Why Does The Concept Of A Creator God Who Knows Us Individually Set You Off?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MissSmartypants

If God didn't create us with free will then He just would have been making a bunch of copies of himself.

exactly. only one person is allowed to be the center of attention. and the ten commandments make it very clear who that one person is supposed to be.

I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them?

Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?

...by choosing to be ignorant and incapable? but that is essentially choosing to be helpless to do the right thing. crippling yourself to let evil win.

why does evil exist to begin with. evil didnt exist before god, according to most popular creation theories. nothing existed before god. so god had to create evil or something equally powerful did.

does god have a rival or did he himself create evil?

is god incapable of destroying this rival? or reversing this evil?

then why doesnt he? why waste time and lives? why force the human race to suffer any second longer than is absolutely necessary? these are the answers i want. paradise is literally as easy as a millisecond of concentration on his part. less time and energy than it takes us to blink. that is what omnipotence means. it costs NOTHING for him to commence and complete his final designs in an instant. it costs NOTHING for him to completely tear down this universe and rebuild it the way he wanted it. he could do that in the blink of an eye too. because thats what omnipotence means. but it costs countless people, countless families, every day. for him to do what? nothing.

so what is holding him back? by what justification is indifference a more potent solution than active benevolence, rewriting the universe to omit any necessity for pain or suffering or deception or hatred or sorrow. the universe is a cracked reflection of an uncaring god. fix it or perish in silence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MissSmartypants

If God didn't create us with free will then He just would have been making a bunch of copies of himself.

exactly. only one person is allowed to be the center of attention. and the ten commandments make it very clear who that one person is supposed to be.

I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them?

Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?

...by choosing to be ignorant and incapable? but that is essentially choosing to be helpless to do the right thing. crippling yourself to let evil win.

why does evil exist to begin with. evil didnt exist before god, according to most popular creation theories. nothing existed before god. so god had to create evil or something equally powerful did.

does god have a rival or did he himself create evil?

is god incapable of destroying this rival? or reversing this evil?

then why doesnt he? why waste time and lives? why force the human race to suffer any second longer than is absolutely necessary? these are the answers i want. paradise is literally as easy as a millisecond of concentration on his part. less time and energy than it takes us to blink. that is what omnipotence means. it costs NOTHING for him to commence and complete his final designs in an instant. it costs NOTHING for him to completely tear down this universe and rebuild it the way he wanted it. he could do that in the blink of an eye too. because thats what omnipotence means. but it costs countless people, countless families, every day. for him to do what? nothing.

so what is holding him back? by what justification is indifference a more potent solution than active benevolence, rewriting the universe to omit any necessity for pain or suffering or deception or hatred or sorrow. the universe is a cracked reflection of an uncaring god. fix it or perish in silence.

I'm sorry, but your answer makes no sense. Perhaps if you reviewed my questions and gave it another try it will make more sense.

a reply to: Klassified

BTW. Get your foot out of that grave, and hang around with us for a while longer.

Thanks Klassified, At least your one of the few that are honest. You don't pull a punch and I like that in a guy with conviction. One thing I have a hunch about. Can't prove it and won't be here long enough to know but would bet you a nickle to a doughnut that you will have the answer before you hit the end of the road. My best to you.---

"I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful. Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them? Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?" Quote Tangerine

1. All-knowing and all-powerful 'as believers claim'...these words may be understood - but don't equate to helicopter parenting/meddlesome despot...move away from this idea...

2. All-knowing creator does know (as splinters of itself) everything that is possible and probable, but allows all freedom to (itself, essentially) experience all probabilities and possibilities - giving IT/US total free will to do this (i.e. reason for free will)

3. What would be the point of this?

A99

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Klassified

BTW. Get your foot out of that grave, and hang around with us for a while longer.

Thanks Klassified, At least your one of the few that are honest. You don't pull a punch and I like that in a guy with conviction. One thing I have a hunch about. Can't prove it and won't be here long enough to know but would bet you a nickle to a doughnut that you will have the answer before you hit the end of the road. My best to you.---

Not likely sir. Some things may very well remain a mystery to us as long as we are in this physical body that houses us. Unlike many, I don't believe in death as our society defines it. Death is nothing more than transformation. It's the next phase of our existence. This world is merely Kindergarten. Of that I am convinced.

May the new year bring pleasant surprises to you and yours.

originally posted by: akushla99
"I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful. Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them? Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?" Quote Tangerine

1. All-knowing and all-powerful 'as believers claim'...these words may be understood - but don't equate to helicopter parenting/meddlesome despot...move away from this idea...

2. All-knowing creator does know (as splinters of itself) everything that is possible and probable, but allows all freedom to (itself, essentially) experience all probabilities and possibilities - giving IT/US total free will to do this (i.e. reason for free will)

3. What would be the point of this?

A99

No, all-knowing means knows all. Period. All-powerful means just that. Free will, within the context of Christian belief, is ludicrous.

Nah a god has zip to do with free will.

Free will is really Identity, and identity is defined for both individual and social collectives, usually Gender, religious, economic, social identities. My identity or your identity is the result of social constructs that are developed from day one of birth. EG) do I wear pink or blue.

A person's concepts and expression of their own identity is learned, with some splatterings of natural genetic traits. The nature versus nurture debate.

INDIVIDUAL Identity is both relational and contextual, that is an individuals understanding, significance, and meaning are developed not separately from self, but in coordination with other human beings.

There is nothing free from the day you are born. Some life choices can be chosen that fit into socially accept paradigms. But in general there is STRONGLY GUIDED AND PRESCRIBED FREE WILL.

a reply to: windword

You believe that there is only one truth, and that you have it, right? How is that NOT narrow minded, elitist and a very high level of bias on your part?

Well no I don't believe there is only one truth, logically only one thing can be true and if it is true its negation must be false. Many religions or world views simply cannot both be true. I believe that Christ died for my sin and rose again on the third day and that this was what allows my soul salvation from sin. I believe that is the one truth, but just because I believe that does not mean I am unwilling to hear someone out. However entering a conversation with someone who holds a belief in one truth and already assuming they are unwilling to hear your side and give it honest discussion is a totally different thing. You won't hear them out because you think their view is narrowminded even before youve given it a fair analysis.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword


Well no I don't believe there is only one truth, logically only one thing can be true and if it is true its negation must be false. Many religions or world views simply cannot both be true. I believe that Christ died for my sin and rose again on the third day and that this was what allows my soul salvation from sin. I believe that is the one truth, but just because I believe that does not mean I am unwilling to hear someone out. However entering a conversation with someone who holds a belief in one truth and already assuming they are unwilling to hear your side and give it honest discussion is a totally different thing. You won't hear them out because you think their view is narrowminded even before youve given it a fair analysis.

Christ died for YOUR sins? what does one thing have to do with the other?! I plunged a pick-axe into my foot to pay for your car loan sounds equally as foolish. Religion doesn't set me off; it is the lemmings that operate under herd mentality thinking that their god is the best and only real god. Anyway, who cares if all the books say that this so-called god wants us to have a personal close relationship with it? I do not remember any teachings during my many years of theology classes where god supposedly told people to build churches and charge money (AKA Tithe, donations etc.) in order to be close to the entity purported to be god.

Also anyone who does not subscribe to the rantings of the many 'humans' that profess to know more about the god entity, gets treated as an outsider. Logic and reason are the two things that are never going to apply to any blind faith religion. If you are an average person, this is great for you as being an average person, you would not have much logic or reason to begin with. short answer is according to your christian bible, you need not even speak about your faith as long as you believe in the Jesus man; so please just do what he says and leave the rest of us that do not want to hear about your religion alone!

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: akushla99
"I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful. Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them? Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?" Quote Tangerine

1. All-knowing and all-powerful 'as believers claim'...these words may be understood - but don't equate to helicopter parenting/meddlesome despot...move away from this idea...

2. All-knowing creator does know (as splinters of itself) everything that is possible and probable, but allows all freedom to (itself, essentially) experience all probabilities and possibilities - giving IT/US total free will to do this (i.e. reason for free will)

3. What would be the point of this?

A99

No, all-knowing means knows all. Period. All-powerful means just that. Free will, within the context of Christian belief, is ludicrous.

Err...yeah...basically what I said...period...

Why do you care about the christian belief so much, that you are willing to entertain their own belief system to make yourself sound smart on the definition of words?

THEIR definition of All-powerful and All-anything...is wrong (you incidentally extrapolate that meaning to your own ends with your own added conditions of how All-powerful et al, specifically plays out)...your conclusion is based on your own added conditions...SO, you are right! This is called a circular argument, similar to what christians do when legitimising el biblo by using el biblo...

period

A99

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

You believe that there is only one truth, and that you have it, right? How is that NOT narrow minded, elitist and a very high level of bias on your part?

Well no I don't believe there is only one truth, logically only one thing can be true and if it is true its negation must be false. Many religions or world views simply cannot both be true. I believe that Christ died for my sin and rose again on the third day and that this was what allows my soul salvation from sin. I believe that is the one truth, but just because I believe that does not mean I am unwilling to hear someone out. However entering a conversation with someone who holds a belief in one truth and already assuming they are unwilling to hear your side and give it honest discussion is a totally different thing. You won't hear them out because you think their view is narrowminded even before youve given it a fair analysis.

Not specifically 'aimed' at you.

A group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement, yet they are all touching an elephant.

True story...

A99

a reply to: notmyrealname

Christ died for YOUR sins? what does one thing have to do with the other?! I plunged a pick-axe into my foot to pay for your car loan sounds equally as foolish.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

This is from a comment of mine on another thread:

"When Satan rebelled he already knew that he could not overpower God, but he did believe that He could out think Him. Satan's appeal to his followers rested on his assurance that God would be unable to effect any reconciliation between Himself and His rebellious creatures. Satan reasoned that God's righteousness would keep him from being able to extend His mercy and thus make forgiveness impossible. God would be "put in a pickle", unable to act in mercy without impending on his righteousness. God's answer to this problem was Christ. "

If Satan can make God imperfect in Mercy or imperfect in Righteousness then He could no longer be called God. Any imperfection in God’s nature means He cannot be God. God’s very essence requires the perfection of all His attributes. Satan's reason for doing this is Pride.

Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Sin was Satan's way of attempting to make us rebellious and making God to either choose to be perfect in Mercy or Righteousness. God's answer to this as I said above is Christ. Christ allows God to show Humans both Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice, and this is not just for Humans it is God's response to His angels after Satan's accusations towards God. All of this in the end brings glory to God.

Religion doesn't set me off; it is the lemmings that operate under herd mentality thinking that their god is the best and only real god.

It has nothing with people believing their God is the best and only real God. It has to do with what people believe is the truth. If a group of people agree on a truth that doesn't make it herd mentality. I mean I am pretty sure I could find a group of people who believe that fire will burn their naked skin anytime it comes in contact with it. Does that mean we are following herd mentality because we think its true that its best not to touch fire?

Anyway, who cares if all the books say that this so-called god wants us to have a personal close relationship with it?

Well I don't really care that the book says it what I am more concerned with is what this book says about this God true.

I do not remember any teachings during my many years of theology classes where god supposedly told people to build churches and charge money (AKA Tithe, donations etc.) in order to be close to the entity purported to be god.

Thats because the Bible doesn't teach that those things are what bring you close to God. Those are acts of faith. The people I know that do those things out of love for God not because their pastor demands it of them.

2 Cor 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Tithes are meant to be given out of love and when they are God gives us something back in return:

Malachi 3:10
10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.

Logic and reason are the two things that are never going to apply to any blind faith religion.

Well this one of my favorite conversations. I believe we can both agree that if the foundation of an argument is not accurate then that argument will not yield applicable conditionals in reality.

So if your foundation for operation in reality are logic and reason(which are good foundations) then,philosophically speaking, they themselves need some form of justification in order for you to claim these things give you knowledge you can apply to your world view rather than belief.

My point here is that without logical justification for the ontological existence of the laws of logic and reason you friend are stuck with a world view that brings you absolutely nothing but blind faith on every action you preform on daily basis. You've made the claim that you can have knowledge all I am asking is for you to justify that.

short answer is according to your christian bible, you need not even speak about your faith as long as you believe in the Jesus man

Im not gonna reference these, but just put them in google if you want the verse reference:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.

My book tells me to tell you what I've learned if I love you. I do love you, and I do care about you. So thats why I share these things, even if it bothers you.

a reply to: akushla99

A group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement, yet they are all touching an elephant.

I suppose this was somewhat in response to:

"Well no I don't believe there is only one truth, logically only one thing can be true and if it is true its negation must be false"

The story above is often used as a parable to the search of God for mankind. However, in order for the interpreter to make this claim that person would already have to see the fullness of God and understand how each religion reflects the one true nature of God. The elephant was known by the blind men before hand, and as I have the ability to see I know the fullness of an elephant and can make the claim that none of these men have all the truth. Can a person do that when they try and apply this to different religions?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: notmyrealname

This is from a comment of mine on another thread:

"When Satan rebelled he already knew that he could not overpower God, but he did believe that He could out think Him. Satan's appeal to his followers rested on his assurance that God would be unable to effect any reconciliation between Himself and His rebellious creatures. Satan reasoned that God's righteousness would keep him from being able to extend His mercy and thus make forgiveness impossible. God would be "put in a pickle", unable to act in mercy without impending on his righteousness. God's answer to this problem was Christ. "

If Satan can make God imperfect in Mercy or imperfect in Righteousness then He could no longer be called God. Any imperfection in God’s nature means He cannot be God. God’s very essence requires the perfection of all His attributes. Satan's reason for doing this is Pride.

Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Sin was Satan's way of attempting to make us rebellious and making God to either choose to be perfect in Mercy or Righteousness. God's answer to this as I said above is Christ. Christ allows God to show Humans both Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice, and this is not just for Humans it is God's response to His angels after Satan's accusations towards God. All of this in the end brings glory to God.

These stories are parables pure and simple. Both your beloved 'god' and his evil nemesis satan are pseudonyms for celestial events and not some huge battle between the forces of 'good' & 'evil'. Early humans (just the ones that we already know about were not very knowledgable nor educated in many parts of the world which made them difficult to control by other men. Unless of course god commanded them; never directly, of course, but through anointed ones such as yourself who feel compelled so strongly to spread their effervescent light to others. All for control. Control is the name of the game. That being said, I really do not mind at all that you have something that you believe in. I think that is great for you and your congregation. I do not need to hear about it at every meeting that something happened because 'god' blessed something. Hmmm: Haiti disaster, God blessed that Boko Harum murder and mutilation spree, God blessed that….the list can go on forever. In short, if you know someone does not share your views, leave them alone and avoid the waste of time trying to 'jim Jones' them!

Veering off target a little here, I really wish there would be a massive disclosure of off world intelligent life to our little planet; mostly because the answer to the simple question of who is 'god?' would be a devastating blow to all that place unwarranted control over others through religion.

It has nothing with people believing their God is the best and only real God. It has to do with what people believe is the truth. If a group of people agree on a truth that doesn't make it herd mentality. I mean I am pretty sure I could find a group of people who believe that fire will burn their naked skin anytime it comes in contact with it. Does that mean we are following herd mentality because we think its true that its best not to touch fire?

I like your analogy of knowing the truth by knowing flesh may burn when in contact with fire; I agree completely!
And it can be proven logically by anyone stupid enough to try it! no teaching, no books, "no my fire is better than your fire so listen to me". Simple life lessons that you do not have to die in order to find out the truth.

Well I don't really care that the book says it what I am more concerned with is what this book says about this God true.

Ancient stories passed down verbally for more that 600 years by faulty humans then gets written down and altered by the controlling humans that have a vested interest in maintaining power and you do not think that this is error enough? What if what you are reading and believing is actually a ploy of the entity you call satan? How would you know?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I believe that Christ died for my sin and rose again on the third day and that this was what allows my soul salvation from sin. I believe that is the one truth, but just because I believe that does not mean I am unwilling to hear someone out.

Okay. That works for you, and because of your belief you're able to justify your existence and feel good about yourself. But, it seems that you're unable to accept that someone else can reject that justification and feel just fine about their existence and good about themselves' by believing in something else.

It just might be that "The Kingdom of God" IS within, and that this "Christ" figure that you speak of is an archetype that is embedded in everyone and manifests according to "God's plan", in mysterious ways.

There was never any need for the LOGOS to incarnate as a human and die for us to appreciate the "Divine Flame", within us all and walk in joy and love.

Well this one of my favorite conversations. I believe we can both agree that if the foundation of an argument is not accurate then that argument will not yield applicable conditionals in reality.

Yes I can agree with this as long as you do not try and attempt tossing out paradoxes to back up your side of the discussion.

So if your foundation for operation in reality are logic and reason(which are good foundations) then,philosophically speaking, they themselves need some form of justification in order for you to claim these things give you knowledge you can apply to your world view rather than belief.

My point here is that without logical justification for the ontological existence of the laws of logic and reason you friend are stuck with a world view that brings you absolutely nothing but blind faith on every action you preform on daily basis. You've made the claim that you can have knowledge all I am asking is for you to justify that.

ontological existence and logic and reason are not mutually inclusive; as a matter of fact, they differ quite a bit. You are trying to justify unverifiable things simply through you personal belief system. I do not need to 'justify' anything as I am not the one making statements about anything philosophical. If I were to attempt to justify a metaphysical phenomena, I would start with Philosophy and Logical Syntax as a base and attempt to use mathematics as a tool for that justification.

Just because I do not share your seeming (my opinion) mass delusion with many other religious people, and wars are fought over these religions all the time (religion is just a pretext to incite the war and control the soft minded people of course, the real reason is money and power). Ask yourself this: If there never was any religion passed down for the last 2000 years, would people inherently lose all morals and become savages or would peace work its way out?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99

A group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement, yet they are all touching an elephant.

I suppose this was somewhat in response to:

"Well no I don't believe there is only one truth, logically only one thing can be true and if it is true its negation must be false"

The story above is often used as a parable to the search of God for mankind. However, in order for the interpreter to make this claim that person would already have to see the fullness of God and understand how each religion reflects the one true nature of God. The elephant was known by the blind men before hand, and as I have the ability to see I know the fullness of an elephant and can make the claim that none of these men have all the truth. Can a person do that when they try and apply this to different religions?

It was a 'loose' response...

The elephant is a metaphoric device. In another version, a mute walks past - the blind men hear the footsteps and ask him what he sees...he is mute

He draws a picture, they are blind...

To be specific...the blind men do not know what an elephant is beforehand (the device used could have been a platypus)...the mute cannot name it to tell them and the blind are touching separate parts of the same animal...remind anyone of the God discussions on forum boards?

HNY

Å99

a reply to: windword

Okay. That works for you, and because of your belief you're able to justify your existence and feel good about yourself. But, it seems that you're unable to accept that someone else can reject that justification and feel just fine about their existence and good about themselves' by believing in something else.

I don't understand why you feel that I believe someone cannot give some kind of meaning to their life without a God. They can, but only on a subjective sense. In reality(an objective basis), accidental collections of atoms evolved to a higher level do not have intrinsic worth.

There was never any need for the LOGOS to incarnate as a human and die for us to appreciate the "Divine Flame", within us all and walk in joy and love

Again, Satan made an accusation at God attempting to convince angels that God was not perfect in Righteousness nor was He perfect in Mercy. Satan reasoned that if creatures rebelled against God then God would be unable to reconcile with these rebellious creature without impending on His perfect Mercy or His perfect Righteousness making God not perfect and therefore not God. That was the need for Christ. It is God's way presenting perfect mercy and perfect righteousness at the same time. The ultimate purpose of this is to bring Glory to God so that the angels that rebelled with Satan and all humans know God is who He says He is.

You talk of love and joy as those are values I ought to express towards others. Why in your belief should I do that?

It just might be that "The Kingdom of God" IS within, and that this "Christ" figure that you speak of is an archetype that is embedded in everyone and manifests according to "God's plan", in mysterious ways.

Please elaborate on what you mean when you say that Christ is in everyone and manifest according to God's plan? Are you saying all religions are true. I dont want to misrepresent what your saying so please more details.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't understand why you feel that I believe someone cannot give some kind of meaning to their life without a God. They can, but only on a subjective sense. In reality(an objective basis), accidental collections of atoms evolved to a higher level do not have intrinsic worth.

An accidental collection of atoms like the Sun, the Solar System or the Galaxies? I beg to differ.

Again, Satan made an accusation at God attempting to convince angels that God was not perfect in Righteousness nor was He perfect in Mercy. Satan reasoned that if creatures rebelled against God then God would be unable to reconcile with these rebellious creature without impending on His perfect Mercy or His perfect Righteousness making God not perfect and therefore not God. That was the need for Christ.

Technically, that wager was resolved by Job.

You talk of love and joy as those are values I ought to express towards others. Why in your belief should I do that?

Why not? Those are pleasant emotions to experience and promote a quality life. Do you believe love and joy can only come from the worship of your God?

Please elaborate on what you mean when you say that Christ is in everyone and manifest according to God's plan? Are you saying all religions are true. I dont want to misrepresent what your saying so please more details.

No religion is true.

"Christ" is the divine spark that resides in every living thing.

a reply to: notmyrealname

These stories are parables pure and simple. Both your beloved 'god' and his evil nemesis satan are pseudonyms for celestial events and not some huge battle between the forces of 'good' & 'evil'.

These documents are not written as though those are meant to be taken as a parable. They are written as though these events actually occurred. Are there times were literary style is a parable? Yes. Is it always? No.

If they are pseudonyms of celestial events please tell me what events are the pseudonyms of?

Early humans (just the ones that we already know about were not very knowledgable nor educated in many parts of the world which made them difficult to control by other men. Unless of course god commanded them; never directly, of course, but through anointed ones such as yourself who feel compelled so strongly to spread their effervescent light to others. All for control. Control is the name of the game.

I'll tell you what I see in this. Speculation. No objective facts. Not one for me to analyze . Less intelligent humans are harder to control?

Second,
God never directly commands us? I believe Jesus was God in the Flesh and I believe he had many teachings? He heals a sick man at the pools of Bethesda. He walks on water, and most importantly he rises to the dead and appears to over 500 people. These are all pretty direct actions of God intervening in the physical world.

Veering off target a little here, I really wish there would be a massive disclosure of off world intelligent life to our little planet; mostly because the answer to the simple question of who is 'god

How does intelligent life off our planet have anything to do with does God exist and who is God?

I like your analogy of knowing the truth by knowing flesh may burn when in contact with fire; I agree completely! And it can be proven logically by anyone stupid enough to try it! no teaching, no books, "no my fire is better than your fire so listen to me". Simple life lessons that you do not have to die in order to find out the truth.

Whoa hold up now you can prove logically that fire will always burn naked skin with absolute certainty or a high degree of certainty or do you take that on blind faith? I would argue you take it on blind faith unless you have some form of God.

Here is why,

So far you and I have only been presented with sensory data, and ourselves. These we know exist. We also have sensory data from the past which is known to have existed and this knowledge supplies our data. However, if I were to press you further as to why you believe fire will burn the naked skin every time you might appeal to the physical laws that govern that interaction. For example, Skin burns at temperature X the flame is temperature Y and Y >X, therefore skin will burn when in contact with the flame, but if I raise the question of whether your skin will burn at the same temperature tomorrow, you find yourself in the same position as when I asked you if you were certain the fire would burn you. It brings us back to the question of do we have any good reason for assuming that because something has held in the past it will hold in the future? Well here is where we both would produce the inductive principle:

(a) The greater the number of cases in which a thing the sort A has been found associated with a thing the sort B, the more probable it is (if no cases of failure of association are known) that A is always associated with B; (b) Under the same circumstances, a sufficient number of cases of the association of A with B will make it nearly certain that A is always associated with B, and will make this general law approach certainty without limit.

www.personal.kent.edu... gs/ProbPhiloBook/chap-VI.htm

Now here is where your going to have a hard time proving that you know with any certainty that fire will burn you today, 500 years ago, and tomorrow. Anytime that I ask you to justify your reasoning(the inductive principle above) you will have already presupposed the inductive principle to prove the inductive principle. You will beg the question.

So the problem we are both stuck with in the absence of God is we can inductively verify deductive reasoning, but we cannot deductively verify inductive reasoning. This leads a person to concede that all actions on daily basis are done out of pure blind faith, and not knowledge as understood in the classical sense including avoiding fire.

Ancient stories passed down verbally for more that 600 years by faulty humans then gets written down and altered by the controlling humans that have a vested interest in maintaining power and you do not think that this is error enough?

Hmm well it wasn't just verbal. They basically wrote it in the stars. The Zodiac is the Babylonian perversion of the Hebrew Mazzaroth. Each star in each of the constellations had a hebrew name, and those names told the story of Satan, the Fall, and Redemption. So it wasn't just verbal in the sense that you are making it out to be.