Prove God does not exist!

[FearlessLeader2]

That's offensive, FL2! You're implying that non-christians are immoral, something that is clearly not the case!

I take full responsibility for my actions and often do what I consider to be right instead of what I consider to be good for me!

I don't worry about god striking me down if I do something bad, but I do worry about the consequences of my actions!

Not so. People can re-discover lost knowledge on their own. There are doubtless plenty of good people who have never heard of Jesus, or heard of him only through the words of hypocrites and therefore dismissed him as a lie.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

This theory is completely flawed.

basically, you are saying that, to not be evil by enslaving humans, God must be evil by allowing horrible things - including slavery - to happen. You can elaborate more, but it's hard to escape this core.

This and the assumption that freedom of choice is in itself slave to a dichotomy of good and evil. Afraid not, our dear God could have very well set an idyllic environment where all choices resolve in something beautiful and pleasent. Such is beyond humans, but not beyond the almighty. Only thing we would loose is a sensibility of comparison, not our fundamental freedom.

Just to ilustrate: should I win a talk show, and get as 1st prize either a trip to Milan or one to Amsterdan. Choosing my preferred is exercizing free will - and both choices are good. So yes, my friend - there can be a choice between the good and the even better.

Regards .

What if you and I were standing on the paradise earth you describe above, and you pulled down a pleasure fruit from an overhanging branch, and even though there were five even better ones on that branch, in easy reach of me, I wanted to bash you in the head and steal your pleasure fruit instead?

There's always an option for evil when society is larger than the self.

 

[FredLC]

Fearless, if you desired to bash my head gratuisously for wanting a fruit in a manner that meant you no loss or harm, you'd be a detracting factor that would made us not be in my theoretical paradise earth.

Look, I see where you are heading, but I answer in advance that it does not detract my point. You basically want me to acknowledge that in an environment where such impulse would never come to you, you would have a smaller array of "possible choices", hence damaging your free will. You, than, equate freedom with absolute freedom of will, or the actual capacity to consider any course of action that may indulge you.

This idea falls flat when we perceive that as it is, we don't have such extent of freedom already. We are, as it is, limited in our freedom, for there already things we can't do. Your response for my catching of the pleasure apple, for example, could be willing to establish a mental link with me, so we could share the sweetness of the fruit. You can't do that, though, due to your absolute incapacity of interlinking minds. This display of your limits, though, does not detract from the fact that you are free, even though your actual choices are limited, and your real impulses are designed by the scope of your actual possibilities.

That said, I see three approaches for our "idyllic world" divine dillema.

- The notion of evil could be inexistent to the human, so they would never think of that not because they are forbbiden, but because nothing evil ever occurs to them;

- The notion of evil is known, but is repellent to man. As there are people in the world who detests the idea of harming others, these mindset becomes rule due to simple inner tendency, so people actually can choose evil, but fundamentally dislike the idea of doing so, being helped in the quest by the favorable paradise-like environment that does not inspire competition;

- three, that evil thoughts and desires does come to mind, and does feel good to some, so they can understand and actually like evil... but that they never feel the urge to translate the darkness inside into actual action. This way, the evil of man would exist, however buried inside man. In all practical manners, the world would be idyllic as intended, with the bonus that God would have the parameters to judge people like he intends to, based on how much their bad intentions differs from their good practise.

See, when you say that there is always the option of evil, you make the mistake of cosidering the actual reality innevitable. This is true as I percieve the world, but this can't be true when we start from your axiom - the christian God exists - for it's a factor that can change the fundamentals of our reality. And as he can do anything, than he necessarily is able to create a scenery where an principle of goodness rule without damaging the free will, and do it far better than the above descriptions that comes from a human being that is subject to error. A believer saying that the Christian God is incapable of creating a world where absolute godness and freedom prevail is shooting the own thumb in two senses: first, because as freedom is an necessary part of goodness, it would render the idea of of the christian heaven an impossibility; and second, because it would mean that God is not omnipotent, and that there are some consequences that he is forced to submit to.

Regards .

 

[vonork]

A good post FredLC

it would render the idea of of the christian heaven an impossibility

And this point I say have a lot to it, if God can not create an enviorment that gives Humans free and is a paradise then heaven can not exist.

Or heaven exists, but in heaven we don't have free will.

 

[Free Enterprise]

basically, you are saying that, to not be evil by enslaving humans, God must be evil by allowing horrible things - including slavery - to happen.

Allowing people to choose to commit evil actions against other people does not result in being evil. There can be many reasons for not changing the present situation (greater goods, harmonized natural laws, meanginful free will, etc).

This and the assumption that freedom of choice is in itself slave to a dichotomy of good and evil. Afraid not, our dear God could have very well set an idyllic environment where all choices resolve in something beautiful and pleasent. Such is beyond humans, but not beyond the almighty. Only thing we would loose is a sensibility of comparison, not our fundamental freedom.

Say we return to the example of two people arguing. Now person #1 insults person #2. However due to the idyllic enviroment scenario person #2 hears compliments and only good will. This would cause an "illegal operation" or a "system crash" so to speak. Different people would have very different perceptions of the world. This would lead to divergent realities.

If humans simply were in a condition in which they only can choose good then people are unable to decide what type of person they will become to a large degree. I have seen where you stated that presently humans have a limited ability to choose however the current limitations are very different from a limitation of choosing to be with God or choosing whether or not to shun other humans. If one can only choose good one is able to separate ones self from other humans in the way one could if one choose evil. This would actually seem to be a type of slavery.

Just to ilustrate: should I win a talk show, and get as 1st prize either a trip to Milan or one to Amsterdan. Choosing my preferred is exercizing free will - and both choices are good. So yes, my friend - there can be a choice between the good and the even better.

Choosing from good and better is not a substitute to choosing from good and heinous. You could maybe choose the good instead of the better to spite someone however since you seem to have only choices which result in good in this scenario it just seems that all choices result in only good results.

 

[Free Enterprise]

See, when you say that there is always the option of evil, you make the mistake of cosidering the actual reality innevitable. This is true as I percieve the world, but this can't be true when we start from your axiom - the Christian God exists - for it's a factor that can change the fundamentals of our reality. And as he can do anything, than he necessarily is able to create a scenery where an principle of goodness rule without damaging the free will, and do it far better than the above descriptions that comes from a human being that is subject to error. A believer saying that the Christian God is incapable of creating a world where absolute goodness and freedom prevail is shooting the own thumb in two senses: first, because as freedom is an necessary part of goodness, it would render the idea of of the Christian heaven an impossibility; and second, because it would mean that God is not omnipotent, and that there are some consequences that he is forced to submit to.

You have made a value judgment against a world in which people can choose good or evil in favor of one in which you choose good or better. Not everyone necessarily thinks that is the best possible world. The type of freedom that is limited is quite different than having limited physical or even mental powers (as humans do). God has a particular type of nature that has effected the creation. Since God's natural is entirely good and not willing to coerce people into good then evil is therefore an alternative that exists. Evil perhaps stems from the existence of a wide ranging free will.

 

[vonork]

...]Since God's natural is entirely good and not willing to coerce people into good then evil is therefore an alternative that exists.[...

twp points:
1.
Going in this path, that we have more free will if we can choose good vs evil as oppossed to good vs better, why not include option Z? Yes we humans can not realy see what the Z option would be but a god should be able to create that, right?

So then we have good, evil and Z: now we have more options and more ways of making out own person. So why don't god do this?

2.
If we only have good and better the good could be defined as evil.
You have 5 cakes I have 1.
Ex 1:
Now if you take my cake you are evil.
If you give me one cake you are good.
Ex 2:
If you give me one cake you are evil (good)
If you give me two cakes you are good (better)

So as you see even in the good/better universe there is evil if we define the worst thing a human can do as evil.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Consider your Iraq analogy. If the Iraqi government passes a law approving genocide, that all Kurds must be executed, would it not be malevolent for the US to sit back and enjoy the view?

It wouldn't be malevolent to sit back, though it would probably be wrong. It would be malevolent to enjoy the view. "Malevolent" means wishing for bad things to happen to others.

On the other hand, if the law is a minor evil - too many restrictions on freedom of speech, but not utterly killing free speech, for example - it would be better on balance if the US allowed Iraqis to rule themselves. Free will is worth some evil in the bargain, surely.

The real catch for theists is that God supposedly designed human character. That gives God an option the US forces in Iraq don't have - painlessly enlightening all the human beings in the area.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The human causing good or evil on another person issue I think can be resolved by the apparent necessity of humans to be able to have meaingful relationships with one another. It seems quite possible this is a necessary ingrediant in the path of choosing what type of person one is (benevolent or malevolent for example).

Every choice, if it's free, expresses the type of person one is at the time. It may lead to change, to becoming another type of person, but it has to start from somewhere. Like the old joke where the farmer says, "You just can't get there from here," anywhere we get to, we have to get there from here.

Starting from a different point would not make me any less free. If I had been designed by a benevolent god and not evolution, I'd probably be more aware of other people's feelings (for one thing). And then I wouldn't be a mix of selfish and benevolent, but more benevolent. In both cases I would have grown up from infancy in the way that expresses and develops my starting character. Where's the problem?

This wouldn't destroy my meaningful relationships with others. Benevolent people, including people who were "born that way," have plenty of meaningful relationships with others. (They weren't really born benevolent, but they were born with the type of character that, nurtured and given freedom, leads to benevolence in adulthood.)

 

[Pointlessness]

It wouldn't be malevolent to sit back, though it would probably be wrong. It would be malevolent to enjoy the view. "Malevolent" means wishing for bad things to happen to others.

On the other hand, if the law is a minor evil - too many restrictions on freedom of speech, but not utterly killing free speech, for example - it would be better on balance if the US allowed Iraqis to rule themselves. Free will is worth some evil in the bargain, surely.

The real catch for theists is that God supposedly designed human character. That gives God an option the US forces in Iraq don't have - painlessly enlightening all the human beings in the area.

It matters not if the US enjoys the genocide or not. The US has an obligation to stop it. To do nothing to stop evil while having the power is its own, form of evil.

 

[Godwynn]

Here are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. I do believe in God, but not a word the Bible has in it.

http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm

 

[King Alexander]

Here are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. I do believe in God, but not a word the Bible has in it.

http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm

We may have different opinions about god, but I congratulate your stance by deciding to choose by yourself how you imagine god, rather than simply the "believe and don't ask" stance the churches want us to have.

 

[FredLC]

Allowing people to choose to commit evil actions against other people does not result in being evil. There can be many reasons for not changing the present situation (greater goods, harmonized natural laws, meanginful free will, etc).

I am afraid that this is a failed argument, FE.

See, humam beings are constricted by paradigms such as cause/consequences, annoyances like relative gains and partial accomplishments, or limits like “making something unperfect as something perfect can’t exist”.

God, OTOH, does not have these natural guidelines to observe. So, he does not need to compromise a small evil in order to achieve a greater good, he is not bound by natural laws in the development of his enterprises, being indivisible from his very nature the capacity to alter them to match his commands.

Finally, free will. Well, the only manner in which you could counter my argument is by making a value judgement of free will – labeling it as meaningless unless it includes a choice of “evil”.

This ought be the point where we are less likely to agree, but I differ altogether. Free will is the capacity to choose between a number of options. If you have that , you have free will, without analysing the moral stance of any of the choices. Simply, if you have 100 good choices, you are free, perhaps “more free” than someone who has one choice of good Vs evil.

That, without even bringing up how relative “good” and “evil’ really are. So far, in this thread, nobody challenged the naiveness of these conventions, and acted as if there were a undisputable parameter for each – patterns that there aren’t obviously.

Simply put, we don’t have a choice of “good” and “evil”. We have choices, period. Some of them have wonderful consequences, some have dreadful ones, but these consequences are derivations, and while they influence what choice we will make, they don’t affect our capacity to choose in the first place.

Same would apply. If the all-nice God have settled the existance in a manner in which no dreadful consequences could ever take place, it would never mean a threat or diminishing of our power of deliberation, nor in any way make our choices meaningless. Specially because, unlike implied with the “meaningful free will” comment, the choices between various goods does have meaning, and can lead to fundamentally different consequences – even if none of them means harm to anyone.

Say we return to the example of two people arguing. Now person #1 insults person #2. However due to the idyllic enviroment scenario person #2 hears compliments and only good will. This would cause an "illegal operation" or a "system crash" so to speak. Different people would have very different perceptions of the world. This would lead to divergent realities.

I’m afraid you won’t get what na idyllic environment is. It’s not one where are perception of reality are flawed on purpose. It’s one where there actually isn’t any such things. And not because God eliminated our capacity to be angry or aggressive – but because everything is cautiously engineered in a manner that does not ever confronted any one with a situation that will cause such responses. We would be freely answering to all “stimuli”, as we always did – only that we would exclusively meet good ones.

Such environment is ligthyears beyond any works of man... but is well within the supposed capacities of the argue all-powerful deities.

If humans simply were in a condition in which they only can choose good then people are unable to decide what type of person they will become to a large degree. I have seen where you stated that presently humans have a limited ability to choose however the current limitations are very different from a limitation of choosing to be with God or choosing whether or not to shun other humans. If one can only choose good one is able to separate ones self from other humans in the way one could if one choose evil. This would actually seem to be a type of slavery.

Why? Is every good person in the planet identical? There are idealists that are certainly pure souls, and have fundamentaly different ideas. Imagine if all of them could resolve in good events.

Nevertheless, your attempted debunking falls again in the same traps. First, it perceives such relation as a dichotomy, when it’s not necessarily one. We know the difference between good and evil since adam took a biter in the apple, right? Imagine, for illustrative purposes, that Adam had a few more time and decided to bite also a forbidden watermellon in a nearby tree. So, instead of having a dual system of sensibilites of knowledge, we could have three – good, evil and “houder” (hey, you suggest a better name).

What does “houder” means? I don’t know. God, perhaps, does have more approaches, since he is so superior. Now, our incapacity to behave in a houderian manner, does this makes us feel less “free”? Know, because such never occurred to us. We can choose holderianely, but we simply never do, as we are unaware of it. Gosh... we are lacking one sensible approach on events... we must be meaningless.

Other issue is to state that it “would be slavery”. Well, first, I mentioned that arguing that God won’t be an evil “master od slaves” by saying that he decided to “criminally allow widespread suffering when he could stop it” is not a winning course of arguing. Secondf, because also, as it is, we are slaves; slaves of the cause-consequences paradigms, slaves of uncertainty, slaves of doubt and death, shadows that covers our lifes. We could at least have na benevolent master.

The main problem of all arguments you are opposing is that they all begin in the pre-conceived notion that this “god made” world is the greatest, more meaningful and human-friendly of all conceivable. This lies our main issue, I whole-heartened disagree, and I can abstract from what we are used to call good and I can perceive things that could be much, much better if they were actually possible.

Only that they are impossible for us. But for God...

Choosing from good and better is not a substitute to choosing from good and heinous. You could maybe choose the good instead of the better to spite someone however since you seem to have only choices which result in good in this scenario it just seems that all choices result in only good results.

Again, this shows how you are not abstracting to my scenario, and you fall in the same trap as FearlessLeader. If you were to choose something in order to spite someone, you would be a detracting factor that would mean we are not in my idyllic scenario. In my theoretical construct, this would never happen, because while you still had the capacity to choose the evil choice, you would never ever met with a circunstance that gave you the inclination to do so – something that is well within Gods intended capacities.

You have made a value judgment against a world in which people can choose good or evil in favor of one in which you choose good or better. Not everyone necessarily thinks that is the best possible world. The type of freedom that is limited is quite different than having limited physical or even mental powers (as humans do). God has a particular type of nature that has effected the creation. Since God's natural is entirely good and not willing to coerce people into good then evil is therefore an alternative that exists. Evil perhaps stems from the existence of a wide ranging free will.

Again, the dichotomized thinking of Good X evil. What about “houder”? Don’t you feel your actual freedon is threatened because you can’t act in that manner?

Anyway, this again fails. See, if God does have such a extreme pure nature as to allowing evil to exist and never push against it. Than God could not preach that it’s desireable that people is good – for doing it is pushing it. Not alone that, he would never admit that the evil people should go to hell, because a system that rewards the good and punishes the evil, also is pushing it. The only course of action that would vindicate your point is if God, despite desiring good, treated the good and the evil exactly the same – be it in the real or in the “spiritual” world, never passing a judgement – what is the antithesis of his described behaviour.

Na almighty forcing the good with his invincible powers is conceivable, na almighty being so respectful of our choices that is inoperant to the point of being meaningless also is. One, however, that pushes it with mild measures is incoherent and loggically failed from whatever angle we look at.

Don’t worry, though. None approach on the existance of God actually makes it to the end of excrutination.

Regards .

 

[Sickman]

Have you met my friend?

He is nice and friendly to all.
He will give you extreme happiness when you take HIM to your life.
Of course if you do not act like he asks he will punish you but even then it doesn't mean he means actual harm to you, it means only that he loves you even more.

Forget Jesus, he is old and dead. Meet Harvey and take him to your life.
My blue rabbit magic friend will make your life much more happy and so much less sad.

But of course those who really believe into Jesus, let the choice be yours. I will always believe into Harvey rather than any other imaginery creature.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Fearless, if you desired to bash my head gratuisously for wanting a fruit in a manner that meant you no loss or harm, you'd be a detracting factor that would made us not be in my theoretical paradise earth.

If I am not free then I am not in Paradise.

Look, I see where you are heading, but I answer in advance that it does not detract my point. You basically want me to acknowledge that in an environment where such impulse would never come to you, you would have a smaller array of "possible choices", hence damaging your free will. You, than, equate freedom with absolute freedom of will, or the actual capacity to consider any course of action that may indulge you.

This idea falls flat when we perceive that as it is, we don't have such extent of freedom already. We are, as it is, limited in our freedom, for there already things we can't do. Your response for my catching of the pleasure apple, for example, could be willing to establish a mental link with me, so we could share the sweetness of the fruit. You can't do that, though, due to your absolute incapacity of interlinking minds. This display of your limits, though, does not detract from the fact that you are free, even though your actual choices are limited, and your real impulses are designed by the scope of your actual possibilities.

Since I know that I do not have such a power, and no one hasdone anything to me to take away that power because it never existed, my free will has not been violated.

That said, I see three approaches for our "idyllic world" divine dillema.

I see another possibility: that we are limited in our choices of what we can imagine by our 'knowledge' of what is 'possible'. God has no such limits, so whatever society He is designing for us in the days after Armageddon, I am sure it will be far better than I can imagine. (Bear in mind that as a Christian I do not believe in men inhabiting Heaven, but rather an earth restored to eden-like conditions.)

See, when you say that there is always the option of evil, you make the mistake of cosidering the actual reality innevitable. This is true as I percieve the world, but this can't be true when we start from your axiom - the christian God exists - for it's a factor that can change the fundamentals of our reality. And as he can do anything, than he necessarily is able to create a scenery where an principle of goodness rule without damaging the free will, and do it far better than the above descriptions that comes from a human being that is subject to error. A believer saying that the Christian God is incapable of creating a world where absolute godness and freedom prevail is shooting the own thumb in two senses: first, because as freedom is an necessary part of goodness, it would render the idea of of the christian heaven an impossibility; and second, because it would mean that God is not omnipotent, and that there are some consequences that he is forced to submit to.

Regards .

I do not regard God as omnipotent, as I have yet to see Chapter and Verse on that. I do regard Him as supremely potent: as in no one else can equal what He can do. Also, once again, people do not go to Heaven in Christianity (with a few exceptions), nor do they go to hell. Humans are not possessed of spirits strong enough to exist without living bodies. When we die, we cease to exist. Our hope is that when God resurrects us, that it is to redemption, or that we receive a good judgement, otherwise we will cease to exist for all time. Those who are redeemed will inhabit the earth, restored to the conditions of the Garden of Eden, in ageless bodies that never bear the mark of harm or age, and who knows what wonders we might see as we dance in and out of 100 million years?

 

[FredLC]

If I am not free then I am not in Paradise.

Than we settle that there can be no paradise, or earth with eden-like conditions, for your description of what freedom means necessarily involves people harming other people?

Since I know that I do not have such a power, and no one hasdone anything to me to take away that power because it never existed, my free will has not been violated.

Hehehehehe. If God had created an world without evil, this very same opposition would apply. Your blissful ignorance of that option would not make you feel bad, nor challenge your concept of freedon, since it would never have truly being an option.

I see another possibility: that we are limited in our choices of what we can imagine by our 'knowledge' of what is 'possible'. God has no such limits, so whatever society He is designing for us in the days after Armageddon, I am sure it will be far better than I can imagine. (Bear in mind that as a Christian I do not believe in men inhabiting Heaven, but rather an earth restored to eden-like conditions.)

It cannot be perfect, if it involves freedom, and freedom that, by your own description, necessarily involves the allowance of effective will of harm between the members of that paradise-earth.

I do not regard God as omnipotent, as I have yet to see Chapter and Verse on that. I do regard Him as supremely potent: as in no one else can equal what He can do. Also, once again, people do not go to Heaven in Christianity (with a few exceptions), nor do they go to hell. Humans are not possessed of spirits strong enough to exist without living bodies. When we die, we cease to exist. Our hope is that when God resurrects us, that it is to redemption, or that we receive a good judgement, otherwise we will cease to exist for all time. Those who are redeemed will inhabit the earth, restored to the conditions of the Garden of Eden, in ageless bodies that never bear the mark of harm or age, and who knows what wonders we might see as we dance in and out of 100 million years?

In terms of doctrine, not regarding God as all powerful, but just powerful beyond reach, is an smart move. It puts you in a confortable place where you can dodge much of the usual traps settled to undermine the notion of omnipotence. Nevertheless, it’s nothing but an excuse, for as at the same time you claim that he is not “omnipotent”, you also claim to him the recognition of a power that is omnipotent – power to create the universe (do all), to know all, never err, to be beyond analysis, etc.

Nevertheless, the “Garden of Eden” earth claim falls flat by your own words – as either in it you aren’t free – for you could not behave as in my description – and hence it’s not a “good place”, or else it does not exist, and you keep free.

Your paradise earth is nothing but na conceptual alternative to heaven, identical to all practical purpses.

Regards .

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

THE PROOF(piso goriles) in 7 easy steps.
1.I close my eyes and I imagine a flock of birds.
2.I open my eyes.
3.I saw a number of birds more than 1 and less than 20.Therefore their number should be between 2 and 19.
4.If god exists, since he knows everything he knows also the exact number of birds I saw.
5.I did not saw 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...etc 19 birds.
6.There is no number between 1 and 20 that is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,...19.
7.Therefore god does not exist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

THE PROOF(piso goriles) in 7 easy steps.
1.I close my eyes and I imagine a flock of birds.
2.I open my eyes.
3.I saw a number of birds more than 1 and less than 20.Therefore their number should be between 2 and 19.
4.If god exists, since he knows everything he knows also the exact number of birds I saw.
5.I did not saw 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...etc 19 birds.
6.There is no number between 1 and 20 that is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,...19.
7.Therefore god does not exist.

Something must have been lost in the translation, because it makes no sense.

 

[Pointlessness]

6.There is no number between 1 and 20 that is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,...19.

Well, what about fractions and irrational numbers?

Anyway, Birdjaguar was right, your proof makes no sense. Please elaborate on it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Than we settle that there can be no paradise, or earth with eden-like conditions, for your description of what freedom means necessarily involves people harming other people?



Hehehehehe. If God had created an world without evil, this very same opposition would apply. Your blissful ignorance of that option would not make you feel bad, nor challenge your concept of freedon, since it would never have truly being an option.



It cannot be perfect, if it involves freedom, and freedom that, by your own description, necessarily involves the allowance of effective will of harm between the members of that paradise-earth.



In terms of doctrine, not regarding God as all powerful, but just powerful beyond reach, is an smart move. It puts you in a confortable place where you can dodge much of the usual traps settled to undermine the notion of omnipotence. Nevertheless, it’s nothing but an excuse, for as at the same time you claim that he is not “omnipotent”, you also claim to him the recognition of a power that is omnipotent – power to create the universe (do all), to know all, never err, to be beyond analysis, etc.

Nevertheless, the “Garden of Eden” earth claim falls flat by your own words – as either in it you aren’t free – for you could not behave as in my description – and hence it’s not a “good place”, or else it does not exist, and you keep free.

Your paradise earth is nothing but na conceptual alternative to heaven, identical to all practical purpses.

Regards .

I am not now living in a state of perfection. None of us are. Given this, it is axiomatic that I lack a language to describe perfection, and that any audience I might garner will lack ability to comprehend it even if I did. As a part of my faith, I accept that whatever it is God has planned for me will be both in my best interests, and something that I will enjoy.