• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Giving birth is worst then rape

trokolisz

Member
I know the title is a bit clickbaity, but stay with me and i will explain what i mean
1, First lets consider some reason why rape is inmoral:
  • it is non consensual
  • it is painful
  • it is a terrible experience which might hunt the victim for the rest of their life
2, applying the same to giving birth:
it is entirely without the consent of the child (as it is nonexistent)
being born is the most stressful experience in the lifetime of a human (even if the "victim" forgets about it, i think it is still worth mentioning)
And at last my main point:
If someone raped suffers any physical or mental damage as the result of the rape, it is obviously the fault of the rappist, so applying the same to the parents any and all negative consequence of being alive is directly the result of their selfish act of reproducing.
Their might be an argument that what if someone life is good? I think asking if what if someone enjoyed the act of sex, while being rapped is irrelevant, and also not a question many would consider moral to entertain.

As conclusion, i don't think all parent are committing a serious crime, with no way to be forgiven. I think if the parents bring up their child, and then help them become independent, then it is a just "compensation". But if any parent ever abandon their child, and as such don't repent for their action, I find them more inmoral than rappist.

(just a footnote: i don't hate my parents, in fact i do love them, but i still think that not giving birth is better then doing so, and if i could i would had chose to never exist in the first place)
 

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
Spicy! Welcome to the League!

I agree with you insofar as children do not consent (cos, they'd have to somehow exist before existing) to being born, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is a necessarily immoral act (we'd need a definition of immoral first) - I'm about to head up the wooden hill at the moment, so will reply further in the morning. Good topic, I've discussed this plenty and look forward to continuing.
 

trokolisz

Member
I believe morality to be subjective, and inmoral are the things i would not like happening to me if i were in the same situation (For example my dog cant be killed, because i don't have a dog, but if i had i would be unhappy with its demise)


But for the sake of argument i would go by a more convenient definition:
immoral: consciously causing of unnecessary suffering.
unnecessary: not needed in order to achieve a greater pleasure. (either by having other options to achieve the same things, or the greater good does not outweigh the suffering)
(exercise is a good example as the long time results outweigh the short time pain)
(or sacrificing 1 of saving 2)

And i think nonexistence is a better state of being (or non being =) ) then living. And thus making someone exist is making an unnecessary change of thing from better to worse.
And the parents are the direct cause of good and bad experiences that happen during the lifetime of their children. So if the bad outweighs the good, then it might be an immoral act. (as it is not necessary consciously causing of unnecessary suffering).

(it is still something i haven't found a conclusion myself, but i bend towards not giving birth and not risking pain, is better then doing so)
(also when i speak about bad and good, in most cases i mean pain and pleasure)
 
This is pretty close to both post natalism and inihilism (the belief that if the option of a big red button to instantly and painlessly and permanently destroy the vworld/all life, then we should). In theory, I hold to the latter, and am very keen to defend it and hear objections and am more than happy to be shown that I am wrong.
 

trokolisz

Member
Yeah, was inspired by antinatalism, and i thougn i didn't know about inihilism, i too think it would be better to push that button,
I for one would not push it, because of selfish reasons, like wanting to finish the books i read, and so far my life is good,
but if anyone else would push it i wouldn't mind or be angry.

Anyway i would prefer never existing in the first place to painless suicide, as i now have desires to experience more pleasure, and also as a "defect" in my evolution, i have surviving extinct. (but what my body wants, is not what I want, take withdrawal effect as one)
You could say life is a drog and I'm way to addicted to it.
 
Hi Tokolisz!

Yeah, was inspired by antinatalism, and i thougn i didn't know about inihilism, i too think it would be better to push that button,



Pleased someone is on the same page here. I like antinatalism, but the problem is that it requires everyone to comply in order to have the effect of meeting its aim, which is not going to happen.

With the red button philosophy, it is purely theoretical as there are too many practical impossibilities for it to be possible, so I argue only in theory.


I for one would not push it, because of selfish reasons, like wanting to finish the books i read, and so far my life is good,
but if anyone else would push it i wouldn't mind or be angry.



Very honest of you to recognise such emotions (that are in all of us) and point out our hypocrisy or lack of conviction or selfishness or laziness or lack of sticking to principles. That’s why so many people are not vegetarians or don’t give up smoking or exercise, diet or do more. Excuses. We are simply more tempted by our emotions that any conviction.

To me, even the potential of extreme suffering of any single individual is not worth all the life and joy of everyone combined, which is the basis of my conviction. But that’s pure theory. In reality, I am all of the (bad) things mentioned above. Although I was a veggie and a vegan, I am not now, though I am convinced it is the right thing to do, but I love meat too much. Illogical, but very human. As someone once said, ‘I’d love to be a martyr if it didn’t hurt so much.’



Anyway i would prefer never existing in the first place to painless suicide, as i now have desires to experience more pleasure, and also as a "defect" in my evolution, i have surviving extinct. (but what my body wants, is not what I want, take withdrawal effect as one)
You could say life is a drog and I'm way to addicted to it.




More real honesty. Very rare in discussions liked this. Yes, this is the same as antinatalism. But no-one can prefer to never have existed, as no such thought can enter anyone who has never existed, but I know what you mean.

With inihilism, there is no suicide or pain or regret or missing anyone, as it all happens instantly, perhaps at an agreed time to cater for meeting up. This argument is based on there being no objective meaning or purpose in life (so theists may disagree for a start) and with the primary concern that drives it, being suffering. Anyone who suffers can do so horrifically and it could be you or your baby – only chance prevents it. But we all represent those who suffer as it could have been or may be us or loved ones. So treat each other equally, and we owe everyone the requirement to die. Such suffering (a known, measurable brute fact) trumps free will and democracy.
 

trokolisz

Member
Pleased someone is on the same page here. I like antinatalism, but the problem is that it requires everyone to comply in order to have the effect of meeting its aim, which is not going to happen.
I would also like to keep it theoretical, as changing the past is impossible. So I could not exist. And also the topic is so far from our intuitions that it would be impossible to convince a vast majority. (my first reaction to antinatalism was that while i could not refute it, I simply didn't agree, i did not want to agree)

To me, even the potential of extreme suffering of any single individual is not worth all the life and joy of everyone combined, which is the basis of my conviction.

I think the problem with this argument that you compere one individual's suffering to all the joys of everyone combined, but it would be more fair to compare all the suffering combined to all the joys combined. But i think it is impossible to quantify joy and suffering, so i also think it is impossible to compare them.
On the other hand i also find that physical pain, and pleasures are only momentarily, (for example even if I had a headache yesterday I would not be thinking about it today. But the same goes for pleasure
it could be simply explained as:
something good happens: our body produce dopamin, we experience pleasure, then this dopamin clears from our system and we no longer feel pleasure, until something new reason for dopamin production does not occur).

So it could be debatable if they have any weight, in the total sum.
And recognize sadness as the most permanent emotion, which is the hardest to overcome, and far outweighs external pain and pleasure.


Ps: as you briefly mentioned religion, I would more than happy to debate the same for creation. If giving birth is inmoral, then so is creating life.
I would also happily debate with someone: if we were created by a god, should we be thankful, or not?, but i think it is basically the same argument, so I don't believe anything new would come out of it.
 

trokolisz

Member
Citation needed.

The "Stress" of Being Born by Hugo Langerchanz and Theodore A. Slotkin​

"the fetus produces unusually high level of "stress" hormones adrenalin and noradrenalin- higher than in such severely taxed adults as a woman giving birth or a person having hearth attack"

It also says that this stress is not harmful in the long run, but i think it is beside the point.

when you are born: suddenly you feel cold, you suffocate, there is a bright light shining into your eyes, and btw you cant even see properly, and someone is hitting your buttocks while you are upside down until you start crying.
 
‘I think the problem with this argument that you compere one individual's suffering to all the joys of everyone combined, but it would be more fair to compare all the suffering combined to all the joys combined. But i think it is impossible to quantify joy and suffering, so i also think it is impossible to compare them.
On the other hand i also find that physical pain, and pleasures are only momentarily, (for example even if I had a headache yesterday I would not be thinking about it today. But the same goes for pleasure
it could be simply explained as:
something good happens: our body produce dopamin, we experience pleasure, then this dopamin clears from our system and we no longer feel pleasure, until something new reason for dopamin production does not occur).

So it could be debatable if they have any weight, in the total sum.
And recognize sadness as the most permanent emotion, which is the hardest to overcome, and far outweighs external pain and pleasure.’




I do compare and consider as overriding, very extreme (even if potential) suffering of even one person (I don’t need more) to all of the joys in all of life for all people (and other lifeforms) and I think I can argue this, (possibly objectively but certainly reasonably) but it takes longer than I have right now. Maybe worth another post.



‘Ps: as you briefly mentioned religion, I would more than happy to debate the same for creation. If giving birth is inmoral, then so is creating life.
I would also happily debate with someone: if we were created by a god, should we be thankful, or not?, but i think it is basically the same argument, so I don't believe anything new would come out of it.’




As a (former) Christian, creationist, pastor (and I did an honours thesis on creation/evolution), I defended divine creation of life, but the basis was that God alone could do so, as we humans cannot control life once it begins, but God can and is the source of morality and is all knowing and compassionate (but note the Euthyphro dilemma). I would stand by this if the argument for the Biblical God was sound or convinced me, (as any action by God I don’t like is my shortcoming as He is perfect). Just to be clear, I am not entirely sure, but you seem to reject the morality of divine creation of life, right?
 

trokolisz

Member
I do compare and consider as overriding, very extreme (even if potential) suffering of even one person (I don’t need more) to all of the joys in all of life for all people (and other lifeforms) and I think I can argue this, (possibly objectively but certainly reasonably) but it takes longer than I have right now. Maybe worth another post.
Sorry i think i had misunderstood your point in this one, and thought you were on the other side of the argument.

I am not entirely sure, but you seem to reject the morality of divine creation of life, right?

Yes i do,
and even if God was supposedly perfect, i reject the idea that someone else knows better what i want then me.
For example: i love vanilla ice cream, and i hate caramel flavored ice cream. But when i ask for a vanilla flavored, they give me a caramel flavored one, saying I want caramel more then vanilla, i just can't understand how you could work it out to be true. (even if some apologetic tries sometime explaining why all the suffering is an act of kindness)
And the only sound counterargument i could think of is that "God would then never suggest, caramel over vanilla" , but in this chase i might not be so sure about my preferences, but still never existing in the beginning is what i want.
if someone believes that god only intervenes if asked then i can live with that, as he did not directly contribute to my existence.
but if someone believes that god controls everything, and everything is goind as God wants it (illnesses are punishments or tests, and not just random occurrence) then i do think it is not my fault that what i want is not something that i do/could have. (also this means that my shortcoming are him deliberately sabotaging me. Which is contradictory to his benevolent nature in my opinion.
 
'Yes i do,
and even if God was supposedly perfect, i reject the idea that someone else knows better what i want then me.
For example: i love vanilla ice cream, and i hate caramel flavored ice cream. But when i ask for a vanilla flavored, they give me a caramel flavored one, saying I want caramel more then vanilla, i just can't understand how you could work it out to be true. (even if some apologetic tries sometime explaining why all the suffering is an act of kindness)
And the only sound counterargument i could think of is that "God would then never suggest, caramel over vanilla" , but in this chase i might not be so sure about my preferences, but still never existing in the beginning is what i want.
if someone believes that god only intervenes if asked then i can live with that, as he did not directly contribute to my existence.
but if someone believes that god controls everything, and everything is goind as God wants it (illnesses are punishments or tests, and not just random occurrence) then i do think it is not my fault that what i want is not something that i do/could have. (also this means that my shortcoming are him deliberately sabotaging me. Which is contradictory to his benevolent nature in my opinion.'




I’m not always following the way you write/express things here or see the relevance, but I don’t think I buy much, if any of your argument or reasons here.

IF there is a God and He is perfect, then (by your own definition) He knows everything and much more about you than you in every way. Perhaps we amthropomorphise Him too much., which creates a natural humazn limit on opur grasp of Him.

If God gives you caramel instead of vanilla, it may not be because you prefer it. I tell my kids to get up, brush their teeth and get dressed, they much prefer other options (and I know that they do). Food is not FOR pleasure (as much as one can do so) but a medicine/nutrient for the body’s growth, health and welbeing. And God is not an ice cream man, but the ultimate being with perfect attributes. This is important to note when making arguments or queuing up to have a go at Him; or a new definition needs imposing.

Yes, never existing as preferable is the antenatal position. Once existence begins, the whole scenario changes and takes a different route. Like discussing, 'what if someone gets pregnant' vs, 'now someone is actually pregnant', we have tp plan actual eventrualities.

Kids, people in general, we all think we know best. But from a divine perspective, we do have to negotiate unpleasant hurdles in life for the greater, unseen good, even if we don’t see or like it. Got to be cruel to be kind. You can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs etc. Life can be a test and it can be hard with sacrifices to achieve something better or higher. Pleasure ands suffering.

If God says we should barbeque live babies on Sunday mornings, then He knows best because what He says, goes. Any other morality or aspect that we hold that contradicts God(‘s) is wrong. This is the implication of knowing or accepting such a God. Likewise, if I invent the word, ‘blobby’ and intend/define it to mean, ‘something that is baggy’, then that, (and no other definition/intention) is the only valid meaning because I invented/own it.

IF there is a, ‘perfect-like’ creator God, then you can’t start arguing or disagreeing with Him, as He is the law-giver and author of morality.
 

trokolisz

Member
So i think the basic of this disagreement that i don't believe that 'perfect' can be achieved, so it is hard for me to thing that something or something is perfect. Perfect would mean that it couldn't be better. So I understand that if a prefect being would exist, by definition it should always be right. But i reject the idea of something being absolutely perfect.

Also perfect is subjective: imagine the perfect art or food, i think everyone would imagine something else.
But this point could be easily dismissed by we humans just can't comprehend perfection, so won't go into more detail in this

As you sad: if God sad we should barbeque living babies then it should be the perfect method in the greater sense. but if it is the perfect experience for the babies them-self would be kinda hard to argue.
In theory sacrificing one for the better of two should be the "perfect" solution. but in it might not sound so perfect for the one being sacrificed.

About my ice cream analogy, i understand that there are many factors outside of the taste, but if we say for the sake of argument that they are completely identical, and only the taste is different, so there can be no outside justification like health, and i only want to eat if for the taste, but still get the same answer saying I want caramel more then vanilla.

But in the end all my arguments are against perfection, and if somehow a perfect being would exist then neither I nor could anyone else question it.

(also sorry for trailing of, and speaking about unimportant thinks. I will try to think more about my replies,or even just wain 10 min before i post so i can rethink how it is written and edited,
but just to defend myself a bit, there are tons of God descriptions out there(strictly about Monotheist Gods), and as I don't believe in one, i try to find out what might others believe in, hence trailing of and speaking about different scenarios with different kind of God).
 
Last edited:
So i think the basic of this disagreement that i don't believe that 'perfect' can be achieved, so it is hard for me to thing that something or something is perfect. Perfect would mean that it couldn't be better. So I understand that if a prefect being would exist, by definition it should always be right. But i reject the idea of something being absolutely perfect.


Also perfect is subjective: imagine the perfect art or food, i think everyone would imagine something else.
But this point could be easily dismissed by we humans just can't comprehend perfection, so won't go into more detail in this




I think that you struggle with the concept or limits of perfection with your finite mind. Like taste is not a number, you can’t hear rainbows, there is no solitary ideal person for all of us (as we are all different) and there is no ideal or perfect ice cream, unless you attribute it to health or something. Taste and a partner and lots of things are not under the banner or category of something that is measurable or perfect. It is the maximally perfect God that you are perhaps trying to envision. He (within his perfect attributes) probably can’t create a square circle or a rock too heavy for him to lift or lie. If you argue that perfection is subjective (or is on a scale), then does that mean there is only one human and plant or multiple perfectly identical ones? You can have overall perfection with more than one of something for the reasons mentioned above – perfection does not apply to all things. That we can’t comprehend such a God is not good enough to theoretically dismiss Him. You have to demonstrate that it is not possible (or perhaps logically impossible), though maybe such a God can deal with such matters. So, is your, ‘disbelief’ in perfection or a perfect God, logical or based on evidence or just a hunch based on your brain freezing when you try to fathom it?

That something could not be better may actually include suffering or shades of things, depending on what the alternatives are. A pain-free world may be boring or something else. We are thinking outside the box here. Omnipotence may not be a quality, due to logical contradictions.



As you sad: if God sad we should barbeque living babies then it should be the perfect method in the greater sense. but if it is the perfect experience for the babies them-self would be kinda hard to argue.
In theory sacrificing one for the better of two should be the "perfect" solution. but in it might not sound so perfect for the one being sacrificed.


Again, to encourage white space thinking, you are imagining that a god must have attributes based on lots of moral teaching from teachers ad philosophers and holy people and books and groups. Maybe the Roman or Greek or Norse Gods were right, and God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. It might not matter if babies suffer, it’s just a game and the ideal sound is the burning flesh cries. God does not need to be utilitarian either, as you propose. Evolution may appear to have honed a more civilised species in us (!!!???), but for most of life, it is suffering. So, we even have an earthly model of survival of the fittest on the plains of Africa, in our garden sheds and throughout our skies, mountains, forests, deserts, ice, oceans and waterways.


About my ice cream analogy, i understand that there are many factors outside of the taste, but if we say for the sake of argument that they are completely identical, and only the taste is different, so there can be no outside justification like health, and i only want to eat if for the taste, but still get the same answer saying I want caramel more then vanilla.


Like I said, flavours and so much else is six of one or half a dozen of the other. It is what makes us different and why there is more than one house shape, car model, colour, size and style of clothing. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? Perfection requires a scale or something to be perfect for. There is a limit to how things respond to gravity and forces too, which cannot be ignored.


But in the end all my arguments are against perfection, and if somehow a perfect being would exist then neither I nor could anyone else question it.


So, I think you need to define or understand or agree more widely what you or philosophers mean by perfection. And if we accept such a being as being perfect (because I am not convinced by your reasons for rejecting perfection or a perfect God), then yes, we should accept Him (or take the consequences of not doing so). But I am not sure what would constitute as evidence for Him.


(also sorry for trailing of, and speaking about unimportant thinks. I will try to think more about my replies,or even just wain 10 min before i post so i can rethink how it is written and edited,

You’re doing fine. Nice talking with you. Hope we can learn from one another. I am often very poor at explaining things and if I don’t always follow an argument or the way it is being written, I want to understand it, so I may ask for clarifications or simplification.


but just to defend myself a bit, there are tons of God descriptions out there(strictly about Monotheist Gods), and as I don't believe in one, i try to find out what might others believe in, hence trailing of and speaking about different scenarios with different kind of God).



It can sometimes be better to lay out your points and position or responses and make mini titles on a word document, then fill it out and copy/paste. Also, new posts/threads can be created elsewhere to more focus a topic. In fact we may have lost the thread a bit here!
 

We are Borg

Administrator
Staff member
And the only sound counterargument i could think of is that "God would then never suggest, caramel over vanilla" , but in this chase i might not be so sure about my preferences, but still never existing in the beginning is what i want.

But if God is all powerful he would just adjust your mind and make caramel your preferred choice.
 

trokolisz

Member
That's the issue if God exits does it have morals or does it have something else.
I think almost everyone who believes in a God believes that their God has similar morals and goals as them.
If God would be neutral i don't see a reason for him to intervene.
And the only time i have heard about an evil God was tough experiments to show their problems with a benevolent one (Monotheistic God)
(or when someone reads the old testament literally)

But i personally feel like if there would be a God who made at least one universe this big, he wouldn't be so obsessed with helping out one specific type of apes.
 

trokolisz

Member
So i think the basic of this disagreement that i don't believe that 'perfect' can be achieved, so it is hard for me to thing that something or something is perfect. Perfect would mean that it couldn't be better. So I understand that if a prefect being would exist, by definition it should always be right. But i reject the idea of something being absolutely perfect.


Also perfect is subjective: imagine the perfect art or food, i think everyone would imagine something else.
But this point could be easily dismissed by we humans just can't comprehend perfection, so won't go into more detail in this




I think that you struggle with the concept or limits of perfection with your finite mind. Like taste is not a number, you can’t hear rainbows, there is no solitary ideal person for all of us (as we are all different) and there is no ideal or perfect ice cream, unless you attribute it to health or something. Taste and a partner and lots of things are not under the banner or category of something that is measurable or perfect. It is the maximally perfect God that you are perhaps trying to envision. He (within his perfect attributes) probably can’t create a square circle or a rock too heavy for him to lift or lie. If you argue that perfection is subjective (or is on a scale), then does that mean there is only one human and plant or multiple perfectly identical ones? You can have overall perfection with more than one of something for the reasons mentioned above – perfection does not apply to all things. That we can’t comprehend such a God is not good enough to theoretically dismiss Him. You have to demonstrate that it is not possible (or perhaps logically impossible), though maybe such a God can deal with such matters. So, is your, ‘disbelief’ in perfection or a perfect God, logical or based on evidence or just a hunch based on your brain freezing when you try to fathom it?

That something could not be better may actually include suffering or shades of things, depending on what the alternatives are. A pain-free world may be boring or something else. We are thinking outside the box here. Omnipotence may not be a quality, due to logical contradictions.



As you sad: if God sad we should barbeque living babies then it should be the perfect method in the greater sense. but if it is the perfect experience for the babies them-self would be kinda hard to argue.
In theory sacrificing one for the better of two should be the "perfect" solution. but in it might not sound so perfect for the one being sacrificed.


Again, to encourage white space thinking, you are imagining that a god must have attributes based on lots of moral teaching from teachers ad philosophers and holy people and books and groups. Maybe the Roman or Greek or Norse Gods were right, and God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. It might not matter if babies suffer, it’s just a game and the ideal sound is the burning flesh cries. God does not need to be utilitarian either, as you propose. Evolution may appear to have honed a more civilised species in us (!!!???), but for most of life, it is suffering. So, we even have an earthly model of survival of the fittest on the plains of Africa, in our garden sheds and throughout our skies, mountains, forests, deserts, ice, oceans and waterways.


About my ice cream analogy, i understand that there are many factors outside of the taste, but if we say for the sake of argument that they are completely identical, and only the taste is different, so there can be no outside justification like health, and i only want to eat if for the taste, but still get the same answer saying I want caramel more then vanilla.


Like I said, flavours and so much else is six of one or half a dozen of the other. It is what makes us different and why there is more than one house shape, car model, colour, size and style of clothing. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? Perfection requires a scale or something to be perfect for. There is a limit to how things respond to gravity and forces too, which cannot be ignored.


But in the end all my arguments are against perfection, and if somehow a perfect being would exist then neither I nor could anyone else question it.


So, I think you need to define or understand or agree more widely what you or philosophers mean by perfection. And if we accept such a being as being perfect (because I am not convinced by your reasons for rejecting perfection or a perfect God), then yes, we should accept Him (or take the consequences of not doing so). But I am not sure what would constitute as evidence for Him.


(also sorry for trailing of, and speaking about unimportant thinks. I will try to think more about my replies,or even just wain 10 min before i post so i can rethink how it is written and edited,

You’re doing fine. Nice talking with you. Hope we can learn from one another. I am often very poor at explaining things and if I don’t always follow an argument or the way it is being written, I want to understand it, so I may ask for clarifications or simplification.


but just to defend myself a bit, there are tons of God descriptions out there(strictly about Monotheist Gods), and as I don't believe in one, i try to find out what might others believe in, hence trailing of and speaking about different scenarios with different kind of God).



It can sometimes be better to lay out your points and position or responses and make mini titles on a word document, then fill it out and copy/paste. Also, new posts/threads can be created elsewhere to more focus a topic. In fact we may have lost the thread a bit here!
I agree that we went quite far from our original topic, so i will try to be brief when answering. But if we still cant come to an understanding i' m happy to continue on a new thread.
There is 2 definition i would use for perfect:
- free of fault
-couldn't be better ( i don't like this definition so much, as it leads to infinities like omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence etc., but you said
"He (within his perfect attributes) probably can’t create a square circle or a rock too heavy for him to lift or lie." which would imply that he is within the realms of logic and reality. So the type of omnipotence which can overwrite even paradoxes i will not include in this discussion, and i will focus on being able to do everything that does not go against logic.)

1. if taste, art, partners, nor a solution can be perfect, i don't see how an entity could be perfect, there are too many contradictory standard.

2. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? in this chase (imagining there is no other car) neither is perfect, the perfect car would be one with 290 mph and a bit more space. If a car like that is impossible then a perfect car also impossible.

3. God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. it would be hard to find anyone who would acknowledge a God like that as perfect. The Polytheist gods are human-like and imperfect, with human emotions and faults (greed, pride, wrath etc.).
Also if it were true, then it would be foolish to go along with his request if its not an order. As they could easily lead to bad outcomes for us.

4. On the other hand, in fiction i had read a satisfactory description of the perfect food: in the story ambrosia always tasted like the favorite food of the eater, while it also brought back their dear memories, like childhood Christmas or first kiss. also it healed those who consumed it. And the only downside was that, mere humans could not eat it, and even demigods could only eat a bit without turning into dust.
So if someone could come up with a satisfactory description of a perfect god( who would allow things history to stay intact) , i would be fine with it. (weather this God exist is irrelevant in this discussion)

You’re doing fine. Nice talking with you.
Thank you, i also enjoy this exchange.

(I have realized that i over-confidently granted the existence of a perfect God, and now i'm trying to backpedal to only there is a god as the base assumption, and argue this, but I
 
2. Which is the perfect car, the 290 mph one with little space or the 276 mph one with a bit more space? in this chase (imagining there is no other car) neither is perfect, the perfect car would be one with 290 mph and a bit more space. If a car like that is impossible then a perfect car also impossible.


“There was no race. You are letting your human constraints and thoughts and limits and imagination get the better of you in defining perfection.

Have you heard of Guanillo’s (perfect) island analogy? One flaw in this is (as I mentioned to you), ‘what defines perfect?’. So, why is a 290mph car better or more perfect than a 276mph one? Are you assuming that top or high speed is beneficial or a part of perfection? If so, the speed of light or more should be the marker. If there is no reason or a negative reason to go over 70mph, then more is less (perfect). If more space is better, a bus or ship might be better, but if it takes too much road or fuel or space to be of use or gets stuck in traffic, it is less than perfect. But we might now be getting limited by our own human backwardness and focus on efficiency of fuel or environmental issues. That is why, ‘perfect needs defining. Can a speed of light spaceship with space for everyone make your perfect ice cream? No? Well it isn’t perfect. That’s another way of looking at it. Does everything need to be in one?

My Autistic mind tends to like factual things. I recall wondering why Jesus is described as very ordinary looking in the Bible, yet this seeming to contradict with my understanding of perfection (if Jesus was God).”




3. God is a warmongerer, seeking blood and combat and out to destroy the weak. it would be hard to find anyone who would acknowledge a God like that as perfect. The Polytheist gods are human-like and imperfect, with human emotions and faults (greed, pride, wrath etc.).
Also if it were true, then it would be foolish to go along with his request if its not an order. As they could easily lead to bad outcomes for us.




“Again, the fact that few people agree, or you or others consider a warmonger God to be unethical or imperfect, suggests that they are not familiar with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic literature/followers that fill the earth now and that we are merely convinced of the commonly recognised views of cherry picked morality. Remember, even today, homosexuality is a punishment by death in some countries based on religious understanding. As is killing albino people for medicine or sacrificing children or murdering or raping women for being raped or having an affair or not taking a religion seriously or a child being disobedient or obesity etc. That is worse than warmongering and it exists today. I recommend this video from the twilight zone, not dissimilar to one of the greatest films in my view (both original and modern versions of, ‘The day the earth stood still’. This is only about 7 minutes long. Enjoy:




I also note another quality in you. You own up to an error or saying something my mistake or you want to correct it. That is awesome. It demonstrates open mindedness and modesty and wanting to learn. In many discussions/debates, a focus is on tripping the opponent up or quoting something said in the past and whether taking it out of context or not allowing them to change their mind (and claiming some sort of victory), instead of just allowing for mistakes etc. and more focussing on what that person actually believes or claims, now, irrespective of the past, unless of course they are constantly changing out of deception or to get round something they have trouble with.

Your last sentence seems to have been cut off.
 
Top