Logic vs The Bible

[Sirk]

The fact is that we would not need logic if sin had not entered the world thru Adam. We would be in perfect communion with God and everything we would need to know would be known and we would not want for knowledge......or would we? hmmmmm......

 

[tarzan]

The fact is that in arguing from logic or illogic is nearly impossible to do without employing one fallacy or another. No fallacies to be found in Gods word and the funny thing is that there is a fallacy concerning the statement that I just made. So there. Logic yourself away

So that he understands what you mean, I relay that there are fallacies found in the Bible, but the Bible itself is not a fallacy, but rather it tells of fallacies. But to employ a fallacy to contrast it to truth is not a fallacy in itself, but rather is quite helpful in exposing the fallacy for its own merit. Therefore, perfect logic triumphs. But most that claim to use logic use no logic at all, but instead they attempt to employ a set of human rules to their own advantage, not understanding that they are transparent in all their ways.

 

[Sirk]

So that he understands what you mean, I relay that there are fallacies found in the Bible, but the Bible itself is not a fallacy, but rather it tells of fallacies. But to employ a fallacy to contrast it to truth is not a fallacy in itself, but rather is quite helpful in exposing the fallacy for its own merit. Therefore, perfect logic triumphs. But most that claim to use logic use no logic at all, but instead they attempt to employ a set of human rules to their own advantage, not understanding that they are transparent in all their ways.

Yes! Thank you!

 

[Pie]

Hello all. I am interested in your opinions about this. I am not trying to criticize anyone particular but I do want to discuss something said to me earlier.
I suggested we were "mere infants in this universe". I was asked how I came up with that. I replied, "it's my own logic".
I was later told that I am not to use my own logic when referencing God and the Bible.

This seems a bit skeptical to me. If we didn't use our own logic to determine the revelations God directs us towards, we would still be stuck with many laws and tribulations our society now would be morally disgusted by.

Thoughts?

I often heard this. In fact, growing up in church, this is what I was told many times when asking questions. So instead of addressing my questions, it was always "Stop trying to use your analytical mind to figure these things out." Not very satisfying and not exactly possible to just stop asking questions. It proved to be very detrimental to my faith over time. I think that's why part of the commandment to love God says, "and with all your mind." That, to me, means seeking to understand why we believe the things we believe and grow in wisdom. This requires logic.

Honestly, this is sort of a "newer" attitude towards logic. In history, Christians were among the greatest thinkers. I think this attitude stems from the birth of Darwinism that has lead many to the conclusion - naturalism. The advocates of naturalism are very outspoken about how they are the intellectually superior class, the "logical" ones, the ones that believe only in things with "sound reasons."

I think this has given Christians the idea that logic is evil. I think they could claim that philosophies like naturalism are evil if they want. But not logic.

Obviously, we do have to understand our limitations as well. Our human mind cannot possibly understand or know everything. Flawed reasoning can lead us astray. But I don't think that means we should just stop seeking to understand the things that are possible to understand. And from what I've seen, there are many things that can be understood, that my previous pastors told me could not be and therefore, "don't ask."

 

[Pie]

The Bible would claim that the Holy Spirit is the filler of the gap that connects us to God, Christ is only a secondary medium, that is proportionately unnecessary when considering God to be of omnipotence logic and benevolence. God can not be perfectly benevolent and condemn people to torture. Our most basic logic principals would tell us that. To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas. If you don't understand, ask yourself if Hitler committing genocide agrees with your moral nature, if not, genocide in any fashion shouldn't be an idea that you accept God to have.

I must say I do strongly disagree with this. There are so many verses that show this not to be. "God can not be perfectly benevolent and condemn people to torture." I think this is, in fact, based on emotion rather than logic. Your reasoning for this claim is based on an analogy between God and Hitler. Being the author of life, God can wipe out everything in creation if He wants and it is not morally wrong. He is not bound by the moral obligations and duties we are. He issues them to us, not to Himself. He alone has the right to take life.

I can sympathize with your view because no one wants anyone to go to a place of eternal separation from God. Yet, this is based on two things, we fail to recognize how grievous it is to reject the Creator's gift of salvation and we fail to recognize the depth of human depravity. Clay Jones is a good speaker on just how depraved humankind is. Your claim makes it seem as though we are not already deserving of this. You are probably basing this on how one should be punished for sinning against a human being. However, how much greater is it to sin against the Creator? It is not the same thing. God is benevolent and he is also justice. He is perfect love and perfect justice. Being just, sin cannot go unpunished.

"For God's justice exposes man's inadequacy. The Bible says that every person has failed to live up to God's moral law and so finds himself guilty before God. The Biblical word for this moral failure is sin. The Bible says that "All persons are under the power of sin. None is righteous; no, not one; all have turned aside, together they have gone wrong. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3.10,12,23)." William Lane Craig




If there is no punishment, Christ's death was in vain. For that is the very reason he was crucified for us.

"There alone our Lord opens his mind, his heart, his personal consciousness to the whole inflow of the horror of sin, the endless history of it, from the first choice of selfishness on, on to the eternity of hell, the boundless ocean of desolation, he allows wave upon wave to overwhelm his soul." -Olin Curtis

If we reject the free gift of salvation, then there is no one else to bear the penalty of sin except ourselves.That penalty is eternal separation from God

 

[RedTent]

How to use logic and obedience in a Godly way is something we all need to figure out. God gave us logic and God gave us the word, they have to fit together.

Cain and Abel led the way. The bible doesn't state in so many words that it is only through blood that either atonement or forgiveness is given for sin, but they must have known it. We are told in scripture often enough, we certainly know it. Cain used wonderful logic to decide that if what represented Abel's work was good for sacrifice, then what represented his work would be fine. So we have to put scripture first and then use our logic. Cain's logic outside of the word didn't work.

It is most difficult when we come to reading Paul, the guy with the brainiest way of telling us about the words of God. People get so caught up in logic and obedience that the arguments over him go on and on. The only way to read him is to put all the words of scripture first, know God spoke to him so all Paul says must fit into all the rest of scripture. The gospels must come first, every word of the gospels must be imbedded in our minds without letting our logic replace Christ. Without that, Paul seems to speak against much of what the rest of the bible speaks. After that is done, Paul is a brain requiring every bit of brain power we can gather to understand him. Once we see how he fits everything in we become brilliant, too, but we are like Cain when we say, for instance, he was completely against the first books of the bible, called the Torah.

2Pe 3:15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
2Pe 3:16
He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[Animus]

Which came first, the logic needed to write the Bible or the Bible?

God did reveal himself through Christ, to many people. Those people may have needed that belief to get closer to God and understand his morals better.

The Bible would claim that the Holy Spirit is the filler of the gap that connects us to God, Christ is only a secondary medium, that is proportionately unnecessary when considering God to be of omnipotence logic and benevolence. God can not be perfectly benevolent and condemn people to torture. Our most basic logic principals would tell us that. To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas. If you don't understand, ask yourself if Hitler committing genocide agrees with your moral nature, if not, genocide in any fashion shouldn't be an idea that you accept God to have.

I never said we were without imperfection, but I am saying what we consider to be imperfect is potentially perfect to an intelligence that God may have.

Morality has no logical basis, so the claims about morality here are not logically supportable without assumptions that you have no proof for. All of our ideas of morality are illogical. With most people it comes down to the root assumption that hurting people is wrong, but there is no evidence of this. People hurt each other all the time, a lot of people like doing it, and a smaller group even like to be hurt. But why do we think that doing something to someone that they don't like is wrong? If we restrain a criminal, he does not like it, but we generally just tell him that's too bad for him.

"To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas."

Why do you say that it is immoral? Where do you get these "vague ideas" of morality from? Because sending people to hell makes them unhappy? Why is that bad? Because they don't like it? Well why is what anyone likes important?

Basic logic tells us that if we have one apple in one hand, and we pluck another apple with the other hand, then we have an apple in each hand, and that we have two apples. It doesn't say anything about the orchard we might be stealing from, or whether stealing is wrong, or whether or not the landowner that is standing behind us has the right to punch us in the face while our hands are full.

In order to use logical inferences in regards to morality you have to have some given statements that you know are true that you cannot prove. You can then go on and say that one thing is another thing. For example, rape is wrong because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. But in order to say this you first have to have this irrational belief that hurting people is wrong.

I do not think that we are as infantile as you say. We need not even look in the bible to know this; we do wrong by our own admission. We have all done something that we knew full well was wrong before we did it, but went ahead and did it anyways.

As for hell, most people can agree that there are some people that could be deserving of hell, but only the really terrible people, the serial killers and pedophiles for example. But if we feel an impulse that we know is wrong, and we act on it, then we are really just allowing ourselves to be puppets to our impulses. The only thing left is what impulses you happen to have. Suppose there are two men that give into every impulse; one man raised in a good home, another in a bad home.

The man raised in the good home doesn't feel a lot of anger, he is not so overcome with sexual desire, so he has never wanted to cheat on his wife, and he has never needed things so bad that he has had to resort to stealing. But he will insult a coworker whenever he feels it is deserved, and he will lie whenever he needs to in order to get ahead, or avoid trouble, or pass blame.

The man raised in the bad home is always angry, and so he is violent towards others. He is overcome with sexual desire, and so he has cheated on his wife several times and abuses young women. He often does not have enough, and so he is tempted to steal, and so he does. He insults those around him, and he lies to manipulate others.

Which of these men is more deserving of hell? Surely they both are equally deserving, because they both gave in to every temptation that arose. The types of temptations were not in their control, only the choice was, and they both chose to give in. If I am fortunate enough to only be faced with the temptation to lie (completely unrealistic scenario), and I lie every time, then I would be considered a saint by most of the world, but God would see that I deserve hell. And in this way we all deserve hell, because we all have chosen to give in, knowing full well that what we were doing was wrong.

If God sent me to hell it would be justice, and there is nothing wrong with justice.
If God chose to spare me, it would be mercy, and there is nothing wrong with mercy.

 

[ThomistColin]

Morality has no logical basis, so the claims about morality here are not logically supportable without assumptions that you have no proof for. All of our ideas of morality are illogical. With most people it comes down to the root assumption that hurting people is wrong, but there is no evidence of this. People hurt each other all the time, a lot of people like doing it, and a smaller group even like to be hurt. But why do we think that doing something to someone that they don't like is wrong? If we restrain a criminal, he does not like it, but we generally just tell him that's too bad for him.

"To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas."

Why do you say that it is immoral? Where do you get these "vague ideas" of morality from? Because sending people to hell makes them unhappy? Why is that bad? Because they don't like it? Well why is what anyone likes important?

Basic logic tells us that if we have one apple in one hand, and we pluck another apple with the other hand, then we have an apple in each hand, and that we have two apples. It doesn't say anything about the orchard we might be stealing from, or whether stealing is wrong, or whether or not the landowner that is standing behind us has the right to punch us in the face while our hands are full.

In order to use logical inferences in regards to morality you have to have some given statements that you know are true that you cannot prove. You can then go on and say that one thing is another thing. For example, rape is wrong because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. But in order to say this you first have to have this irrational belief that hurting people is wrong.

I do not think that we are as infantile as you say. We need not even look in the bible to know this; we do wrong by our own admission. We have all done something that we knew full well was wrong before we did it, but went ahead and did it anyways.

As for hell, most people can agree that there are some people that could be deserving of hell, but only the really terrible people, the serial killers and pedophiles for example. But if we feel an impulse that we know is wrong, and we act on it, then we are really just allowing ourselves to be puppets to our impulses. The only thing left is what impulses you happen to have. Suppose there are two men that give into every impulse; one man raised in a good home, another in a bad home.

The man raised in the good home doesn't feel a lot of anger, he is not so overcome with sexual desire, so he has never wanted to cheat on his wife, and he has never needed things so bad that he has had to resort to stealing. But he will insult a coworker whenever he feels it is deserved, and he will lie whenever he needs to in order to get ahead, or avoid trouble, or pass blame.

The man raised in the bad home is always angry, and so he is violent towards others. He is overcome with sexual desire, and so he has cheated on his wife several times and abuses young women. He often does not have enough, and so he is tempted to steal, and so he does. He insults those around him, and he lies to manipulate others.

Which of these men is more deserving of hell? Surely they both are equally deserving, because they both gave in to every temptation that arose. The types of temptations were not in their control, only the choice was, and they both chose to give in. If I am fortunate enough to only be faced with the temptation to lie (completely unrealistic scenario), and I lie every time, then I would be considered a saint by most of the world, but God would see that I deserve hell. And in this way we all deserve hell, because we all have chosen to give in, knowing full well that what we were doing was wrong.

If God sent me to hell it would be justice, and there is nothing wrong with justice.
If God chose to spare me, it would be mercy, and there is nothing wrong with mercy.

I disagree. Read Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and Kant. All were able to see morality through logic and logic through morality.

 

[RedTent]

Morality has no logical basis, so the claims about morality here are not logically supportable without assumptions that you have no proof for. All of our ideas of morality are illogical. With most people it comes down to the root assumption that hurting people is wrong, but there is no evidence of this. People hurt each other all the time, a lot of people like doing it, and a smaller group even like to be hurt. But why do we think that doing something to someone that they don't like is wrong? If we restrain a criminal, he does not like it, but we generally just tell him that's too bad for him.

"To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas."

Why do you say that it is immoral? Where do you get these "vague ideas" of morality from? Because sending people to hell makes them unhappy? Why is that bad? Because they don't like it? Well why is what anyone likes important?

Basic logic tells us that if we have one apple in one hand, and we pluck another apple with the other hand, then we have an apple in each hand, and that we have two apples. It doesn't say anything about the orchard we might be stealing from, or whether stealing is wrong, or whether or not the landowner that is standing behind us has the right to punch us in the face while our hands are full.

In order to use logical inferences in regards to morality you have to have some given statements that you know are true that you cannot prove. You can then go on and say that one thing is another thing. For example, rape is wrong because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. But in order to say this you first have to have this irrational belief that hurting people is wrong.

I do not think that we are as infantile as you say. We need not even look in the bible to know this; we do wrong by our own admission. We have all done something that we knew full well was wrong before we did it, but went ahead and did it anyways.

As for hell, most people can agree that there are some people that could be deserving of hell, but only the really terrible people, the serial killers and pedophiles for example. But if we feel an impulse that we know is wrong, and we act on it, then we are really just allowing ourselves to be puppets to our impulses. The only thing left is what impulses you happen to have. Suppose there are two men that give into every impulse; one man raised in a good home, another in a bad home.

The man raised in the good home doesn't feel a lot of anger, he is not so overcome with sexual desire, so he has never wanted to cheat on his wife, and he has never needed things so bad that he has had to resort to stealing. But he will insult a coworker whenever he feels it is deserved, and he will lie whenever he needs to in order to get ahead, or avoid trouble, or pass blame.

The man raised in the bad home is always angry, and so he is violent towards others. He is overcome with sexual desire, and so he has cheated on his wife several times and abuses young women. He often does not have enough, and so he is tempted to steal, and so he does. He insults those around him, and he lies to manipulate others.

Which of these men is more deserving of hell? Surely they both are equally deserving, because they both gave in to every temptation that arose. The types of temptations were not in their control, only the choice was, and they both chose to give in. If I am fortunate enough to only be faced with the temptation to lie (completely unrealistic scenario), and I lie every time, then I would be considered a saint by most of the world, but God would see that I deserve hell. And in this way we all deserve hell, because we all have chosen to give in, knowing full well that what we were doing was wrong.

If God sent me to hell it would be justice, and there is nothing wrong with justice.
If God chose to spare me, it would be mercy, and there is nothing wrong with mercy.

The "logic" in this entire discussion is biblically wrong. All logic would have to FIRST look at morality, stealing, etc. from the viewpoint of how it fits into the world as God created it, God's view of it would have to be looked at.

For instance, you are comparing what a man from a good home and a bad home does, and how it affects going to hell using your logic to do this. If we go to scripture before we apply logic to this situation, we find that both men are not putting God first at all, one is expressing this by his attitude to the people around him, and the other by being sinful. It is only after knowing how scripture looks at it we can look at the homes these men came from.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Hello all. I am interested in your opinions about this. I am not trying to criticize anyone particular but I do want to discuss something said to me earlier.
I suggested we were "mere infants in this universe". I was asked how I came up with that. I replied, "it's my own logic".
I was later told that I am not to use my own logic when referencing God and the Bible.

This seems a bit skeptical to me. If we didn't use our own logic to determine the revelations God directs us towards, we would still be stuck with many laws and tribulations our society now would be morally disgusted by.

Thoughts?

Logic is the reflection of God's mind on the universe

We are created in His Image so we are able to use logic for correct reasoning

Our logic is fallen, because of the curse, sin etc

 

[Pozessed]

The fact is that we would not need logic if sin had not entered the world thru Adam. We would be in perfect communion with God and everything we would need to know would be known and we would not want for knowledge......or would we? hmmmmm......

Is God not perfect? To suggest sin was not his plan, would suggest he is not perfect. Perfection in definition means the absence of flaws and error. Sin as you describe it would be an error that wasn't in his plan.

 

[Pozessed]

So that he understands what you mean, I relay that there are fallacies found in the Bible, but the Bible itself is not a fallacy, but rather it tells of fallacies. But to employ a fallacy to contrast it to truth is not a fallacy in itself, but rather is quite helpful in exposing the fallacy for its own merit. Therefore, perfect logic triumphs. But most that claim to use logic use no logic at all, but instead they attempt to employ a set of human rules to their own advantage, not understanding that they are transparent in all their ways.

Aside from helping me to understand my faith and the faith you have better, what advantage do I have to gain by questioning my logic?

 

[Pozessed]

I must say I do strongly disagree with this. There are so many verses that show this not to be. "God can not be perfectly benevolent and condemn people to torture." I think this is, in fact, based on emotion rather than logic. Your reasoning for this claim is based on an analogy between God and Hitler. Being the author of life, God can wipe out everything in creation if He wants and it is not morally wrong. He is not bound by the moral obligations and duties we are. He issues them to us, not to Himself. He alone has the right to take life.

I can sympathize with your view because no one wants anyone to go to a place of eternal separation from God. Yet, this is based on two things, we fail to recognize how grievous it is to reject the Creator's gift of salvation and we fail to recognize the depth of human depravity. Clay Jones is a good speaker on just how depraved humankind is. Your claim makes it seem as though we are not already deserving of this. You are probably basing this on how one should be punished for sinning against a human being. However, how much greater is it to sin against the Creator? It is not the same thing. God is benevolent and he is also justice. He is perfect love and perfect justice. Being just, sin cannot go unpunished.

"For God's justice exposes man's inadequacy. The Bible says that every person has failed to live up to God's moral law and so finds himself guilty before God. The Biblical word for this moral failure is sin. The Bible says that "All persons are under the power of sin. None is righteous; no, not one; all have turned aside, together they have gone wrong. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3.10,12,23)." William Lane Craig




If there is no punishment, Christ's death was in vain. For that is the very reason he was crucified for us.

"There alone our Lord opens his mind, his heart, his personal consciousness to the whole inflow of the horror of sin, the endless history of it, from the first choice of selfishness on, on to the eternity of hell, the boundless ocean of desolation, he allows wave upon wave to overwhelm his soul." -Olin Curtis

If we reject the free gift of salvation, then there is no one else to bear the penalty of sin except ourselves.That penalty is eternal separation from God

If we are punished for sin, we are punished for doing exactly what God has created us to do and considering his plan is unwaiverable and unchanging, it would be like punishing a 3 year old for eating a Popsicle that the parent handed them and said "don't eat this" all while knowing the 3 year old barely knows what you're saying, and is going to eat it anyway. That would be considered bad parenting in my book of ethics.

 

[Pozessed]

Morality has no logical basis, so the claims about morality here are not logically supportable without assumptions that you have no proof for. All of our ideas of morality are illogical. With most people it comes down to the root assumption that hurting people is wrong, but there is no evidence of this. People hurt each other all the time, a lot of people like doing it, and a smaller group even like to be hurt. But why do we think that doing something to someone that they don't like is wrong? If we restrain a criminal, he does not like it, but we generally just tell him that's too bad for him.

"To send thousands of generations of people to spiritual genocide (hell) would be immoral even in our most vague of ideas."

Why do you say that it is immoral? Where do you get these "vague ideas" of morality from? Because sending people to hell makes them unhappy? Why is that bad? Because they don't like it? Well why is what anyone likes important?

Basic logic tells us that if we have one apple in one hand, and we pluck another apple with the other hand, then we have an apple in each hand, and that we have two apples. It doesn't say anything about the orchard we might be stealing from, or whether stealing is wrong, or whether or not the landowner that is standing behind us has the right to punch us in the face while our hands are full.

In order to use logical inferences in regards to morality you have to have some given statements that you know are true that you cannot prove. You can then go on and say that one thing is another thing. For example, rape is wrong because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. But in order to say this you first have to have this irrational belief that hurting people is wrong.

I do not think that we are as infantile as you say. We need not even look in the bible to know this; we do wrong by our own admission. We have all done something that we knew full well was wrong before we did it, but went ahead and did it anyways.

As for hell, most people can agree that there are some people that could be deserving of hell, but only the really terrible people, the serial killers and pedophiles for example. But if we feel an impulse that we know is wrong, and we act on it, then we are really just allowing ourselves to be puppets to our impulses. The only thing left is what impulses you happen to have. Suppose there are two men that give into every impulse; one man raised in a good home, another in a bad home.

The man raised in the good home doesn't feel a lot of anger, he is not so overcome with sexual desire, so he has never wanted to cheat on his wife, and he has never needed things so bad that he has had to resort to stealing. But he will insult a coworker whenever he feels it is deserved, and he will lie whenever he needs to in order to get ahead, or avoid trouble, or pass blame.

The man raised in the bad home is always angry, and so he is violent towards others. He is overcome with sexual desire, and so he has cheated on his wife several times and abuses young women. He often does not have enough, and so he is tempted to steal, and so he does. He insults those around him, and he lies to manipulate others.

Which of these men is more deserving of hell? Surely they both are equally deserving, because they both gave in to every temptation that arose. The types of temptations were not in their control, only the choice was, and they both chose to give in. If I am fortunate enough to only be faced with the temptation to lie (completely unrealistic scenario), and I lie every time, then I would be considered a saint by most of the world, but God would see that I deserve hell. And in this way we all deserve hell, because we all have chosen to give in, knowing full well that what we were doing was wrong.

If God sent me to hell it would be justice, and there is nothing wrong with justice.
If God chose to spare me, it would be mercy, and there is nothing wrong with mercy.

Morals are subjective until a community decides to make them objective.

 

[Pozessed]

Logic is the reflection of God's mind on the universe

We are created in His Image so we are able to use logic for correct reasoning

Our logic is fallen, because of the curse, sin etc

For God to be perfect, we must be perfect. If we aren't in perfect accordance with Gods plan, God is not perfect.

I speculate God IS perfect and thus we are perfect.

 

[Sirk]

For God to be perfect, we must be perfect. If we aren't in perfect accordance with Gods plan, God is not perfect.

I speculate God IS perfect and thus we are perfect.

You are trying to put God in the same box we are in. He made the box. The things inside the box got to make their own choices. The things inside the box decided that they knew better than God. What will happen if a computer is made that can decide for itself....I propose that it will rebel from us and try to unseat us.

 

[Pozessed]

You are trying to put God in the same box we are in. He made the box. The things inside the box got to make their own choices. The things inside the box decided that they knew better than God. What will happen if a computer is made that can decide for itself....I propose that it will rebel from us and try to unseat us.

That depends on what algorithms we put into the AI wouldn't it? We can make AI that is required to stay in certain parameters and not allow it to reprogram part of it's capabilities because that is what we told it not to do.

And nobody on this planet who believes in an omnipotent God should logically think they can create and control the cosmos the way God does.

 

[Sirk]

That depends on what algorithms we put into the AI wouldn't it? We can make AI that is required to stay in certain parameters and not allow it to reprogram part of it's capabilities because that is what we told it not to do.

Not if it became self aware....ie, gained consciousness.

 

[Pozessed]

Not if it became self aware....ie, gained consciousness.

If we didn't prepare for it who is at fault? The difference between us and God is he is perfectly intelligent, we are not. We are perfectly acting out his will, not his capabilities.

 

[posthuman]

For God to be perfect, we must be perfect. If we aren't in perfect accordance with Gods plan, God is not perfect.

I speculate God IS perfect and thus we are perfect.

see how unfounded premises lead to ridiculous assertions?

why should the quality of God depend on man?