Christians claim that the Christian God is perfect. But, I have my personal reasons for thinking He's imperfect. I'll just share 3 reasons for now. My 1st reason is in regards to the 2 popular, Christian views of punishment, which are Annihilationism (the idea that God erases unsaved sinners from existence), and Eternal Torment (the idea that God casts unsaved sinners into hell to suffer forever).
I think both views depict an unloving (imperfect) God, and I'll explain why. A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his child until that child learns his lesson and changes. An example of an unloving punishment would be God condemning stubborn, rebellious sinners to eternal torment in hell.
In order for torment in hell to be a loving punishment, it must be temporary (that is, it must last until those sinners in hell change their ways). Once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior, their hellish torment should end and God should welcome them into His heavenly kingdom. This temporary torment would make God like a loving parent who punishes his children until they change.
No loving parent would have his/her child tormented forever or annihilated. It says in the bible that God is love, which means His actions are loving. His punishment of stubborn, rebellious sinners on Judgement Day should, therefore, also be loving. Now, Christians think it's just if God's love ceases (if He delivers the unloving punishment of annihilation or eternal torment). But, it wouldn't be just because it would make God imperfect.
Why? I'll explain. A perfect God must be as loving as He is just and vice versa. Therefore, since a perfect God never stops being just, then He never stops being loving. In other words, since His level of justness is perfect (everlasting), then His love must be at the same level, which would be perfect (everlasting). But, there's a verse (John 15:9-12 KJV) that indicates God's love ceases for those who don't keep His commandments.
Therefore, this verse and, of course, annihilation and eternal torment, depict an imperfect God. Everlasting love is called "unconditional love," and no perfect being posseses love that's conditional. Now that I've discussed my 1st reason for thinking the Christian God is imperfect, I'm going to share my 2nd reason. People who don't conclude He exists will face punishment.
So, if He exists and someone concludes, based upon his extensive research, that He doesn't exist and never concludes He exists, then he'd be annihilated or suffer eternal torment in hell, even if he tried his best to come to the right conclusion. I think that's cruel and unfair.
Another example would be someone who does much research, but never comes to any conclusion, due to ongoing controversy regarding God's existence, and due to his lack of intelligence necessary to comprehend most of the research.
That person would also face the cruel, unfair punishment of annihilation or eternal torment, even if he tried his best to come to a conclusion. Now that I've discussed my 2nd reason for thinking He's imperfect, I'm going to share my 3rd reason. If God's human creations don't have free will, then any punishment He inflicts upon them would be unfair.
So, when I mentioned in the beginning that temporary, hellish torment was loving (fair) for stubborn, rebellious sinners, that was from the perspective of humans having free will. But, I'm going to explain why they don't have free will. God knows what tasks a robot would perform because robots don't have free will. They're just machines that are programmed to do certain tasks.
If they had free will, God couldn't know what they'd do because they have the free will to decide. Now, God knows everything, including our future actions. For example, He knew events would occur before they happened, such as the rise of Hitler and his act of exterminating the Jews, and He knew biblical prophecies would be fulfilled.
So, that means humans don't have free will. Also, He knew that only very few people would enter through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14 KJV). If we had free will, He couldn't have known this. So, Matthew 7:13-14 implies that we don't have free will because not having free will means our fate is predetermined, and that Matthew verse explains a predetermined fate.
My objections to the claim of God's perfection
My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Last edited by Mindwave on Thu Mar 21, 2024 9:40 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Omniscient, omnipotent and all powerful gods (or any other entities) have problems with their internal logic, I agree. Having said that, manipulating quotations from a book of mythology doesn't serve as proof (or disproof) of any philosophical issue.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
There is no blank sheet. It does not exist. Logic itself is already an axiomatic system of which you blindly accept the starting-point beliefs or not.
One incredible contribution of the field of mathematics is the insistence that you must explicitly state all starting-point beliefs, including the ones of logic itself.
If nothing is assumed, then nothing can be concluded.
Worse, the very inference rules that allow for conclusions must not be assumed implicitly. In mathematics, they do not even exist, unless you clarify which one of the alternative logic systems you will be using.
By manipulating "quotes from a book of mythology", religious scholars commit to a precisely documented axiomatization.
When have you ever seen an atheist committing to an axiomatization before concluding anything?
Like so many incompetent wannabe philosophers, he typically believes that it is possible to start reasoning from a blank slate. This false belief only reflects his ignorance. Seriously, someone who believes this, does not even understand logic itself.
The content of an axiomatization does not matter. Its semantics do not matter. The only thing that matters, is its syntactic consistency. That guarantees the existence of a model that interprets the axiomatization.
The typical wannabe atheist philosopher fails already at the level of the simplest formalisms required by mathematical logic.
The rules of formalism do not care what exactly it is about, because that does not matter.
If you correctly draw conclusions from a "book of mythology", then you are not in violation of the formalist requirements. If on the other hand, you do not even have a "book" to conclude from, then you effectively are in violation.According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
Rather, mathematical statements are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning.
That is one reason why religious scholars are respected while wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers are not. On grounds of just mathematical formalism, these wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers do not deserve any respect.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
The above might begin to make sense if theists gave equal respect to the books of mythology of other people's religions. Yet they generally don't.godelian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:12 amThere is no blank sheet. It does not exist. Logic itself is already an axiomatic system of which you blindly accept the starting-point beliefs or not.
One incredible contribution of the field of mathematics is the insistence that you must explicitly state all starting-point beliefs, including the ones of logic itself.
If nothing is assumed, then nothing can be concluded.
Worse, the very inference rules that allow for conclusions must not be assumed implicitly. In mathematics, they do not even exist, unless you clarify which one of the alternative logic systems you will be using.
By manipulating "quotes from a book of mythology", religious scholars commit to a precisely documented axiomatization.
When have you ever seen an atheist committing to an axiomatization before concluding anything?
Like so many incompetent wannabe philosophers, he typically believes that it is possible to start reasoning from a blank slate. This false belief only reflects his ignorance. Seriously, someone who believes this, does not even understand logic itself.
The content of an axiomatization does not matter. Its semantics do not matter. The only thing that matters, is its syntactic consistency. That guarantees the existence of a model that interprets the axiomatization.
The typical wannabe atheist philosopher fails already at the level of the simplest formalisms required by mathematical logic.
The rules of formalism do not care what exactly it is about, because that does not matter.
If you correctly draw conclusions from a "book of mythology", then you are not in violation of the formalist requirements. If on the other hand, you do not even have a "book" to conclude from, then you effectively are in violation.According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
Rather, mathematical statements are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning.
That is one reason why religious scholars are respected while wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers are not. On grounds of just mathematical formalism, these wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers do not deserve any respect.
Nice try though...
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Well, I can give you one counterexample in which the messenger of Allah (SAW) adjudicated a legal problem in the Jewish community exclusively from the Torah:
In fact, the Quran has always been considered bi-interpretable with the original Bible minus the part written by Paul:Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi'(No. 4431).
So, there is nothing new in the Quran.Quran 3:3. It is Allah who has sent down the Qur'an to you (Prophet Muhammad ) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
Quran 5:68. Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are standing on nothing until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord."
It is the same moral theory as in the Torah and the Gospel.
The Quran merely removes the false teachings by Paul as well as the alterations to the original Bible, especially the modifications authored by Origen, but also the changes made by a few other Christian interpolators who are responsible for causing textual damage to the original scriptures.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
I think you've missed the forrest for the trees.godelian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:12 amThere is no blank sheet. It does not exist. Logic itself is already an axiomatic system of which you blindly accept the starting-point beliefs or not.
One incredible contribution of the field of mathematics is the insistence that you must explicitly state all starting-point beliefs, including the ones of logic itself.
If nothing is assumed, then nothing can be concluded.
Worse, the very inference rules that allow for conclusions must not be assumed implicitly. In mathematics, they do not even exist, unless you clarify which one of the alternative logic systems you will be using.
By manipulating "quotes from a book of mythology", religious scholars commit to a precisely documented axiomatization.
When have you ever seen an atheist committing to an axiomatization before concluding anything?
Like so many incompetent wannabe philosophers, he typically believes that it is possible to start reasoning from a blank slate. This false belief only reflects his ignorance. Seriously, someone who believes this, does not even understand logic itself.
The content of an axiomatization does not matter. Its semantics do not matter. The only thing that matters, is its syntactic consistency. That guarantees the existence of a model that interprets the axiomatization.
The typical wannabe atheist philosopher fails already at the level of the simplest formalisms required by mathematical logic.
The rules of formalism do not care what exactly it is about, because that does not matter.
If you correctly draw conclusions from a "book of mythology", then you are not in violation of the formalist requirements. If on the other hand, you do not even have a "book" to conclude from, then you effectively are in violation.According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
Rather, mathematical statements are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning.
That is one reason why religious scholars are respected while wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers are not. On grounds of just mathematical formalism, these wannabe atheist blank-slate philosophers do not deserve any respect.
Both theists and atheists are engaging in reverse mathematics. They have a conclusion/theorem.
Theists are those have axiomatized their theorem: X.
Atheists are those who are seeking to axiomatize their theorem: not-X
Ultimately, though - the strongest possible proof-system for X or not-X is the identity axiom. And so they internalize it.
It's all just identity politics. Which is why I think the Univalence axiom is such a gem - it helps us see that it's all the same shit.
negation: A -> -A
negation: -A -> A
Unless we discard double negation elimination...
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Mar 13, 2024 8:11 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
How could you possibly make this claim? You don't know what their internal logic is.
If you knew you'd be a more omniscient/omnipotent god yourself.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Theologians have been defending this opening gambit for centuries.Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm Christians claim that God is perfect. But, I have my personal reasons for thinking He's imperfect. I'll just share 3 reasons for now. My 1st reason is in regards to the 2 popular, Christian views of punishment, which are Annihilationism (the idea that God erases unsaved sinners from existence), and Eternal Torment (the idea that God casts unsaved sinners into hell to suffer forever).
I think both views depict an unloving (imperfect) God, and I'll explain why. A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his child until that child learns his lesson and changes. An example of an unloving punishment would be God condemning stubborn, rebellious sinners to eternal torment in hell.
You have free will. If you do not consent to be with God for eternity is God supposed to force his presence upon you? That seems immoral, and being immoral is against God's nature.
And if you don't want to use the religious language to express the sentiment, then you can use a more contemporary version.
If you don't choose to walk the moral path how's the moral path going to make you walk it?
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
This is actually the least essential theorem in religion.
The most important definition in religion is the predicate isMoral(⌈d⌉), with ⌈d⌉ the description of any human behavior. That is ultimately what the scriptures are about.
Atheist blank-slate philosophers claim that they can also define a predicate isMoral(⌈d⌉). However, where exactly is their version documented? They do not commit to any particular definition.
Judaism and Islam have a bi-interpretable moral theory, defined in their scriptures. Christianity, on the other hand, rejects the very notion of a moral theory, based on Paul's apostasy of the Law:
In that sense, Paul's antinomian religion is not a real one. That is the main reason why Christians tend to lose the debate against atheists. Given the absence of a well-defined isMoral(⌈d⌉) predicate, Christianity is barely superior to atheism, if even.Paul's Galatians 3:13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”.
That is also why nowadays you can float a rainbow flag inside a Christian church. There is no law in Christianity. So, who is able to determine what is permissible and what is not? That is why everything goes in Christianity. A lawless religion is simply pointless.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Contradiction. X is simply a generic, polymorphic predicate-type of which isMoral is a particular instance.
It can't be the least essential theorem when it's the most generic one.
In decoupling morality from truth you allow me to pose this question to you: Either (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊤) ∨ (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊥)
This really isn't necessary, since it's the default presupposition of logic that there's a material difference between Truth (which is Good) and Falsehood (which is Bad). The morality is baked in.
That's why Philosophy pursues Truth; and not Falsehood. It's the moral pursuit.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Because of its core basic algorithm, isMoral() is always decidable.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:16 pm In decoupling morality from truth you allow me to pose this question to you: Either (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊤) ∨ (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊥)
This really isn't necessary, since it's the default presupposition of logic that there's a material difference between Truth (which is Good) and Falsehood (which is Bad). The morality is baked in.
That's why Philosophy pursues Truth; and not Falsehood. It's the moral pursuit.
Behavior starts out by being deemed moral. Next, we try to match a pattern of immorality. If there is a match, the behavior is deemed immoral. If none of the patterns can be matched, the algorithm terminates, and the behavior is deemed moral.
Hence, the problem is decidable and the LEM applies, and therefore, (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊤) ∨ (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊥) is true.
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
You have literally just described the process of starting with X and then successfully proving non-X.godelian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:36 pm Because of its core basic algorithm, isMoral() is always decidable.
Behavior starts out by being deemed moral. Next, we try to match a pattern of immorality. If there is a match, the behavior is deemed immoral. If none of the patterns can be matched, the algorithm terminates, and the behavior is deemed moral.
Hence, the problem is decidable and the LEM applies, and therefore, (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊤) ∨ (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊥) is true.
Which is exactly the same thing as the predicate Negate(X) terminating.
Here's the computational problem you are NOT solving: Maybe(IsMoral(D))) ⇔ Either( (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊤) ∨ (IsMoral(D) ⇔ ⊥) )
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
Is it only so-called "christians" who claim this?
What personal reason do you have for thinking that 'God' is male gendered?
Could it possible that you have a misinterpretation here?Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm I'll just share 3 reasons for now. My 1st reason is in regards to the 2 popular, Christian views of punishment, which are Annihilationism (the idea that God erases unsaved sinners from existence), and Eternal Torment (the idea that God casts unsaved sinners into hell to suffer forever).
Also, did not see the contradiction in 'your interpretation' here?
That is not 'loving' at all. That is very 'unloving'.
Could it be a possibility that you have a misinterpretation of what 'love' and 'loving' really are?
But, a parent punishing a so-called and so-classed "stubborn, rebellious sinner", to you can be 'loving', right?
But what would it matter if they 'change their ways'? you have already interpreted and claimed that they have been 'erased from existence' anyway. If they have 'changed their ways', then 'where' could they now be sent to, exactly?
And, where do you envision this 'heaven' place could exist, exactly?
No loving parent, nor adult, punishes a child, ever.
And, no loving parent would ever have their child tormented, for any 'length of time'.
It is also written, in the bible, that God is a 'he', but does anyone actually believe that this is true, let alone could ever even be possibly true?
Could how you interpret things be wrong and/or incorrect?
And/or, could the words written in the bible be wrong and/or incorrect?
Or, could 'the messages', which have been passed on down, through the ages, be wrong and/or incorrect, in absolutely anyway at all?
Could what was 'indicated' be taken out of context, in any way?Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm Now, Christians think it's just if God's love ceases (if He delivers the unloving punishment of annihilation or eternal torment). But, it wouldn't be just because it would make God imperfect.
Why? I'll explain. A perfect God must be as loving as He is just and vice versa. Therefore, since a perfect God never stops being just, then He never stops being loving. In other words, since His level of justness is perfect (everlasting), then His love must be at the same level, which would be perfect (everlasting). But, there's a verse (John 15:9-12 KJV) that indicates God's love ceases for those who don't keep His commandments.
Are you even yet aware that those words are not even in relation to individual human beings?
But, you also think adults punishing children is not cruel and not unfair. So, what makes what you think right and/or good?Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm Everlasting love is called "unconditional love," and no perfect being posseses love that's conditional. Now that I've discussed my 1st reason for thinking the Christian God is imperfect, I'm going to share my 2nd reason. People who don't conclude He exists will face punishment.
So, if He exists and someone concludes, based upon his extensive research, that He doesn't exist and never concludes He exists, then he'd be annihilated or suffer eternal torment in hell, even if he tried his best to come to the right conclusion. I think that's cruel and unfair.
What do you mean by 'free will'?Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm Another example would be someone who does much research, but never comes to any conclusion, due to ongoing controversy regarding God's existence, and due to his lack of intelligence necessary to comprehend most of the research.
That person would also face the cruel, unfair punishment of annihilation or eternal torment, even if he tried his best to come to a conclusion. Now that I've discussed my 2nd reason for thinking He's imperfect, I'm going to share my 3rd reason. If God's human creations don't have free will, then any punishment He inflicts upon them would be unfair.
Let 'us' add your own personal definition here, to the very long list of different definitions here.
But, what if what was 'built into', or 'innate' within, 'the robots', which is really what is instructing/guiding them, although they are completely unconscious of 'this thing', 'for now', but what was 'built into them was already known, and what is also know is that the 'robots' will 'freely' 'choose' to follow, and do, what is/has been 'instructing/guiding' them one day, 'eventually', anyway?Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm So, when I mentioned in the beginning that temporary, hellish torment was loving (fair) for stubborn, rebellious sinners, that was from the perspective of humans having free will. But, I'm going to explain why they don't have free will. God knows what tasks a robot would perform because robots don't have free will. They're just machines that are programmed to do certain tasks.
If they had free will, God couldn't know what they'd do because they have the free will to decide.
By the way, this does make perfect, and will make perfect sense to you as well, when, and if, you ever come to know who and what the 'God' word is referring to, exactly.
But, what is also known is that these things did not have to happen and occur. See, if you adult human beings just started doing what is Truly Right and necessary in Life, only, then those sort of things would not happen and occur.
Really?
So, according to "mindwave" anyway, "mindwave" has absolutely no ability at all to just choose what to do next.
And, when how to create what will then come about, eventually, then all of this, again, makes perfect sense.Mindwave wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:38 pm Also, He knew that only very few people would enter through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14 KJV). If we had free will, He couldn't have known this. So, Matthew 7:13-14 implies that we don't have free will because not having free will means our fate is predetermined, and that Matthew verse explains a predetermined fate.
Until then you have absolutely no choice at all what will eventuate, right?
Re: My objections to the claim of God's perfection
In my opinion, tough love is a necessity:
All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. The same also applies to the relationship with God, who will not omit to chastise grave sinners. Furthermore, the permissive, woke, feminist and LGBTQ ideology of the West is absolutely not universal. On the contrary, it is considered a blasphemous depravity by at least 90% of the world population.https://www.al-islam.org/principles-upb ... punishment
Islam does permit reprimanding and beating the child for purposes of correction and, in fact, orders such action. We find that the youth in the Western countries go astray because of excess of freedom given to them.
To my great pleasure and satisfaction, the West is now also busy irritating the Russian Federation to no end with its bullshit woke ideology. I am waiting for Vladimir Putin to finally lose his patience and to order a general advance on the military positions of NATO. The ones who claim to believe in woke, feminist, LGBTQ ideology, will at that point be able to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.