You're not what you think you are.

I see. You figure your intellect and judgement superior the masses, eh?
Well, someday, when I become An Ard RÍ, I sort that for you.

 

I wouldn't count on it.

Sheesh, talk about the mother of all sucker bets.

The difference between justice and fairness being...?

 

I uphold your right to your misinformed opinion!

 

First, if addressed to a general audience, you are making a broad statement, projecting something based on the assumption you have knowledge of what everyone else is thinking, and additionally, one based on the assumption a God, your idea of God exists.

The basic story line you posit, sounds like variation of the Matrix as fodder for a science fiction story. While I can’t off the top of my head recall, I seem to remember more than on story line in a movie that was based on similar thinking, but neither of the movies I am vaguely recalling involved a God as an author.

The story line of the Matrix is somewhat based on a handful of people, suggesting a Theory (really a broad poorly formed hypothesis) call simulation theory...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

It could be argued, that one of the early thinkers in this line was René Descartes, an early epistemologist, who asked of himself, what did he know that was a-priorily true. His methodology for answering his question became known by the various labels, Cartesian doubt is also known as Cartesian skepticism, methodic doubt, methodological skepticism, universal doubt, systematic doubt, or hyperbolic doubt... a methodology gave rise to many calling him the Father of the Scientific Method. If you follow his work, an interesting exercise is applying the same method in self reflection to gauge what you really know for sure. Invoking God, which he did, is somewhat a cop out, because the existence of God is not an a-priory self evident ‘truth’, but one derived from others that is flavored the culture one is immersed in. So, do a self exercise. It is also an exercise in honest between two people, you and you.

 

In relationships between equals, one's responsibility to the other extends from their authority over themselves;
that's fair.
In relationship between sovereigns and subjects, the subject's responsibility to the sovereign extends from the sovereign's authority over the subject; that's not fair.
Neither are unjust.

 

be a peasant if you want. I am my own sovereign, one with the source of all things.

 

"The fool says in his heart that there is no God."

 

Oh, I definitely believe in god/universe/universal consciousness. We just have very different ideas on what that means.

 

Those with KNOWLEDGE say that there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any god!

 

Post your evidence.

 

To me, that means necessary-being. Almost everything I know about God are implications of His necessity.
I believe that necessary-being exists because everything I can see, measure and test is contingent in its being.
If contingent-being exists, necessary-being must exist.
I am left to believe in the God of the bible because He fulfills the implications of necessary-being.

 

Contingent-being is evidence of necessary-being.

 

Because...?

So you can't do anything wrong. Right?

 

"Fair" is generally understood to when one's responsibility for them self extends from their authority over them self.

 

no it isn't. you have had this argument destroyed several times.

 

Ah...so based on your theory your god was responsible for slavery, the holocaust and priests raping young boys. Your god sounds like a mentally deranged lunatic.

 

All is One. There's no fundamental separation between what you call "contingent-being" and "necessary-being".

"Contingent-being" IS "necessary-being". The two are fundamentally inseparable, so there's no discernment between that which has the experience and that which creates the experience.

 

Indeed, it is easier to prove the existence of God if you think of him less as a creator and more as a criminal:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/lincoln-kennedy-links-are-proof-of-god.560762/

 

Nonsensical special pleading FALLACY based upon the bovine excrement theist BELIEF that there must be a "beginning".

 

No one can prove the existence of whichever god you’re referring to.

 

God's purpose for His creation is the revelation of Himself. Good is what God is; evil is what God is not. God reveals both good and evil because anything, even God, is revealed just as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.

 

Not at all. My belief in necessary-being is based on my observations of contingent-being.

 

Nope. If everything is according to your gods plan, you know...because he’s all knowing, then he’s responsible for allowing things like the holocaust and child rapist priests. Like I said, this particular god of yours is a raving lunatic.

 

Allowing? God doesn't "allow" anymore than an author "allows". God reveals both good and evil. God reveals both what He is and what He is not because anything, even God, is revealed just as much by what it is not as it is by what it is. God is no more at fault that an author is for his novel work. We are but novel characters in a novel work that is not about us. You're not what you think you are; you are much less. "Allow", as if.

 

Sorry you feel you are less of a person. But that’s your bag not mine.