Can someone refute my logic that God’s purpose is not accurate ?
Religion manipulates our choices and forcefully guides our lives; consequently, leading to faith which is against what God desires. We cannot be judged by God because who we are, ourselves, may not exist.
Imagine you are in a park moving towards the forest that borders the whole park. You are the bike and the pedals are religion. Since the pedals control the bike, you are forced in a helpless direction until you reach the forest. Even though you cannot choose where to ride, you still have a fulfilling day. You can look everywhere around you: see animals, scenery, and socialize with other people on bikes. The only problem is that you can only experience what is immediately near your path. The park is very large with many duplicate options, but you can never choose what to enjoy, only to or not to enjoy. It does not matter where you ride in the park because eventually there will be no new places to go and you will be forced to hit the border and go into the forest. You only wish to have control of the pedals to choose your path. But the life of the religious pedals is wonderful and leads to an easier life since it is set, so you will most likely never be curious if there is more to see.
Having no free choice leaves no purpose to living. If the action has a pre-programmed reaction, then regardless if it is done or not the outcome is still apparent. But more than that, a set life is against what the pedals of God truly desire. It is stated that the point of life on earth is for God to see how people act and decide if they are good or bad. But if people are forced to follow a set a behavior rules, then God never truly sees who anyone is. Faith is against what God wants because faith is to the extent of knowledge. Instead of acting like dolls that have a string in the back to be pulled, we should simply be dropped into the park and forced to experiment. Since faith and utter obedience to religion is a way of life, it impairs God’s perception.
This also fosters the question of where behavior originates. The contrary life is only possible if people are born knowing how to act. For if it is a learned-from-experience ability then yet again everyone is a doll with a string in the back, just from a different manufacturer. If behavior is not innate, then it is impossible to act like you. So God can never know you and how you will act because God is in essence viewing a clip show of other peoples’ behaviors from you. Perhaps though, the clip show example can give God insight. When forming the show, the director and producer must choose from thousands of scenes to find the best ones. From hours and hours of show, they must only use a half-hour to hour of footage. In life, it would be impossible for people to copy and act like everyone. So perhaps God decides what type of people we are by who we choose to copy. If we copy the behavior of someone who is good then we are good people and vise versa. Maybe this is all religion is, good people choosing to copy how good people act. But since everyone wants to be good, a set standard of behavior rules were created to make them more easily accessible. Still though, the goal of the paper holds true: it is impossible for God to make a true decision because one’s behavior does not express self. The problem may be that there is no original self and the clip show method is the only way to test.
One possible way to truly see self is to be dropped into the park where you are the only living creature. If there were others, you could easily be altered. This seems like it would work, but another problem arises. If there is no one else, it is impossible to decide if the person is good or bad because there is no way to compare. Good does not exist without bad and bad without good. This could work if God has a set standard because then comparison is possible. However, this is merely a hypothetical situation and thus the process to learn about self is still not proven. We cannot be judged by God because who we are, ourselves, may not exist.
While I think the concept of a God is ludricrous, the logic you expressed, philosophically speaking, is faulty.
You state an analogy, then fix the conclusion of your logic on the faults of your analogy. But by definition, an analogy is not the same as the principle, so the faults found are not necessarily relevant.
You also have faulty, or at least unproven, premises. For example, your incorrect premise that "good cannot exist without bad" or vice-versa. Hitler built some of the finest highways in Europe, achieving goals that promoted evil motives while at the same time supplying Germany’s civilian population with the finest infrastructure for the next 50 years.
Your primary principle is that rules or restraints interferes with the ability for a being to determine one’s true nature. This is not absolutely true. Look up "Designed Experiments" – a concept used frequently and accurately by engineers to find the contribution of a given condition using indirect observation. It works by subjecting a characteristic to several different external forces and statistically finding the likely root cause. In fact, if there were an intelligent God that was interested in true human "character", a world full of varied experiences and "tests" would be exactly what he needed to find it.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
One possible scenario: "God" creates "creatures" in Image and Likeness of "God." This includes an ability to make choices.
Next, some of said creatures, in the face of wisdom-counseling warning of impersonal consequences of Energy-veiling and Energy-distorting, elect to do so, as an experiment experiencing greed and iniquity. By impersonal Law, God permits said creatures to "Fall," and per Mercy, sends a Way-shower to Teach the Way of Righteousness (right useness). This Way-shower is called Buddha. Later, a second Way-shower is sent, called Messias.
Sources: "The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet,
"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov,
"The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock,
"Testimony of Light," Helen Greaves,
"Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton,
"The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi, and
"The Great Divorce," C. S. Lewis.
References :
I believe you might wish to work on a logically sound question first. "Can someone refute my logic that God’s purpose is not accurate ?" A purpose, of anyone, is accurate to the extent of what he or she believes.
We cannot be judged by God because who we are, ourselves, may not exist. [This is an awkward sentence. Change some of the words around or phrase it differently.]
You need to further explain this thought, "One possible way to truly see self is to be dropped into the park where you are the only living creature. " What do you define as a living creature? A tree is alive, there exists creatures, organisms in and on the dirt you might be standing on. You may have countless micro bodies on your skin. Be more specific about what you are writing, when trying to write a philosophical piece.
But even if you or I were dropped in a park where we were the only living creature, the park itself may have an effect on you. Its called empiricism, perhaps you might phrase it existential empiricism.
References :
Not a believer in god, just a believer in life.
As a philosophy site I will not respond only to give a Philosopher for you to check out so you may have a clear understanding of religion, God, and your place it the scheme of things.
References :
RODAN’S GREEK PHILOSOPHY
http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper160.html
My guess is this is something you have worked on for some time.
My understanding of God, whatever that is, is Love, The Primary cause
of everything. This creator has no need to judge. His creation is perfect
and unchangeable. Every thing else changes constantly. Why would the
perfect and unchangeable need judgment?
God’s purpose is expressed in his perfect creation. We can learn to live in
that perfect creation or create our own unreality.
Lesson 170 ACIM says
"You make what you defend against, and by your own defense against it is
real and inescapable. Lay down your arms, and only then do you perceive it false."
Man has freewill. Yes, but only to choose what God made or what man made.
If we choose what man made then we have millions of choices because we are dealing with a dream. We can choose between reality or a dream.
There are no decisions for God to make, nor any judgments. What He
created he created perfect and unchangeable. It is us that needs to understand.
References :
While I think the concept of a God is ludricrous, the logic you expressed, philosophically speaking, is faulty.
You state an analogy, then fix the conclusion of your logic on the faults of your analogy. But by definition, an analogy is not the same as the principle, so the faults found are not necessarily relevant.
You also have faulty, or at least unproven, premises. For example, your incorrect premise that "good cannot exist without bad" or vice-versa. Hitler built some of the finest highways in Europe, achieving goals that promoted evil motives while at the same time supplying Germany’s civilian population with the finest infrastructure for the next 50 years.
Your primary principle is that rules or restraints interferes with the ability for a being to determine one’s true nature. This is not absolutely true. Look up "Designed Experiments" – a concept used frequently and accurately by engineers to find the contribution of a given condition using indirect observation. It works by subjecting a characteristic to several different external forces and statistically finding the likely root cause. In fact, if there were an intelligent God that was interested in true human "character", a world full of varied experiences and "tests" would be exactly what he needed to find it.
References :
Before we try to judge God’s purpose which has given equally life to all kinds of living creatures, the bad the good and the ugly. and blessed mankind with some guidance here and there ( Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph, Isaac Jacob…..) so neither you nor I can possibly and rightfully refute his verdict on judgement day….So let us start by correcting your basic and Hollow Logic first:
1) Assuming you are a bike just like in your analogy. the pedal is an intgral part of you. at best you may say the pedals represent your overall capacity to think and to analyse (not what you learn and which religion is part of). And in that case you have 3 options:
1) Pedaling forward, and you may just get somewhere.(Forward thinking)
))
2) Pedaling backward and you may just get the impression that you are getting somewhere.(Bakward thinking)
3) No pedaling at all, and hope that others will carry your dead weight around ( Brain Dead
No offense, but You are more like the scenario #2 which is by the way much worse than scenario # 3
on the other hand, Religion could be best understood and seen as the road’s signs. If a sign says "No Turn On Red".or "No U Turn"..You may still proceed against the posted warnings and take that red light or that illegal U turn on, untill one day your luck runs out, and you get slammed by a simple violation ticket or better yet an 18 wheeler….and then again the systtem may let you get away with it, because of some valid excuse you have, or because you have no extensive History.
For me all the main relgions, have been advising people like you and me against killing intentionally without great justisfaction and , against stealing what is not yours, , against injustice to oneself and to others, against corruption..and the list goes on….all of which have been proven to only cause misery, and disassociation of mankind.
Religion my friend does not kill people, people kill people. Religion does not immerse people in darkness, Ignorance does…..and the worst Ignorance is" Ignorance of Ignorance" phisophically speaking.
So kindly let’s leave people and their faith alone and leave God and his unkowable purpose alone. and let’s tackle the problem at its roots, which is our collective ignorance.
References :