Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since I am fallible, I can rationally objectively consider a God who is infallible.
If I were infallible, I would be God, but I know I am not God.
The fact that I know I'm not God because I'm fallible means I must admit an infallible God is possible. Just because I admit an infallible God is possible does not mean I have to accept this God as true. All it means is that I'm being intellectually honest, regardless of my preconceived notions about particular religions that claim an infallible God exists.
But belief is not a conscious choice, is it?The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).
The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not. Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.
Holding one responsible for things beyond ones control, under penalty of an eternal "Hell", could also be considered tyrannical.A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical.
How do you know this? Have you some mind-reading hat that allows you to peer into a critter's (humans included) brain, to see if it is self-aware?Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)
I disagree fully with your first premise. Belief in something existing is not contingent upon it being favorable. Also, the hubris of considering humans, or anything else on this planet, perfect is staggering. Additionally, free will is an overrated quality that you can't even decidedly prove humans have, and if we do, god has violated it in the bible before.The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).
The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not. Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.
A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical. Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)
But your admitting there is an infallible God is indeed, fallible.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
I disagree fully with your first premise. Belief in something existing is not contingent upon it being favorable. Also, the hubris of considering humans, or anything else on this planet, perfect is staggering. Additionally, free will is an overrated quality that you can't even decidedly prove humans have, and if we do, god has violated it in the bible before.
Our current reality suggests anything but a perfect and good god, to such an extent that a being having all three qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence is considered to be contradictory to the observable world around us. And even if having the capacity for good and evil was necessary for us to develop, surely one could place a cap on it so that we could only do so bad, and violate the wills of thousands in doing so.
Also, that god you speak of didn't give us much choice in the afterlife. In fact, since belief isn't contingent upon conscious will, most people who believe or don't do so as a result of their interactions with the world, not conscious decision making. In one such as myself, you can want to believe in god, and be incapable of forcing yourself to. I have been trying for years, and have never succeeded (with a brief period of stopping that lasted less than 4 months). Is it perfect that my own beliefs will not bend to my will?
My fallibility has no effect on an infallible God existing or not.
You are also fallible in your reluctance to believe my claim that an infallible God exists.
Which is why I rely on independent objective evidence which can be verified, before I make such conclusions. It tends to help with the objectivity.
Any perception you have of a God, is fallible, because no objective evidence is available, to verify the same.
Which denomination of Christianity do you want me to use? There is some variability in how I can answer that. If you have no preference, I'll probably end up using a bit of all the ones I am familiar with.Before I go further I want a better understanding of how much you understand the Christian description of origins and the origins of evil. Can you tell me your understanding?
Which denomination of Christianity do you want me to use? There is some variability in how I can answer that. If you have no preference, I'll probably end up using a bit of all the ones I am familiar with.
Or maybe that's it: that by constantly reminding ourselves that we're not anything or any action but qualitatively more as the elusive sense of consciousness that underlies it, we can gain relief from realizing that we're not being attacked or threatened when any of these ideas are also attacked or threatened. This is part of why the ideal of self-transcendence is so valued: because it helps us get beyond this false sense of self as identity and really enjoy the world.
Underneath all this all the while is the self as consciousness. Nobody considers this guy because he's very much the lens through which all other things are considered. Is it possible to identify with our consciousness only? That would mean that we identify with nothing, because consciousness is ultimately nothing, no-thing in an objective sense, and it's always the consciousness (subject) that objectifies everything else, except other subjects (but that's a complicated discussion).
Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?
IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?
Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable?
You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct?
So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable.
Is this fair way to view those of faith?
The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).
The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not.
Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.
A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical. Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)
I highly doubt consciousness is even possible to begin with, without a system that has abstract sense of self.
Identity, rather than being bad, is entirely necessary.
You can not transcend the self to experience if experiences require the abstract self to be experienced.
You would instead descend into the world of sensation without conscious experience.
Consciousness is not a non thing, it is the entire system and experience in total, both the total physical system of thought, and self referential abstract system of thought, and how each of those react with the broader world through experience.
You would do well to consider consciousness, the self, and the world without the usual set of dualistic philosophical assumptions.
Consciousness is possible without being aware of this abstract self; that's what we mean when we speak of a self-transcendent experience: we go beyond ourselves and into the phenomena.
I mean consciousness from the perspective of the one conscious. This is why we refer to the person as a subject, and as a subject he isn't objective; he becomes objective when viewed in a certain way from other subjects (but can also be experienced as a subject by other subjects, but this is complicated). Consciousness in this firsthand sense isn't anything given its subjective and therefore logically non-objective nature. It is therefore nothing, no thing, given its subjectivity.
No idea where you're getting dualism.
Alright. Short summary of the origin of evil from the bible: Humans exist in Eden, as does a forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil god has forbade them from eating the fruit of. Serpent tempts Eve to eat it. Eve gets Adam to eat it. God gets angry. Serpent is punished, both humans and all their descendents are punished. Evil is inherited through Adam and Eve as a result of their consumption of the fruit.That's fine. Use whatever information you have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?