is hot and causes the movement. We could go on and on determining the cause behind why the earth's core is hot and so on until we get to the cause of why the universe exists and at that point we realize we cannot determine an objective truth because if the universe has a cause then that cause would not be physical because if it was physical then it would be of the universe and I don't think is reasonable to determine that the universe caused itself.

If you want the truth to why death causes pain and sorrow, then I have a completely separate answer for you which I've clearly stated already.

Such an unsatisfactory answer.

 

[Chriliman]

If my beliefs about what is true turns out to be true, I will be rewarded with everlasting life(life that is far better than current life). If my beliefs about what is true turns out to be false and God does not exist, I will simply vanish into nothingness when I die. I much prefer everlasting life with a perfect God over vanishing into nothingness(although I can understand why an atheists would prefer this, over judgement, but what comes after judgement is forgiveness you just have to ask).

It seems atheists are motivated by something that is opposed to God and they are more than willing to follow their own thoughts about what it means to be objective even if it leads them to determining that objectivity is pointless. Objectivity is pointless if we just cease to exist when we die. I don't see how an atheist can justify their opposition to God, when its their justification that becomes meaningless when they die. All atheists should deeply ask themselves "What is my true motivation?" It seems the true motivation is to watch Christian stumble and fall and for what? So you can be right? Seems like very self righteous behavior.

My motivation is to try and help you understand my beliefs so you can share in the hope and joy I find in Jesus Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

Such an unsatisfactory answer.

Is it possible for a satisfactory answer to even exist for you?

If so, then there is hope!

 

[GrimKingGrim]

It seems atheists are motivated by something that is opposed to God and they are more than willing to follow their own thoughts about what it means to be objective even if it leads them to determining that objectivity is pointless. Objectivity is pointless if we just cease to exist when we die. I don't see how an atheist can justify their opposition to God, when its their justification that becomes meaningless when they die. All atheists should deeply ask themselves "What is my true motivation?" It seems the true motivation is to watch Christian stumble and fall and for what? So you can be right? Seems like very self righteous behavior.

My motivation is to try and help you understand my beliefs so you can share in the hope and joy I find in Jesus Christ.

Believe it or not we have lives and we have motivations. That are NOT religious, I know that may seem strange.

Atheists simply carve their own paths and aren't so afraid of death that they would perform mental gymnastics and grovel to something they don't even know about for a chance of something that seems ridiculously illogical. So yea.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Is it possible for a satisfactory answer to even exist for you?

You dodged his question like a champ, sport. He didn't ask about seismology. He asked you pretty directly something different.

 

[Chriliman]

You dodged his question like a champ, sport. He didn't ask about seismology. He asked you pretty directly something different.

Ah, but the answer to why God created earthquakes would reasonably not be a simple thing to explain, which is why I suggested studying seismology. If you want to determine why God created the universe, I'd suggest studying science and Christian theology, you just might find an answer that actually makes sense.

I'm pretty sure Ana the Ist is a girl, but I could be wrong

 

[Chriliman]

You dodged his question like a champ, sport. He didn't ask about seismology. He asked you pretty directly something different.

You dodged my question like a champ

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I'm pretty sure Ana the Ist is a girl, but I could be wrong

I remember Ana revealing to be a dude a while back.

You dodged my question like a champ

Because satisfactory answers are really easy. And I take them. I always have.