Philosophy Discussion Forums

Whitedragon wrote: ↑December 11th, 2016, 8:41 am So many debates gravitate around the degrading of the Lord. In our attempts to disprove him or discredit him, we find some satisfaction. These questions and accusations bring us to a new question, what has he actually done wrong?

Why do you think god should be a "HIM"?

I expect that the child molesters of the church believed that God did not make mistakes either. However, their victims had some cause to doubt God's perfection.

If the atrocities of life are not God's errors, then he/she/it must have been the perpetrator. After all, the Bible often points out that we are God's children, and children can't be expected to be in control of themselves. If God made everything, then that's where total responsibility lies for how creation operates. It is absurd to single out human "sinners" from populations and blame all ills on them within a schema that relies on organisms being forced to kill or exploit others to survive, resulting in incalculable suffering.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 9:39 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2022, 4:15 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 1st, 2022, 10:11 am In answer to the original question.God hasn’t done anything wrong as far as I can see.Man admits that he is totally responsible for all atrocities carried out throughout history as long as there isn’t a God involved.It’s only when a God is mentioned that he tries to shift the blame.

Uummm... gods do wrong things all the time. Ares slept with Hephaestus' wife Aphrodite and then got caught at it by Helios. Big mistake, since then Helios ratted him out. Very embarrassing.

I would say that a one true God doesn’t make mistakes.That would make that God imperfect.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every believer of a religion believes that their gods are the "true" gods.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:01 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 9:39 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2022, 4:15 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 1st, 2022, 10:11 am In answer to the original question.God hasn’t done anything wrong as far as I can see.Man admits that he is totally responsible for all atrocities carried out throughout history as long as there isn’t a God involved.It’s only when a God is mentioned that he tries to shift the blame.

Uummm... gods do wrong things all the time. Ares slept with Hephaestus' wife Aphrodite and then got caught at it by Helios. Big mistake, since then Helios ratted him out. Very embarrassing.

I would say that a one true God doesn’t make mistakes.That would make that God imperfect.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every believer of a religion believes that their gods are the "true" gods.

The point I am making comes back around to my rejection of secular science simply because it is unable to answer all my deeper enquiries and makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level.I would suggest that only natures science can do that.Secular science also claims that there is no such thing as good and bad but then decides the need for rules or else society would collapse.I believe that that is the secular sciences weakest link.Where does that remote sense of right and wrong come from?Even if it stems from mechanical reasoning, which I would suggest it doesn’t,if even mechanical reasoning comes to a conclusion that rules are required or else society would collapse then I would suggest there has always been a difference between right and wrong.Now I would suggest that if there has always been a difference between right and wrong then the deeper question is what is that difference? This brings me to a God who would need to keep those rules perfectly or else be a hypocrite.Which brings me back to my point that I believe that a God would keep rules perfectly if that God created them in the first place.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:28 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:01 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 9:39 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2022, 4:15 am

Uummm... gods do wrong things all the time. Ares slept with Hephaestus' wife Aphrodite and then got caught at it by Helios. Big mistake, since then Helios ratted him out. Very embarrassing.

I would say that a one true God doesn’t make mistakes.That would make that God imperfect.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every believer of a religion believes that their gods are the "true" gods.

The point I am making comes back around to my rejection of secular science simply because it is unable to answer all my deeper enquiries and makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level.I would suggest that only natures science can do that.Secular science also claims that there is no such thing as good and bad but then decides the need for rules or else society would collapse.I believe that that is the secular sciences weakest link.Where does that remote sense of right and wrong come from?Even if it stems from mechanical reasoning, which I would suggest it doesn’t,if even mechanical reasoning comes to a conclusion that rules are required or else society would collapse then I would suggest there has always been a difference between right and wrong.Now I would suggest that if there has always been a difference between right and wrong then the deeper question is what is that difference? This brings me to a God who would need to keep those rules perfectly or else be a hypocrite.Which brings me back to my point that I believe that a God would keep rules perfectly if that God created them in the first place.

So much to unpack here.

No doubt there are those who do not deal well with the concept that some things are (currently) unknown and some are perhaps unknowable. Such folks are, of course drawn to identities that claim to know everything. No surprise there.

Personally when someone or something makes extraordinary claims, that makes me automatically suspicious, especially when extraordinary evidence to back it up is not forthcoming. But others differ (which may be why con artists can make a living).

As to your use of the term "rules" to describe right and wrong, that implies that morality is objective when even the most cursory review would easily demonstrate that it is subjective.

As to perfection of gods, that concept suffers from the same illogic as omnipotence and omniscience.

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:53 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:28 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 3:01 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 9:39 am

I would say that a one true God doesn’t make mistakes.That would make that God imperfect.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every believer of a religion believes that their gods are the "true" gods.

The point I am making comes back around to my rejection of secular science simply because it is unable to answer all my deeper enquiries and makes no connection whatsoever at the psychological level.I would suggest that only natures science can do that.Secular science also claims that there is no such thing as good and bad but then decides the need for rules or else society would collapse.I believe that that is the secular sciences weakest link.Where does that remote sense of right and wrong come from?Even if it stems from mechanical reasoning, which I would suggest it doesn’t,if even mechanical reasoning comes to a conclusion that rules are required or else society would collapse then I would suggest there has always been a difference between right and wrong.Now I would suggest that if there has always been a difference between right and wrong then the deeper question is what is that difference? This brings me to a God who would need to keep those rules perfectly or else be a hypocrite.Which brings me back to my point that I believe that a God would keep rules perfectly if that God created them in the first place.

So much to unpack here.

No doubt there are those who do not deal well with the concept that some things are (currently) unknown and some are perhaps unknowable. Such folks are, of course drawn to identities that claim to know everything. No surprise there.

Personally when someone or something makes extraordinary claims, that makes me automatically suspicious, especially when extraordinary evidence to back it up is not forthcoming. But others differ (which may be why con artists can make a living).

As to your use of the term "rules" to describe right and wrong, that implies that morality is objective when even the most cursory review would easily demonstrate that it is subjective.

As to perfection of gods, that concept suffers from the same illogic as omnipotence and omniscience.

The point I have made is that whether it is mechanical or non mechanical reasonings, both sides make the same claim that the need for rules is paramount or society would fall apart.

I would suggest that this deeper realisation of the need of rules stems from something that sits above consciousness, the “I am”.

I would suggest that natures science recognises the “I am” whereas secular science does not.

I take it that this "I am" also applies to the many rules imposed in social structures of other species, such as wolves, lions, deer, penguins, bovines, ants, bees and wasps.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2022, 7:25 pm I take it that this "I am" also applies to the many rules imposed in social structures of other species, such as wolves, lions, deer, penguins, bovines, ants, bees and wasps.

As I have already suggested in other posts matter may disappear and reappear during the ”toggling” electromechanical process but I would suggest that a part of the “I am” remains unaffected by this process.I would suggest that any rules imposed would relate to all matter and the 2 part “I am” which I have suggested in other posts needs to be untangled as well.

I am not trying to define good or bad,I am querying this deep seated need for rules that I suggest originates from either mechanical or non mechanical reasonings.

I would suggest that this deep seated need for rules also suggests that there is such a thing as good and bad (or why the need for rules?) and I suggest that this need ordinated separate from consciousness.

I see rules as inevitable. Social species with rules out-compete those without. We know this because most social species today impose rules. Ultimately, rules allow for group cohesion. Groups that fail to cohere via common understandings of behavioural boundaries invariably either fall apart or are overrun by better organised groups.

Our current societal rules can be explained by efficacy to the leadfership, along with latency towards changes aka tradition, conservatism. There's a constant tension in groups between the need to change and refresh and the need for stability and relative certainty.

Renewal vs stability. Stagnation vs chaos.

This divide is especially sharp in human groups because we think a number of moves ahead, like chess players. Where one stands on any given issue, to some extent, is impacted by how many moves ahead one is looking, and how reliably so.

Rules are part of us, embedded in our brain's evolution since our earliest social ancestors first devised rules that were sufficiently effective for them to successfully reproduce.

I would suggest that the need for rules has always been firmly established and not inevitable or why the need for evolution to slowly realise it? I would suggest that the need for rules has always been there, evolution or shall we say ignorance was just too UNAWARE to realise it.

Rules determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.They lay down boundaries.I would suggest that there are perfect rules and imperfect rules.I would suggest that evolution would only be able to set imperfect rules to start with until it receives full awareness to put perfect rules in place.

I would suggest again and maintain that awareness sits above consciousness and the “I am” sits above awareness.

There is no need for an "I am" to explain rules. Natural selection and its extrapolations in human societies are ample.

There are no perfect rules, just rules that work better than others in different situations. Many rules that worked fine in Middle East, for instance, are not useful in the modern west.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 5th, 2022, 3:05 am There is no need for an "I am" to explain rules. Natural selection and its extrapolations in human societies are ample.

There are no perfect rules, just rules that work better than others in different situations. Many rules that worked fine in Middle East, for instance, are not useful in the modern west.

I would suggest otherwise and the reason for this is most individuals 2 part “I am” just toggles in total unawareness between the 2 waking consciousness states exercising no control whatsoever over them because they are totally unaware.If they had awareness then they would understand the science behind this consciousness “toggling” which I would suggest is natures science and not secular science.As I have also suggested natures science is the only way to unite the sciences.It is not possible to do this with secular science which makes no connection whatsoever with the psychological make up.

AWARENESS is the key to understanding the connections across the sciences.I would suggest that secular science is stumbling around in the darkness and will continue to do so which is inevitable.I would also suggest that the reason that mental struggles are increasing is because individuals don’t have an awareness/understanding of natures science.

In relation to the above I would also suggest that relying on autopilot to do all the work is fine even if you are stuck in unawareness.

The problem arises when autopilot starts to fail which I would suggest is the reason for the explosion in mental health struggles.

When autopilot starts failing the individual is forced to try and fly the plane more consciously in manual themselves without the instruction manual.

What has God actually done wrong ?

He has pretended to exist when he does not.
Aside from that - just about everything.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 5th, 2022, 5:31 am What has God actually done wrong ?

He has pretended to exist when he does not.
Aside from that - just about everything.

You hope, because that is all you have at the end of the day like everyone else.