A thunderingly obtuse question...

[_Alfredo]

So, I asked this question in another thread, but I don't think it got the attention or understanding it deserved. It's a work in progress, so any input is appreciated. I'm trying to make the argument as simple as it can be. It's designed to subvert any faith-based response and force faith to be considered without any fallacious appeal to itself. I think it demonstrates pretty clearly that faith can powerfully distort and bias your paradigm. It exposes the loop that closes your mind into the faith programming and preserves belief.

And here's the question...

Considering which is ruler of the universe, if you had the choice to put your first act of faith in God or the Devil, how could you choose between them?

In choosing between the God or the Devil as ruler of the universe, you're choosing between two possible worlds. A world in which it's possible God saves souls and another in which no God exists and the Devil deceives every soul.

If you're a believer, you're likely to have trouble paying attention to the "first" qualifier. I mean the very first act act of faith, as in, from the starting point of zero faith in either choice. You can preach your heart out but I defend that there is no reason to prefer one being over the other as, in fact, ruler of the universe from this "first step of faith" position. Choosing between them requires faith.

But if you believe you have found an answer, ask yourself this question: Does it require faith to believe it?

If it requires faith, then your response doesn't support your first act of faith... it presupposes faith.

This is the loop in the programming. You'll never free your mind if you fail to provide a way to take your first step of faith without presupposing faith.

The question isn't just about God vs. The Devil. It's just an easy example to demonstrate that by presupposing faith to take your first step of faith, you can fallaciously justify faith in anything. You can construct the same loop but with a different subject.

For each response you give in favor of God as ruler of the universe, an equally valid and consistent explanation can be made for the Devil. Just presuppose faith that the Devil is ruler of the universe, and any evidence or faith for God (personal revelation, historical, scientific, philosophical argument, etc.) is the Devil's trick. Each conflict is reduced to whether you put your first act of faith in God or the Devil.

But only after you see the two worlds without the bias of faith will you recognize that to choose between them is a choice which, again, I argue can't be made.

[_bcspace]

Simplify man! You'll never grasp faith by trying to code it.

[_Nightlion]

So, I asked this question in another thread, but I don't think it got the attention or understanding it deserved. It's a work in progress, so any input is appreciated. I'm trying to make the argument as simple as it can be. It's designed to subvert any faith-based response and force faith to be considered without any fallacious appeal to itself. I think it demonstrates pretty clearly that faith can powerfully distort and bias your paradigm. It exposes the loop that closes your mind into the faith programming and preserves belief.

And here's the question...

Considering which is ruler of the universe, if you had the choice to put your first act of faith in God or the Devil, how could you choose between them?

In choosing between the God or the Devil as ruler of the universe, you're choosing between two possible worlds. A world in which it's possible God saves souls and another in which no God exists and the Devil deceives every soul.

If you're a believer, you're likely to have trouble paying attention to the "first" qualifier. I mean the very first act act of faith, as in, from the starting point of zero faith in either choice. You can preach your heart out but I defend that there is no reason to prefer one being over the other as, in fact, ruler of the universe from this "first step of faith" position. Choosing between them requires faith.

But if you believe you have found an answer, ask yourself this question: Does it require faith to believe it?

If it requires faith, then your response doesn't support your first act of faith... it presupposes faith.

This is the loop in the programming. You'll never free your mind if you fail to provide a way to take your first step of faith without presupposing faith.

The question isn't just about God vs. The Devil. It's just an easy example to demonstrate that by presupposing faith to take your first step of faith, you can fallaciously justify faith in anything. You can construct the same loop but with a different subject.

For each response you give in favor of God as ruler of the universe, an equally valid and consistent explanation can be made for the Devil. Just presuppose faith that the Devil is ruler of the universe, and any evidence or faith for God (personal revelation, historical, scientific, philosophical argument, etc.) is the Devil's trick. Each conflict is reduced to whether you put your first act of faith in God or the Devil.

But only after you see the two worlds without the bias of faith will you recognize that to choose between them is a choice which, again, I argue can't be made.

Lucky for everyone God gets the first choice and he chooses himself. This is because God is the only being with the intelligence capable of raising himself out of light and truth to act independently. If we had to wait for Satan to get out on his own we would never get the chance to pick him. NEVER!

Since the choice is never a possibility it is rendered moot. And all your rational goes out the window to rain down on Mootville.

[Guest]

Simplify man! You'll never grasp faith by trying to code it.

The question is pretty simple, the more difficult part is to preemptively explain why faithful responses are useless in a simple way. It's much easier to just take each response as they are offered. I can also grasp that faith is possibly necessary, but I see no solution to the question. How do you choose the subject of your first act of faith? I'm interested to hear your response.

[_Alfredo]

Lucky for everyone God gets the first choice and he chooses himself. This is because God is the only being with the intelligence capable of raising himself out of light and truth to act independently. If we had to wait for Satan to get out on his own we would never get the chance to pick him. NEVER!

Since the choice is never a possibility it is rendered moot. And all your rational goes out the window to rain down on Mootville.

If you're a believer, you're likely to have trouble paying attention to the "first" qualifier.

But if you believe you have found an answer, ask yourself this question: Does it require faith to believe it?

If it requires faith, then your response doesn't support your first act of faith... it presupposes faith.

[_Tobin]

Actually, I was the one that observed it was a thunderingly obtuse question, and I'll continue to treat it was such. However, I have often pondered since my experience with God, what is it about God's nature that makes God the best choice?

I don't believe in man's free agency since when you think about it, we really don't have free agency at all due to the fraility and that natural limitations of our being and personal situations. That does not mean we don't have agency or choice though. But, due to our limitations and circumstances, our choices are often narrow or may be only undesirable choices with undesired consequences. Even not making a choice or acting can often be a choice that can have undesired consequences.

When I consider that, then I think the reason God is the most desirable being to follow is he has a first mover advantage and is capable of true free agency. Or in other words, all possible choices are available to God, including the best (or among the best) possible choices and actions. By following God, we avail ourselves of that freedom of agency. By not following God, we narrow our choices - limiting our opportunities, potential, and enslaving ourselves to narrow choices and consequences that may be very undesirable indeed.

[_Alfredo]

When I consider that, then I think the reason God is the most desirable being to follow is he has a first mover advantage and is capable of true free agency. Or in other words, all possible choices are available to God, including the best (or among the best) possible choices and actions. By following God, we avail ourselves of that freedom of agency. By not following God, we narrow our choices - limiting our opportunities, potential, and enslaving ourselves to narrow choices and consequences that may be very undesirable indeed.

It's only a thunderingly obtuse when you consider the question fallaciously by presupposing faith in God. That is, the question isn't obtuse; you are. Which leads me back to the OP...

If you're a believer, you're likely to have trouble paying attention to the "first" qualifier.

But if you believe you have found an answer, ask yourself this question: Does it require faith to believe it?

If it requires faith, then your response doesn't support your first act of faith... it presupposes faith.

[_Tobin]

When I consider that, then I think the reason God is the most desirable being to follow is he has a first mover advantage and is capable of true free agency. Or in other words, all possible choices are available to God, including the best (or among the best) possible choices and actions. By following God, we avail ourselves of that freedom of agency. By not following God, we narrow our choices - limiting our opportunities, potential, and enslaving ourselves to narrow choices and consequences that may be very undesirable indeed.

It's only a thunderingly obtuse when you consider the question fallaciously by presupposing faith in God. That is, the question isn't obtuse; you are. Which leads me back to the OP...

If you're a believer, you're likely to have trouble paying attention to the "first" qualifier.

But if you believe you have found an answer, ask yourself this question: Does it require faith to believe it?

If it requires faith, then your response doesn't support your first act of faith... it presupposes faith.

What you don't realize is it isn't faith, it is how intelligent we choose to be given the circumstance we find ourselves in. We are formed by our environment, background, often by events beyond our control (even before we were conceived and entered this world). We are acted upon from our birth and for most of our lives and so how we choose to respond is a clear indication of our intelligence. God first formed us and made all we are possible and all he asks is we follow him. It is our choice to either follow him, or ignore him and diminish ourselves in the process. So it isn't faith that is really required, it is the realization that following God is in our best interest.

[_bcspace]

Simplify man! You'll never grasp faith by trying to code it.

The question is pretty simple, the more difficult part is to preemptively explain why faithful responses are useless in a simple way. It's much easier to just take each response as they are offered. I can also grasp that faith is possibly necessary, but I see no solution to the question. How do you choose the subject of your first act of faith? I'm interested to hear your response.

I think you're missing that faith is actual substance and evidence. It's not a pure knowledge because it's in things that are unseen. This is a common Christian description of faith found in Hebrews. So with the "first" act of faith, there is always a basis. Maybe it truly is the first thing you've come into contact with, maybe it's something that attracts or pulls you.

This is where Mormonism comes in because we now know that there is an opposition in all things that MUST be there or there is no purpose in life. So one WILL be enticed towards God or the Devil and the Lord has given us sufficient to be attracted to God. Light of Christ etc. Spiritual gifts. Weaknesses. Etc.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yesh. Ganfolf clearly forcedsh the Hobbitsh into an undesireable sishuationshionsh. He should'vesh usedsh hish shtaf of righteoushnesh to shavesh the hobbitsh from the Evil One.