Human imperfection is not incompatible with a God

[Ostronomos]

It is often said that God is perfect, therefore raising the question of why he would create an imperfect species.

There is no human being that is without his imperfections. Or so it is generally believed. However, like Isaac Newton before me, I am truly convinced that God has imparted the secrets of natural philosophy and true religion to a select few. One of whom is a perfect human being.

Atheism, with its myriad logical flaws, denies God on grounds of imperfection. But overlooks the fact that perfection is rarely exemplified by a single human being. Atheism, in other words, is the complete dismissal of the exclusive possibility of perfection.

I possess secrets few are privy to. Some of which include knowledge of a metaphysical reality.

This metaphysical reality is exhaustively elucidated in man's various and diverse religions. I have penetrated the mystery of religion and united it with science. All under a state of utter perfection.

[Ostronomos]

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Atheists are the logically flawed ones here?

Yes. Atheists lack knowledge of a metaphysical reality and dismiss it due to lack of evidence. Since God is real because He is proven using logic, then the logical flaws fall squarely on atheists.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
They're not the ones saying gods are perfect, imperfect or even existent. Theists are. You're one of those, right?

For your information, I am a gnostic theist (someone who knows with certainty that God is real and does not have the luxury of being clueless on theological matters).

A perfect being can continue to evolve toward ever greater heights.

Nothingness is a timeless, spaceless realm that links universes together. Brahman is unchanging and infinite.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Atheist don't deny gods, who aren't here to interact with in any way.

You may be relieved of the burden of ignorance by a gnostic theist such as myself, who has in fact interacted with God by entering a higher dimension.

Reality is indistinguishable from a dream in the mind of the observer, hence the simulation hypothesis.

I pity you as you are completely ignorant about the hidden reality of God.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
They reject the insufficiently evidence claims of theists like you. This atheist has been proclaiming for years that the Abrahamists made a mistake calling their god tri-omni.

No, they have not made a mistake with respect to the idea of a tri-omni God. It all depends on how you define those qualities.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Had they allowed for it to be partially unknowing, less that all-powerful, or less than perfectly good, then our world with its imperfections and pointless suffering wouldn't contradict their claims and cause their apologists such grief.

Again, false. Evil and suffering are necessary preconditions for freedom. Again, I have penetrated the mystery of the supernatural, as I have not only witnessed it, but provided logical evidence for it.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
There is no logical flaw to atheism. That belongs those who believes in ghosts that they call gods. Atheists are the ones who dodged that bullet and remained free of religion and the world's most popular superstitions. I leave people like you to invest time and energy into that.

And I do so proudly.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Your intense wisdom shines on us like a star in supernova (except for that last comment above).

Thank you sir, I blaze brightly in this celestial abode.

[Magical Realist]

The "perfect" is always the enemy of "the good". The problem with the ideal of perfection is that it is a man-made state conceived and projected out of his already too flawed nature. So we need to question whether it is even a realistic value. Like other empty attributes like virginity and holiness.

If however it is real, it therefore remains only eternally abstract and absolute, like Plato's ideal of Forms. Like the perfect cube or sphere, nowhere turning up in actual physical reality and yet conceptually defining its many rough approximations found there. My suspicion is that it is an overidealization of moral behavior leading to endless struggle and disappointment for we less than perfect mortals. For that reason alone it should be thrown into the big dumpster of historically outdated if not harmful ideas. Nobody can love a perfect being. We are bound together rather by our shared faults and shortcomings.

[Ostronomos]

The "perfect" is always the enemy of "the good".  The problem with the ideal of perfection is that it is a man-made state conceived and projected out of his already too flawed nature. So we need to question whether it is even a realistic value. Like other empty attributes like virginity and holiness.

If however it is real, it therefore remains only eternally abstract and absolute, like Plato's ideal of Forms. Like the perfect cube or sphere, nowhere turning up in actual physical reality and yet conceptually defining its many rough approximations found there. My suspicion is that it is an overidealization of moral behavior leading to endless struggle and disappointment for we less than perfect mortals. For that reason alone it should be thrown into the big dumpster of historically outdated if not harmful ideas. Nobody can love a perfect being. We are bound together rather by our shared faults and shortcomings.

Too often do atheists reject God on the basis of human imperfection. Needlessly conflating it with arbitrary moral standards thereby dismissing God as the image of a fascist dictator.

I responded to my thread on this very topic today:

• 
  Add bookmark
  
• #15
  

It Aint Necessarily So said:
You don't know what atheism is.
So is Superman as a reality.
Neither is Superman.
That's something you need to consider more than the atheist. You're a theist, the faith-based thinker, making you vulnerable. I wont be drinking Kool-Aid in some theist religious commune like Jonestown nor holing up with religious lunatics as many did at Waco. I have no plans to hitch a ride on a comet. That's for the lotus eaters. That's your world - the world of faith.

Click to expand...

If I may borrow Langan's mind=reality proposition for argument's sake. There is a complete absence of separation between reality and mind. There is a higher dimension that contains the separation between reality and mind, meaning their separation is not absolute.
Your claim that I am basing all of this on faith is again false. My God belief is based on a higher level of logic than that of the atheist.