Logical proof that a supreme creator should be neutral

Discussion with TeeHee opened my eyes

I know that there is no supreme creator (see the other proof)

But we can also logically prove that a supreme creator should be neutral (if we admit that he exists although he doesn't by the other proof):

Here is the proof:

the premises toward a figure of Creator rather confusing me 3rdnow;)

in my opinion, we shouldn't imagine Creator as a personified figure in this case. it is not like a man created his copy (a robot maybe) and restrain the copy to do this and that as the creator wish and the created has no control toward itself whatsoever.

we do have choices. we may chose to be good or bad, pious or be damned (moral cocept will judge....), and has no direct relationship to the Creator. human does good for his/her own good, as with doing bad....

and as what i've heard,,, soul/higher self isn't created (has no beginning, thus has no end). it seems to be derived from one Source

apologize me as i'm only a learner
best regards,,,

Originally Posted by an-Nafs al-Mutmainnah

the premises toward a figure of Creator rather confusing me 3rdnow;)

in my opinion, we shouldn't imagine Creator as a personified figure in this case. it is not like a man created his copy (a robot maybe) and restrain the copy to do this and that as the creator wish and the created has no control toward itself whatsoever.

we do have choices. we may chose to be good or bad, pious or be damned (moral cocept will judge....), and has no direct relationship to the Creator. human does good for his/her own good, as with doing bad....

and as what i've heard,,, soul/higher self isn't created (has no beginning, thus has no end). it seems to be derived from one Source

apologize me as i'm only a learner
best regards,,,

Yes there is no nazi style love.

Question:
What is the source?

Of cause there is no nazi style love. I never realized the idea of a supreme creator was in a personified form. The Source is everything, what was, is and is to come. From the pebbles on the floor to the leaves in a three, from all infinite parallel universe to the superuniverse. From 1D to infinite dimensions. Although we are way low on the food chain, metaphorically speaking so, our perception of reality is limited. Perfectly put, the source is what was, is and is to come. I can understand now why the concept of a HS appeared confusing in the other thread.
Namaste.

[wstein]

Where is the ‘logic’ here?
Even if one can make a logical proof, how does that apply to a supreme being? If indeed there is a supreme being, it’s not going to be trapped by some bit of logic or a few pages of rhetoric.

At best I can see logic being used to justify assuming the nature of any supreme being should there be one. After all, if a supreme being has it out for you, wants to control you, or decides you have no free will there is nothing you can do about it. From that perspective, you may as well assume the situation where you have options. Assuming however is not proof of anything.

Originally Posted by wstein

Where is the ‘logic’ here?
Even if one can make a logical proof, how does that apply to a supreme being? If indeed there is a supreme being, it’s not going to be trapped by some bit of logic or a few pages of rhetoric.

At best I can see logic being used to justify assuming the nature of any supreme being should there be one. After all, if a supreme being has it out for you, wants to control you, or decides you have no free will there is nothing you can do about it. From that perspective, you may as well assume the situation where you have options. Assuming however is not proof of anything.

The logic here is:

I am better than the supreme creator. That's not possible.

But I cannot logically prove that there is no evil creator like a dictator. For this listen to your heart.

3d

Originally Posted by 3dnow

The logic here is:

I am better than the supreme creator. That's not possible.

But I cannot logically prove that there is no evil creator like a dictator. For this listen to your heart.

3d

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them."

What is your definition of logic. I see errors in giving logical yes/no values to conceptual and mental states such as feeling good. I think you need to use your logic to dig deeper into the truth of the presuppositions you are posing and look for any flaws you had not noticed earlier because I think there are some easy to spot logical flaws.
How does you were created mean you could not be happy?
That is illogical.
Suppose you were created with all aspects necessary to be happy...
Why couldn't you be happy if you were created? Look at your answers for that and I think you will find some logical flaws and thus holes in your reasoning and theory.

[Mr Interesting]

I think what's not very interesting here is the idea of trying to define the end product before we've hardly started the journey.

What does it matter whether God is the supreme everything that has, can and ever will be, or there isn't a God or God's just a pumpkin with sparrow wings that can't actually fly?

What matters is the here and now and being what we are, and as time goes on, becoming subtler and subtler within that reality... or that's what matters to me. Pure logic, in and of itself, is illogical; it can only even see itself of itself so creates it's own logic... and to my mind, that's the place worth looking at if your looking at anything. That here and now we create our existence as we go and what ever we create will balance logic into itself... even if it's illogical.

Originally Posted by Residue

What is your definition of logic. I see errors in giving logical yes/no values to conceptual and mental states such as feeling good. I think you need to use your logic to dig deeper into the truth of the presuppositions you are posing and look for any flaws you had not noticed earlier because I think there are some easy to spot logical flaws.
How does you were created mean you could not be happy?
That is illogical.

1. I AM because “I” want to be.
2. Not because a “supreme” creator wants it.
3. Otherwise there is no 100% free will.
4. If I am not allowed to feel this joy, i.e. I was created by another, then my creator should be “evil” because he causes my suffering.

Originally Posted by Residue

Suppose you were created with all aspects necessary to be happy...
Why couldn't you be happy if you were created? Look at your answers for that and I think you will find some logical flaws and thus holes in your reasoning and theory.

In this case, I am not able to feel what I want (e.g. wishing not being created) and I am a lab experiment. My creator is certainly evil.

3d