I’m not worried now - he just skips this and judges “self-promotional” materials as stingy.
His idea of “low standards” is how he is treated, respected, etc (according to his expectations).
Hahahahahaha. Better pray you’re wrong about your god. Lol.
@David_Killens He’s been asked to answer the questions as this is debate. He obviously and admittingly is not here to do this. Once you’re through and he writes you off… . He should have read the woman’s warning. Hahahahaha.
I still think your ideas are hopelessly infantile. You will not listen to those who can advise you as to their correction.
I am also convinced that you should seek psychiatric help as soon as possible.
My alternative conclusion to your sado-masochistic thinking about punishing children is that you are a dick. But I suspect you are the the possessor of a miniscule example.
I can’t believe there is anything you could recommend to me that would serve as a meaningful defence or proof of the attributes of the god you describe. Your claim to have any clear understanding through pure reason possesses no validity, because your perfect reasoning begins with a perfectly unsubstantiated claim, like all religions.
You insist your god is unchanged and unaffected by what you consider the baser activities of humans. Regardless of what evilness and nastiness people enact or encounter, your god is always perfectly satisfied and serenely complete like a three sided triangle.
Therefore, for the same reasons, your perfectly attuned god must equally be unaffected by any activities or thoughts of kindness, respect, sacrifice, love, diligence, honesty, and basically any qualities that matter to humans. How does the qualities of these actions add to the pure and immaculate existence of your god? They could not possibly penetrate the ultimate perfection.
And being so remotely unaffected by any human activity why would it need dispense rewards and punishments?
Being prompted to distribute favours and penalties looks suspiciously like your god is indeed affected and attempting to redress imbalances of a sort in the stablility of its supposed serene existence.
I also add that offers of reward and threats of punishment are contractual devices that nullify genuine intentions to embrace virtue or reject evil. Tortured prisoners are not encouraged to be honest and truthful but can only be expected to confess the grossest of all lies out of sheer terror and fear to avoid further pain. Confected treats, much less than promises of eternal life and virgins, can entice even the most pious to commit atrocities against others.
Further, why would justice in this life need be delayed until after death? Is your god too precious to have his serenity disturbed by the slightest dispensations of temporal fairness?
Justice does not appear to be a part of the nature of any god I’ve ever heard of. It’s a prevalent fact that many bad people often prosper and die peacefully in their sleep between satin sheets. Is your idea of Justice purely a post-death event? I know for a fact that no one really knows what happens after death. Not even your sublime god would have any need to even let you know, so I am not obliged to believe you anymore than I need to believe any other devout theist.
Your opinions on the nature of reality and the intentions of your creator god are subjective and obsessively dictatorial in a way that reveals more about your cultural background rather than your spiritual knowledge. And the way you explain and describe your god renders it indifferent, austere, and as remote as a sun god (they never do well).
Perhaps your ability to express intangible concepts is imperfect? I can admit it might be my perceptions are faulty, but despite my atheism I can perceive a simply greater god than yours, Isn’t that strange? And still I have no compunction to believe in it. It’s just a thought, in the strictest sense of the word.
But don’t let my complacency delude you, don’t forget about that after-death science quiz I warned you about. You’d better study up. It’s not multiple choice.
Do you even know any jokes?
What you are describing here is coming very close to the basics of a mystery cult, where information is revealed to you whenever you are deemed fit, and indoctrinated enough to accept the information at face value, without checking whether it is gold or horse manure. And you are not deemed “ready” for the information until you accept it without question. If you question the information, you are by definition “not ready”. Just like with Scientology, where you by the core doctrines of Scientology have not understood the information about e.g. space-tyrant Xenu if you do not accept it at face value.
One of the big problems with your use of the semantics is that you use a subjective idea of “perfect” to a god, and apply arbitrary attributes after your own liking. You also use the idea of a mathematical object (a triangle) as an example of something “perfect”. Then you say that anything “perfectly existing” exists. Further, you apply a set of arbitrary attributes to a god, then, since these can be assumed to be “perfect”, then this god exists, just like the perfect triangle. This is the essence. However, what you have failed to account for, is that mathematical objects do not exist physically. They are abstractions. Once you realize them physically, they are no longer mathematical objects, but physical objects. The same with your god. Your “perfectly existing” god is only an ideal abstraction. It does not exist, and any physical realization (which even a deity must be) does not have those exact “perfect” attributes.
In other words, what you have attempted to do is to use induction, without stringently showing that the inductive step follows by necessity. All you do is play with words, and make semantic associations (proof by association is fool’s logic, as in Erasmus Montanus pretend-logic§), forgetting all sorts of actual stringent logic in the whole process. In short, you say that “since object F is to attributes U as object C is to attributes K, and objects C are physically realizable, then F is also physically realizable”. This is at the core of your argument, and it is not logically valid.
§ The best known example of Erasmus Montanus’ pretend-logic is when he “proves” his mother is a rock: Mother Nille can not fly. A rock can not fly. Therefore, Mother Nille is a rock. Which is quite close to the “logic” of @Philosopher.
The shape a four year old drew is as perfect a shape as there could ever be. There are none on the planet that have the ability to copy it exactly, for the shape of the four yearl old is perfect. It is a true perfect shape and any attempt at copying it can only near perfection but never achieve it.
A) Whatever’s perfectly x, is indubitably x. . A perfect shapes’ shape, cannot.
B) Whatever’s perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever’s perfectly shaped, is indubitably shaped).
We know what it is for x to be perfectly shapely but What is it for x to be perfectly existing? To exist (to be a real shape and not just the shape of a dream, or a “real” human, is to exist as a thing and not as an imaginary human or dream. Denying this would be both logically and semantically inconsistent. Thus, to be imperfect, is to exist as an imperfect. And to exist as perfect is to be perfect. "A is A, and that which is not ‘A’ is not ‘A’. An imperfect shape exists imperfectly as a shape and as an existent copy of the child’s shape wich can not be copied and is perfect in its essence.
Nothing is better than the child’s perfect shape when it’s shapleness is the reference or standard for itself . When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than the real shape for it has a really perfect existence that none can copy.
I do not want a pretend/imaginary shapes that can match the child’s shape on my side because it can not be sustained. Imagine aligning every atom and the movement of every electorn to match the child’s shape in perfect harmony. A feat that none can achieve. The Child’s shape is a really perfect existence. Real shape is better than pretend shape, and pretend perfection, is not perfection unless of course one is satisfied with the near perfect. (it takes absurdity/irrationality/insanity/evil to want this). When existing is the standard, nothing is better than the shape the child has drawn. It is better to be the real shape than to exist as just an illusion/image of the child’s real shape. (The real shape is better than all of humanities imaginaryor pretend shapes. We are meaningfully and semantically aware that the child’s shape is perfection incarnate. We know that something perfectly/indubitably exists. Semantics dictate that this is the real/true shape of which there can only be one. You cannot have two truly matched shapes. There will always be a difference.
Just thought I would share.
A “triangle” is just the description for an object. it does not possess magical properties. I could apply your logic and (erroneously) state “The trapezium proves there is a god”.
Is it possible he cannot see he is utterly closed minded?
The hilarity continues…
Yet ignoring those who disagree is fine, ho hum.
At first @Philosopher’s cringeworthy grandiose show boating, and ill-informed bombast suggested a boy in his teens.
Then I suspected some sort of barrier to absorbing even the most basic facts, then the relentless dishonesty suggested a troll, and or the Dunning Kruger effect in action.
At this stage I almost feel embarrassed for him.
The biased bombast, the facile reasoning, the ridiculous bias, the excruciatingly embarrassing thread title. It’s hard to disagree, yet almost everyone has taken the time to read his closed minded faith based verbiage, and offer cogent rational objections. Yet somehow unsurprisingly our unwillingness to buy into his unevidenced superstitious wares, is somehow a flaw in our reasoning.
Flaws he doesn’t even try to explain of course. Just repeating the same juvenile verbiage he started with.
Quelle surprise, most biased blinkered people do, when they know they have no rational answers.
My guess: @Philosopher seems to be out of arguments, then pretends to ignore posts he/she cannot answer, or that he/she knows destroys the contents of the OP. Classical behaviour for those peddling in pseudoscience. Philosopher can probably be characterized as a crank(*) – someone who repeatedly writes long letters of pseudoscientific shit to academic staff, demanding to be taken seriously.
(*) Among physicists and mathematicians such cranks are sometimes also known as angle trisectors, based on the impossibility of constructing 1/3 of an angle (angle trisection) using a ruler an unmarked straightedge and a compass. It has been proven to be impossible, yet mathematics departments still receive “proofs” from cranks claiming to have proven the impossible.
“Agree to disagree”. Said like a true crank that is unable to counter the weighty counterarguments presented and just wave them off with “you don’t understand”. And that will continue to spread the same ideas in the same way, just like nothing had happened. Like flat earthers do. And creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc.
In other words: chickening out and fleeing with the tail between your legs.
I haven’t heard that term in a while! In older books I’ve seen them refereed to as “circle squarers” for proposing solutions to a problem already proven to not have a solution.
I guess that varies from university to university and country to country. As for here, the term “circle squarer” is difficult to translate into something that will roll off the tongue easily in casual conversation. But “Angle trisector” does. So I guess that’s why it’s used here.
My thesis supervisor at university told me that the professors took turns in answering the cranks. Even graduate student me once got a phone call from someone asking these weird questions. I was unable to determine whether it was a crank or a prank call. Hey, that’s an idea for a game show, alternatively a hidden camera show. The title practically gives itself – “Crank or prank?”
lol 
. He should have read the woman’s warning. Hahahahaha.
