Quote
i dont really follow your argument too well but this is what i get out of it. correct me if i am wrong
1. humans believe that God is perfect
2. humans also believe that God has attributes and that God did many things. because of this, what humans believe to be God is not perfect. (i do not understand how this is)
conclusion: God is not what humans believe him to be.
1. humans believe that God is perfect
2. humans also believe that God has attributes and that God did many things. because of this, what humans believe to be God is not perfect. (i do not understand how this is)
conclusion: God is not what humans believe him to be.
1. humans believe that god is perfect
2. this perfection is an idealization that is itself flawed. hence the act of defining god (has properties, does shit, whatever the case) => that if god is truly perfect, we can't define god
triforce dots : human idealization of god is not perfect, and hence we believe in a perfection that's a human synthesis. since we all have different idealizations of perfection, the most fundamental definition of god as "perfection" implies that everyone have different "gods". hence religion imposes several man-made constraints on what god is to enforce a singular belief in god. however we introduce more flaws with every constraint (god is benevolent, merciful, yet just) hence the ultimate conclusion is that a singular god cannot be perfect.
ps: i just delayed an onset of carpal tunnel by not bothering with the shift key, good policy flood imo