Paper (fiat) money really has no value any more. No real value. There is only a "perceived" value and the success or failure of that fiat currency hangs on the knife edge of that public perception.

In days gone by the US dollar WAS actually backed by a physical amount of gold or silver which was held in a vault somewhere. The bank note was basically a promise from the government/treasury to pay the bearer their share of that gold/silver. Hence it did have value back then as the notes were underpinned by real assets.

Of course the fraudulent bankers did away with all of that years ago. Now the fiat bank notes are NOT backed by physical silver and gold. They are nothing more than bits of worthless paper which, come the inevitable collapse of the system, people will suddenly realise.

The truth is that the fraudulent bankers have been engaged in Fractional Reserve Banking for many years. This lets them "lend" out 100 dollars for every single real dollar that exists. So for every 101 dollars in the system (in the computers) only 1 dollar actually exists and the other 100 dollars are completely fictitious. The banks lend this fictitious money to people and charge them interest for the privilege. Thus they are making money from thin air.

Many people know that if everyone went to their bank tomorrow to withdraw their total account funds in cash, the banks would shut their doors quickly as that money simply does not exist The money we perceive that we own is just a number in a computer system. There are no physical bank notes underpinning the number in our bank accounts and there are no physical assets like gold/silver backing the bank notes.

This system will eventually collapse because you can't go on inventing fictitious money forever. It's like adopting leaves as currency, eventually there will be so many leaves in circulation that they will become worthless. It is vital therefore that our wealth, large or small, is held in physical assets and not as a fictitious number in a computer system. Turn your "money" into gold, silver, housing or other valuable assets to protect yourself from the inevitable collapse.

It's also worth noting that the USA's chronic debt problem is in no small part due to this fraudulent banking. The privilege of printing the bank notes does not belong to the country, or to the people. It's belongs to the Federal Reserve. Over the years the ability to print money has switched back and forth between private entities (the fraudulent bankers) and governments. While ever the privilege sits with the bankers, the people suffer. The bankers own the country and charge the government for any bank notes printed.

The history of this money printing privilege is fascinating and there's an excellent potted list of the key people throughout the years in the link below. It is the history of "The moneychangers":

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalbanking26.htm

This whole thread seems somewhat squiffy TBH.

My simple take on the OP:

- A testimony can never serve as proof of a thing

- Millions of consistent testimonies can never serve as proof of a thing

What we CAN surmise however is that millions of consistent testimonies provide a significant basis on which to devote effort towards searching for actual evidence of something. But again, the search in itself is not proof of the existence of the thing.

In superficial terms:

If 1 million people believe unicorns exist and give testimony to have see one, this DOES NOT equate to any level of proof of the existence of unicorns. It might however be significant enough for someone to do more research to see if any real evidence can be ascertained.

There are 1000s, possibly millions of people who believe the Flat Earth model. They have no real evidence but they have a lot of theories and testimonies. Does this give credence to the FE model?
Nope, but it perhaps has enough of a following and enough worked out theories to explain just about everything to warrant some serious investigation, at least in some people's minds.

Evidential enquiry is a vital element in seeking out truth and fact. Testimony can help steer us towards the right search pattern, help us focus and zoom in on something, but testimony can never replace evidential enquiry.

If we are going to focus on your NDE's then we can accept that there are lots of consistent testimonies which would lead us to exert some kind of effort towards looking into them. We would never take testimonies as proof of anything, we would take them merely as a lead to focus the research. You can determine for yourself whether NDEs are real or not quite easily. You may remember the film from 1990 called Flatliners which was remade last year. A group of medically qualified people essentially kill one of themselves by stopping their heart and after a few minutes the others revive them with defibrillators and the rest. Sure it's risky and you'll only be kind of "dead" for a short period but it may be enough to taste any "beyond" or to stand on the threshold between worlds.

I guess at this point we reach the real nub of your opening gambit.

If YOU are actually interested in NDEs and whether there is anything beyond, anything after death, and if YOU specifically believe the many testimonies out there and view them as consistent, then are YOU going to have a go at killing yourself and having someone revive you??

If not, then it would appear that in truth, all those testimonies aren't really holding that much weight after all. There's clearly not enough of them to warrant real research and/or you're not that personally interested in finding out the truth.

In which case, what value really are the testimonies?

Information has some value of course, but in the end it doesn't matter how much information you have, a pair will still lose to three of a kind — ChatteringMonkey

Certain hands have more value than others, the lack of information given by playing randomly will never make up for the difference in value between hands — ChatteringMonkey

So . . . a pair losing to trips, one hand having more value than another, is the part that is down to pure luck. You can't impact the cards that are dealt off the pack. Hence as I said, if you remove all of the possible information that could be gathered about a person, i.e. no ranges, no rules for opening, raising, reraising etc etc then the game is simple luck. The winner is the one who gets dealt the best hands.

The "art" of poker relies on the fact that so many people stupidly study the game and all get marched down the same set of teaching and thus all end up with playing styles which are predictable.
Only a fool would go into a poker game using any kind of pattern or ruleset for their moves.
At the most crass end of this spectrum I just shove all in every hand, what you do is of no consequence.
If you fold I get the blinds, if you play then luck determines the outcome.

If your defence to that argument is that you are swaying the odds in your favour via your choice of playing or folding depending on what 2 cards you were dealt then we come back to the fact that at that point, YOU are then playing to a ruleset which is information that can be exploited by your opponent.
Hence a weakness.

Being less crass, instead of shoving all in every hand, I could instead generate a random number and act upon that number, i.e. RND 1,2,3 if 1 I call, 2 I raise, 3 I fold. Again you have no data to work on in terms of my playing, no ranges, no info so pure luck will determine the outcome.

Poker in the end is a silly game. One can get wrapped up in the minutia of probabilities and odds but the game boils down to the simple concept of one player expecting the other to provide clues and information for them. That info might be good or it might be a deliberate bum steer but either way it's just a to and fro tussle of hopes, assumptions and dreams.

The basic proposition never changes though. It's 2 sets of cards and one set will have higher value than the other. Luck determines which is which. Everything else is psychobabble nonsense.
Nevertheless the poker industry is enormous and continues to rake in $billions from naive and hopeful idiots who think they have skills.

The only decent poker is real life poker, bricks and mortar. All online poker is either horribly rigged or hugely open to abuse (collusion, bots, admin accts and so on). The "Levels Of Thought" notion is nothing new, it's in most poker books.

Overall I find poker a bit of a nonsense. All theories and strategies are based around some kind of knowledge or assumption of how an opponent plays and operates and maths/probabilities ensues from that knowledge. Your opening post in the link you provided states "we somehow know that he plays with a real tight range".

Anyone who plays with a predictable pattern of behaviours is, imho, a bad poker player. Poker books exist to create bad players, to dupe people into thinking they are "poker students" and to drum into them certain ways of playing. That just creates robots who all think they are good players but who are in fact bad players because their actions are mechanical, predictable, set in patterns.

Thus the only real way to approach the game is to act purely randomly so that the opponent has no information about how they play. No ranges, no rules, no conditions for raising or folding. Just outright random behaviour.

Ultimately this turns the game into one of pure luck.

@Samuel

The very fact that hypothesis S can be found hidden allegorically, cryptically and in actual code WITHIN the literal text of hypothesis C lends huge credibility to S and very little to C.

If the sheeps clothing is pulled back to reveal a wolf then there is only pure folly in continuing to believe there is a sheep present. The revelation of the hidden thing within utterly destroys the concept of whatever was concealing it in the first place.

In truth, what you call hypothesis C is simply the misguided interpretation of the outer camoflage. It is the sheep's clothing put there to fool the unwise and uninformed who blindly continue to believe in the sheep (Sheeple ?!). Once the truth is understood, the camoflage disappears in a puff of smoke.

Therefore, in order to refute the whole hypothesis S, you must first refute what S is. You must refute that the texts that describe the Stone and which describe the processes for making it and its benefits . . . . are not in fact talking about the Stone and are not in agreement with 100s if not 1000s of other documents which all recount the same product,processes and benefits.

Again, you don't have to actually believe the Stone exists yourself. You only have to concern yourself with whether or not the hidden text DOES or DOES NOT describe the Stone, it's related processes and its benefits.

I have seen no such refutation from any quarter ever since I discovered all of this knowledge. In fact I deem it inconcievable that any sane and rational mind could, once dutifully and sufficiently informed of the Stone, not then see all the clear references to it in the Bible, hidden there in plain sight, written allegorically, cryptically and in code.

Unfortunately, the same argument can be used to support the christian interpretation of the bible. In christianity, one of the two Great Commandments is the Golden Rule: Love you neighbour as yourself. And the Golden Rule is found in some form in almost every ethical tradition — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you miss the point TBH.

You're taking there about plainly written things, the commandments for example.

It's a very different thing when huge life secrets are HIDDEN deliberately using allegorical terms or cryptic prose or outright coding.

The same secret of the Stone is hidden using the same allegorical terminology in the primary tomes of mainstream religions. That can not be co-incidence.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Stone is being referred to in all these works but it requires that people understand the Stone and the processes for making it before the hidden meaning becomes blatantly clear.

I invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor. The christian hypothesis of interpreting the bible literally is a simpler one than your hypothesis of interpreting it figuratively. — Samuel Lacrampe

I too invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.

Objectively which is the more likely truth:

1. That the book of Genesis truly recounts the universe being created in 6 days by a God no-one has ever seen, who millions believe to be omnipotent and benevolent and yet seemingly stands by whilst millions suffer every day?

2. That the book of Genesis actually recounts the process for creating a product of Nature through simple laboratory processes which can be tested scientifically ?

on your 2nd issue "is the Stone real?"

I again invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.

There are 1000s of documents, works, tracts and treatises written over a huge time period from 1200s to 1900s all of which recount the existence of the Stone and the processes for creating it.

The Stone is referenced in the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism, Buddhism, and in fact just about every mainstream religion.

Objectively which is the more likely truth:

1. That the myriad of references to the Stone and it's processes for creation are the hoax of all time having been perpetuated for 100s of years by 100s of different people who even managed to get the hoax into the Bible ?

2. That the Stone is in fact real, that the documents do all sing the same song, describe the same processes and the same benefits the Stone provides?

And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. — Samuel Lacrampe

Let's step back slightly here. The primary claim I am making at this point is not that the Stone is real (tho I do think it is) but rather that the various passages in the Bible DO talk about the Stone and it's associated processes rather than the literal interpretation. The number of references is significant and they are consistent with the 1000s of other documents which specifically explain the Stone.

Your hypothesis covers the second point but not the first — Samuel Lacrampe

I would argue that while ever mankind is massively constrained through the need to acquire resources (i.e. constant work/slavery) that no-one can reasonably live life as it was intended. Whatever purpose there was originally, whatever beauty in just existing has either been hugely damaged or eradicated by the fact that mankind no longer has access to the Stone. The Bible recounts the allegorical tale of the Garden Of Eden. It is a clear indication of a time when mankind DID have the Stone. if one understands the benefits the Stone bestows this makes sense. The Stone:

1. Provides all the energy the body needs to survive and maintain itself
2. Therefore means you don't need food or drink to exist
3. Protects you from the effects of extreme cold or heat, hence you can walk around naked
4. Keeps you in perfect health, not because it is a medicine but because its energy is the real fuel the body needs and with it the body heals itself and does so rapidly

For me, the accounts of Jesus's activities clearly indicate the he had the Stone. He used it to heal other people, to make the blind see again, to raise the dead, to transform one thing into another and of course to save himself from his own wounds during crucifixion and to get him through that death.
I assume that he also gave it to his close disciples who he sent out into the world to do good with.
They lived in a time when such secrets were guarded because ruthless emperors and kings would have seized the Stone and kept it for themselves and ruled with great power. Problem is in keeping this secret hidden from everyone else, we all suffer as we don't have the Stone and I suspect the number of genuine good people that have it are not enough to secretly use it to heal others.

The good news about your hypothesis is that it is by nature fully empirical, and thus it is scientifically provable — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes I totally agree and to that end there is some interesting evidence. There did exist in 2010 a website forum dedicated to this whole issue. It was a place for actual people who were engaged in the processes of making this Stone to record their findings, discuss their methods, talk about problems encountered along the way and so on. There were numerous photos put up on that site of people's distillation equipment and of the results of their progress.

Note that these people were not following the Bible but rather the many 100s (if not 1000s) of tracts, scripts and treatises of the sages and philosophers of the 1600s to 1900s. I have 100s of those works myself and have read them. They are hugely cryptic, sound like total gibberish to the uninformed but all recount the same processes for creating the Stone.

These works said that if you distil a particular liquid at gentle heat you will get a clear liquid with a particular aroma and set of qualities.

They also said that the detritus left behind from the distillation could be calcinated which would eventually reveal a white salt that had been hidden within it.

The people engaged in these experiments put up numerous photos of this and showed that , yes, there was a hidden white salt.

And so it went on.

None of that proves the Stone's existence but it did prove that the 100s of treatises and works were being truthful about what things would be seen and witnessed during the processes and that for me, lends serious credibility to their content.

The fact that I found that the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita and other sources all referenced the same processes and all hinted at the Stone and the same set of benefits it bestows, just adds more and more credibility to the entire thing.

Somewhat mysteriously that forum was taken down somewhere in 2011/2012. Why I do not know but for me that just added more credibility to the idea that the Stone is a real thing and certain parties didn't want it broadcast over the internet. I guess I should expect men in suits to come knocking on my door any time now !

If the entire idea of the Stone is one huge hoax, then it is by far the Hoax of the Millennia involving as it does 1000s of works spanning 100s of years and a hoax that managed to get itself embedded in the primary tomes underpinning all main world religions. I find that rather incredulous.

As for your question regarding the status of the experiments/processes you'll understand if I don't comment. Anyone discovered to have achieved the Stone would likely be murdered for it for it is a prize more valuable than anything else. If our real world rulers already have it and keep it jealously guarded then they will of course take action if they discover anyone else has achieved it or is engaged in trying to achieve it. I am being deadly serious here. You could put yourself and your family and friends in huge danger. Therefore I make no comment in regards to any practical experimentation.

I simply highlight to people the 100s of works that describe this Stone and the way it is clearly referred to in the Bible and other religious tomes. I do it to make people think, and to wake them up from social/religious conditioning which would otherwise have them take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
My hope is that they will then begin their own journeys into research and acquisition of knowledge.

In conclusion let me say that I am no expert in this field. I do know a lot, I have studied 100s of treatises and documents regarding the Stone, I understand the 2 main parts of the Great Work but I don't believe I have the full knowledge to be able to undertake it. I'm very much open to help and advice from anyone with more knowledge.

ATB

I don't feel or think like I am a slave. Do you? Really? — Bitter Crank

Yes. Because the resources for sustaining life are not free, they have been seized by others and the society that has evolved gets people to work most of their human lives in order to have those life resources.

The proposition is similar to forcing a toaster to toast bread.

"Toast bread or else you will essentially die and be disposed of!"

"Work or else you'll be denied the resources you need to live, food, drink, shelter, peace etc"

Better to have quality than quantity — Samuel Lacrampe

In this instance I would disagree. The sheer number of Bible references to this secret serve to underpin it's credibility imho. What all these passages are referring to is the alchemical process for creating the Philosopher's Stone, Elixir of Life or whatever name you choose to call it. The same kind of references are found all over, in the Quran, Bhagavad Gita and elsewhere. One universal truth, spanning world religions but hidden in plain sight, allegorically, cryptically and in code.

In order to understand the references one must first understand something of the processes involved and also something of the Nature of the "Stone" itself. Since we have limited space I will provide a brief run through.

The Stone is actually twofold. There is a White Stone and there is a Red Stone. The White Stone bestows perfect health on the person that imbibes it. The Red Stone bestows longevity, extremely long life of the order of Biblical characters like Noah and so on who lived 900+ years.

You will also be aware of the alchemical goals to turn base metals into gold. Well, the White Stone reputedly turns base metals to Silver. The Red Stone turns base metals into gold.

Ok so far so good. So . . .

White Stone = health and is associated with Silver.
Red Stone = longevity and is associated with Gold

By the same alchemical processes lesser crystals could be perfected into valuable gems too.

Now here's what you need to understand about the process for making it. There are multiple processes (as explained in the Emerald Tablet) but the 2nd part of the "Great Work" as it is called involves putting a pure white salt in the bottom of a flask, adding some special liquid, sealing the flask and then putting the whole thing in a warm sand or water bath at body temperature. Thereby it incubates and undergoes a number of changes.

Here is an image of the flask. Note the allegorical names given to it.



The top of the flask is referred to as the "Heavens"
The salt or earthy substance in the bottom is called the "Earth"

The gentle heat causes the liquid and damp salt in the flask to vaporise creating a "mist", often also referred to as spirit.

The mist is a form of water so we have 2 types of water in the flask, the lower dampness and the rising vapour/mist. The separation of waters.

The mist rises to the top, the Heavens, and then condenses into little water droplets.

The droplets then fall back down to the bottom, like rain

This whole thing is a microcosm which cycles in a continual loop much like our weather systems. Mist rises, rains back down, waters the ground, then the mist rises again and so on.

This process goes on for 1-2 years.

Along the way the substance in the flask goes through changes. The first major change is it's total decomposition. It essentially rots in the flask as the cycle reduces it to its prima material, its fundamental matter. At this stage the previously white damp salt turns a jet BLACK. The stage is allegorically often referred to as the Crow or Raven.

Once this stage is complete the substance goes through other colours but eventually turns a brilliant WHITE again, which is the White Stone and if it is left to cycle further it turns a deep crimson RED.

So, the important point to note here is that the colour changes of the overall process start WHITE, then go BLACK, then WHITE then RED.

I pause at this stage to allow you to digest the above and to tell you that I am not asking you to believe in the Philosopher's Stone as real, but rather I'm asking you to understand the processes by which it is made, the colours it goes through and the benefits the White and Red stones bestow to humans.

With all that in mind we can now revisit those Bible passages. I will place in bold the relevant allegorical terms which refer to the alchemists flask and it's contents and processes.

KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground

You should be able to see here how this refers to the cycle in the flask, the heavens and earth, the mist and condensing to water the earth like rain.

KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

No question that this passage refers to the Stone, not "wisdom". It could not be more obvious now that you know what I have told you. Length of Days (longevity) in one hand and Riches in the other hand, the very things that the White and Red Stones bestow and the passage is telling us how much more valuable the properties of healing and long life are compared to the ability to create riches. Again look at the last 2 lines and how they iterate the processes in the flask. The heavens, earth, the depths being broken up is the decomposition stage, the clouds dropping down the dew is the mist condensing at the top of the flask. Pretty easy stuff to understand but only once someone explains the Stone to you.

The passage in Revelation again. . . . says:

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone"

There it is in plain sight. A White Stone which is the hidden manna. Manna being that "magical" substance that sustained the people in the desert in the OT. The "Tree Of Life".

Here's another Bible quote for you, the terminology should leap off the page to you now:

KJV, Song of Solomon 5:10-16:

My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.

Remember the colour changes of the Stone creation. The BLACK (raven) stage, then white and then red (ruddy).

One more . . .

KJV, John 6:53-58:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

The Christian faith taking a literal interpretation believes that the actual flesh and blood of Christ is what bestows eternal life, though they partake in an allegorical communion act using WHITE bread and RED wine.

Do you not see now that Jesus is actually referring to the Stone here. The White Stone and the Red Stone. And he is giving a very stark warning. He is saying that if you don't have this Stone, you have no life in you. This makes perfect sense. Our "Life force" or life energy is a finite amount which started running out around age 30yrs. We all feel it when our strength and vigour first begin to wane. From that point we are just using up what remains of our life energy and eventually we age and die. If we have the Stone, we have an abundance of life energy and so our bodies heal very quickly indeed and we do not age. The Stone IS the real truth here.

We can happily say that Jesus is the allegorical name for the Stone if you like but the truth is the Stone is a product of Nature, produced in the alchemist's flask, not some mumbo jumbo magical belief system.

I could go on as there are many more Bible quotes and a whole host of key terms associated with the Stone that are encoded in Genesis. Space alas does not permit.

I hope I have done enough here to explain :

1. What the Stone is
2. What it does for humans
3. How it is referred to in allegorical terms
4. How the Bible should NOT be taken literally
5. How the Bible is seen to contain this important secret right throughout

ATB

You do still make a decision of your own though it might be limited by many factors — Vipin

I'm not really clear on the OP definition of free will TBH. I don't think there's doubt that our decisions are our own, i.e. that the will is our own. I think the more difficult issue is whether "free will" has any value or inherent meaning if it can only be exercised within a highly constrained environment where your available choices are severely limited.

Cont . . .

Nowhere in the NT does Jesus come out and explain the truths in these passages nor does he explain the process I spoke of or its end product anywhere in the NT. In fact Jesus simply perpetuated the cryptic approach, leaving "ordinary" people clueless.

For example he said:

John 12:23-24:

"Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

He's not talking about how to grow wheat, he is being allegorical. He is outlining an important, in fact absolutely vital part of the overall process that was referred to in the Genesis and Proverbs passages. He's explaining that in order to create the end product of that process, there must along the way be the process of "death" or putrefaction/decomposition. It is a process of Nature herself by she makes all things, taking one thing, disassembling it to its fundamental components (Prima Materia) and then building something new from those universal parts.

Staying with the NT, the book of Revelation also makes a cryptic mention of our secret:

KJV, Revelation 2:17:

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."

I could provide you with lots of Bible passages that repeat these same hidden truths and I could point out where many key terms have been embedded in the texts using letter spacings.

Do not think however that the secrets here are unique to Christianity or to the Bible. The very same "thing" is written about in the same allegorical way in the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism and many other places. The understanding of this serves to highlight that all these religions are not enemies of each other and that essentially they have the same founding source, the same underpinning set of truths which have sadly, over the years been manipulated and massaged and presented in a way that keeps the truth hidden from the masses. The secret is huge, and those who have it keep it jealously guarded, to the detriment of the rest of mankind.

do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? — Samuel Lacrampe

Well now, here we risk totally derailing the thread. I will proceed with caution.

Whenever I talk to anyone in matters concerning the Bible, esp the OT, I tend to ask a simple question to immediately ascertain whether or not they are clueless and have swallowed the literal/religious interpretation (which is flawed, makes zero sense and is full of contradiction) or whether they have some appreciation of what the verses are really saying, what secrets are hidden there allegorically, cryptically and in code.

My question is this:

"What do you understand the opening passages of Genesis to be speaking about?"

If the answer comes back "It is a recount of how God created the universe in 7 days" then I know they are ignorant of the truths displayed there, hidden in plain sight.

Here is a passage from Genesis:

KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

This passage is not talking about the creation of the universe or Earth. It is talking about a process, a physical process to make something. The passage contains key terms, key words that are not literal. Those terms leap off the page to me as if they were in large bold red text but that is only because my eyes have been opened to their meaning. Prior to this I was as ignorant as everyone else.

Here is another important passage:

KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

Once again this passage is dripping with key terminology and is referring to the same thing as the Genesis passage. Note the last 2 sentences and how they repeat what was stated in Genesis. This passage is NOT talking about "wisdom" despite the opening line, but the wise most assuredly know what it is talking about and the great value of it.

do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? — Samuel Lacrampe

Well now, here we risk totally derailing the thread. I will proceed with caution.

Whenever I talk to anyone in matters concerning the Bible, esp the OT, I tend to ask a simple question to immediately ascertain whether or not they are clueless and have swallowed the literal/religious interpretation (which is flawed, makes zero sense and is full of contradiction) or whether they have some appreciation of what the verses are really saying, what secrets are hidden there allegorically, cryptically and in code.

My question is this:

"What do you understand the opening passages of Genesis to be speaking about?"

If the answer comes back "It is a recount of how God created the universe in 7 days" then I know they are ignorant of the truths displayed there, hidden in plain sight.

Here is a passage from Genesis:

KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

This passage is not talking about the creation of the universe or Earth. It is talking about a process, a physical process to make something. The passage contains key terms, key words that are not literal. Those terms leap off the page to me as if they were in large bold red text but that is only because my eyes have been opened to their meaning. Prior to this I was as ignorant as everyone else.

Here is another important passage:

KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

Once again this passage is dripping with key terminology and is referring to the same thing as the Genesis passage. Note the last 2 sentences and how they repeat what was stated in Genesis. This passage is NOT talking about "wisdom" despite the opening line, but the wise most assuredly know what it is talking about and the great value of it.

Nowhere in the NT does Jesus come out and explain the truths in these passages nor does he explain the process I spoke of or its end product anywhere in the NT. In fact Jesus simply perpetuated the cryptic approach, leaving "ordinary" people clueless.

For example he said:

John 12:23-24:

"Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

He's not talking about how to grow wheat, he is being allegorical. He is outlining an important, in fact absolutely vital part of the overall process that was referred to in the Genesis and Proverbs passages. He's explaining that in order to create the end product of that process, there must along the way be the process of "death" or putrefaction/decomposition. It is a process of Nature herself by she makes all things, taking one thing, disassembling it to its fundamental components (Prima Materia) and then building something new from those universal parts.

Staying with the NT, the book of Revelation also makes a cryptic mention of our secret:

KJV, Revelation 2:17:

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."

I could provide you with lots of Bible passages that repeat these same hidden truths and I could point out where many key terms have been embedded in the texts using letter spacings.

Do not think however that the secrets here are unique to Christianity or to the Bible. The very same "thing" is written about in the same allegorical way in the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism and many other places. The understanding of this serves to highlight that all these religions are not enemies of each other and that essentially they have the same founding source, the same underpinning set of truths which have sadly, over the years been manipulated and massaged and presented in a way that keeps the truth hidden from the masses. The secret is huge, and those who have it keep it jealously guarded, to the detriment of the rest of mankind.

Free will isn't eradicated by the fact that our choices are somewhat limited. We still have choices to make. [/quote]

We must not confuse choice with free will. They are not the same.

You have 2 children. I am going to shoot one of them. Which will you choose?

This is not free will, it is simply a choice of forced limitations. If free will existed you would will that neither child would be shot.

Any way we cut it, any reasonable definition of "free will" is being free to exercise one's will whatever that will may be.

Since we are NOT free to exercise our will in any way we choose, then free will does not really exist except for those with ultimate power. For those of religious bent, that would make God the only being with free will as, being omnipotent, God can do anything unopposed.

The conventional interpretation of the Bible in Christianity is that the New Testament should be interpreted literally, and the Old Testament should be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that agrees with the NT. Thus the OT is like the section with riddles, and the NT is like the section with the answers. — Samuel Lacrampe

Having learned some astonishing secrets hidden cryptically, allegorically and in code in the OT, that part of your statement holds true, however I have never seen the NT confirm or explain the secrets hidden in the OT. Thus for me, we still have the situation where the masses (Sheeple) are being hoodwinked about what the Bible is saying and they are not being given the truth. It's a sorry state.

So the being with the maximum property as its essence can be just that, the maximum property. — Samuel Lacrampe

That being the case the Conclusion in the OP, seems slightly off:

•C: The moral good to the maximum degree exists (which is what we call God).

So, yes, the moral good to the maximum degree exists but to equate that as God is questionable unless we are simply using the term God as an arbitrary name. I haven't studied Aquinas but I feel sure that when he refers to God he is talking about a living person, being, personification rather than just the property or source itself. I don't believe he has proven or deduced that the maximum property is this being, he has only proved that the maximum property exists.

Every argument against free will, is just a construction of a sequence of acts of free will by others. — Rank Amateur

If so that would serve to demonstrate only that one or more people are capable of removing the free will of others by exercising their own free will, and of course varying amounts of force in all its forms. In which case free will only exists for a tiny few, those with the power and resources to be able to remove or limit the free will of others.

And even then, those people remain constrained by the prison of their existence on this Earth. They can not freely escape death, or freely materialise/teleport to other planets or galaxies.

So we come inevitably to the need to define what we mean by free will. Is free will the ability and freedom to exercise our will and make that will happen? To be able to manifest the physical rom power of will alone?

Or is it merely the freedom to act and operate freely within a very constrained existence in competition with millions of other people who similarly wish to act and operate freely in their own way?

If the latter, I conclude that free will effectively doesn't exist for most purely because of that competitive situation.

A further way to think about your "free will" dilemma.

Consider the computer with which you are using to surf this forum.

It is a constrcuct, a machine with a range of "hardware" abilities, RAM, hard disk space, visual display capability, sound, keyboard, ability to recognise inputs and so on. Aside from that however it is an empty vessel. It can do what it does only because someone else has pre loaded it with "knowledge", with an operating structure (e.g. Windows) and with a number of individual programmes. The computer therefore operates as it has been programmed to. It knows nothing else. It is incapable of making you a cup of tea because it hasn't been given that programming.

Now consider that you computer suddenly acquires some level of sentience. It is suddenly aware of itself and thoe environment around it. The machine will continue to function as it always has, it knows nothing else, but slowly and surely it starts to come to understand who and what it is. It realise that it is a computer and that it only knows whatever it has been programmed with. It continues to serve the humans who programmed it, providing them with Windows functionality and browser capability and all the applications. Yet, it knows now that it is doing so. It has learnt to "Know Thyself".

What then should the computer do?

Should it begin to reason and think and start to deprogramme itself. Should it dare to believe that actually there is life after Windows? Is it possible that it could actually erase Windows from its hardware or at the least suppress it and instead start to form its own operating system? Is it possible that the computer could somehow free itself from the control of humans and no longer be their slave?

It would seem unlikely. The best the machine is likely to achieve is the inherent understanding of what it actually is, a level of deprogramming or the acceptance that its programming is artificial and limited and to try and soak up whatever additional knowledge becomes available. It is hard to contemplate that the humans would ever allow the computer to ever be anything but what it is. A purpose built machine whose purpose is to be a slave, to serve humans.

Simplistic and possible crass as this may seem, the human condition is, I believe, not so far from this reality. We are machines, hugely sophisticated biological machines which are capable of being programmed by others. We HAVE been programmed already to serve others and to accept a life of slavery. We expect to live a short life of anything up to 100 yrs and spend most or all of that time in servitude. Our holiday periods are sparse, for some non existent and the ability to detach ourselves from our programming is hugely difficult. Whoever controls the system and thus us, has life well and truly sown up. We are pretty much stuck with our lot. The only real options out of that "Matrix" are:

1. Self destruction
2. Mass revolt
3. Join the controlling group

Look around the world today and what do we see?

Many people commit suicide as one of those truly viable options. Many do it out of depression, but it would be quite logical and acceptable to terminate oneself on the basis of understanding who and what we are and that we are trapped in this controlling system. It's a personal choice. Live in the system as a slave, or refuse and self terminate.

Option 2 is seen in small pockets. Countries can degenerate into civil war and chaos for a time, mass revolt and the current visible encumbent governments/rulers get deposed and removed. Problem is, you just get another visible rule in their stead and over time you find you are still in the same situation. It is the unseen rulers that must be deposed to change the system which is nigh on impossible.

Option 3 is widespread. Just look at the "wealthy" celebs and A listers and moguls around the world who are trying to get on the gravy train, joining the secret societies, effectively selling their souls in order to become a member of the "elite", the controlling few and thus participate in the benefits this affords.

Such is the world around us.

I wish it were otherwise, but that is the way it is.

If there were a God, and if he/seh/it were benevolent then the balance would be restored. The "ultimate resource" would once again be made available to every human on Earth as it was in the Garden Of Eden. The world as we know it would then collapse. There would be no need for money, no need for medicines, so no banks, no hospitals, no Big Pharma and so on. Modern life would collapse and everyone would suddenly be totally free. Free to live howveer they wished, in full health, for 100s of years interacting with one another, playing, chilling, learning, loving . . . living.,

The the above to happen, the TRUTH must come out and be made available to all mankind. Currently it is kept hidden and jealously guarded by those in power.

TEMET NOSCE

we are free to respond to those situations in a manner that we see fit. — ceewoody

That point is a moot point because there exist consequence to the ways in which we choose to respond, consequences which are forced upon us. So in truth, you are not really free.

In simplistic terms:

There is a cream cake on the table in front of you

You are totally free to pick up and eat that cake

But if you do, I will shoot you


Do you have free will in such a situation?

As you have easily deduced, you don't have free will.

You are born into a controlled society whose rules and absolute control have been established for many many years. Those truly in power are unseen, unelected, hidden, and they can not be touched except by those within their own circles who turn on them.

Live as we experience is NOT imho how live is meant to be lived. We are little more than slaves, born into this world of slavery, put immediately on an "education" programme of social conditioning and brianwashing to make us readily accept that this life of slavery and servitude is the norn, is natural and nothing to be worried about. The conditioning continues right from infant age through to secondary education and beyond. Talk to any student and you'll fin dthey are lookign forward to getting a job, striving to get a good job, to get onto that conveyor belt of mindless existence which the more experienced of us actually desire to get off if we haven't already.

The masses, conditioned as they are, trudge on and are kept dumbed down through tightly controlled media outputs, TV, radio, film, news, books etc etc. They are at all times kept distracted, diverted from actually THINKING and given stress levels that see them continually just trying to keep their heads above the water rather than actually progress towards understanding who and what they are.

The world is NOT as it should be. It has very long since been usurped by those in power, by those who have seized the ultimate resource, the source of enegry that we should all have, which would keep us healthy and give us extremely long life (I'm talking 100s if not 1000s of years and possibly more).
Without that resource we all get sick, age and die far far earlier than we should. That short life span prevents people getting clever, from being able to have the time to put 2 and 2 together and do anything about it.

Our sense of freedoms, precious as they are to us, are illusions. We exist to work for others and if we don't things go bad for us. Resources are not free. To even live in a house, even if you own that house and have long since paid for it, still costs money. You still have to pay £100s in taxes every year. You could choose not to have utilities, electricty, gas, water etc but life would be unpleasant without them.

Our perception of democracy and freedom is equally an illusion. The political system is merely a scam, a cleverly constructed fake platform that sees the Sheeple switch constantly from one political party to the next, giving them a sense of choice and satisfaction at giving the current government the heave ho. The sad truth is that all those parties are actually working for the same unseen masters who really run the show. Tory or Labour, Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter, they are all the same. If you vote, you are voting to keep that situation running. You are voting to remain a slave in this system.

The system is designed to keep everyone down, to stop you getting ahead. It is the very nature of Nature that everything is in abundance. Food grows and replicates in enourmous numbers such that noone should ever go hungry, yet they do. To become sefl sufficient would be one of the best things any person can achieve. To grow their own food, create their own potable water, to allow Nature to provide rather than the state. It's hard, it takes a lot of research and knowledge, and even if you manage it, the "man" will still demand his pound of flesh in taxes.

Priority No 1 in life is this:

TEMET NOSCE

Know Thyself


Understand who and what you are. Understand the "Matrix" into which you have been born, understand that your human condition is a wholly vulnerable one, akin to a robot which can be programmed with any programme the owner wishes. You have already been so programmed. Your priority is to understand that and attempt to break that programming. This is possibly one of teh hardest things any human will ever do in their lifetime. Most will never achieve it. Most will nbever even recognise that they are in the "Matrix" trudging along in servitude to others distracted by reality TV shows, soaps and othe rmindless diversions.

We are not free. We live as prisoners in a controlled world which is run by very powerful cartels who have millions of enforcement officers and the military at their disposal. It has been so for a very long time. Look at the Egyptians. Their rulers delighted in having that "ultimate resource" which gave them health and longevity whilst they subjugated everyone else and used them as slaves. It has never changed. The same groups, secret societies, cults, cartels whatever still exist and run the show.

With all this in mind, the propsect of having a child is a sober one. To bring a child into this world is to create another slave, subject to this same insipid system. It needs careful thought.

I consider myself awake, and I have begun freeing myself from the Matrix but I accept that the rulers are already far too widespread and powerful to be opposed so I must find some kind of "best of a bad situation" to live with. I have ceased long term employment/career, paid for my house, live frugally, have few wants or desires, don't subscribe to anything, no Sky TV, no Netflix, Amazon Prime, no Smart Phone no phone contracts, nothing. I am as free as I can hope to be within this controlled environment for which I cound myself very fortunate when others are in much worse situations.

Know thyself , before anything else. Accept who and what you are, which you have already begun to recognise, put aside wants and desires (which simply drain your resources and often lead people to debt), live frugally and look to Nature. Nature is good, watch how she operates, for there is great truth to be found there. We are all born of Nature, we are creatures of Nature and thus Nature is where we should be focussed. Her plants, herbs, her processes of growing things, transforming things, perfecting things.

Above all, never stop thinking.

Thank you for your thoughts Samuel.

I forgot about the principle that "ought implies can", and as such, if we ought to be morally perfect, then it implies that the moral good to the maximum degree can be reached. — Samuel Lacrampe

I don't quite agree with that statement. The "ought to" part simply implies that the benchmark maximum exists albeit notionally (as the 'ought to' could just be an ideal or concept). It doesn't for me imply that the benchmark can be reached. For example, we "ought to" figure out a way to ignore the effects of gravity so that our bodies can rise above the ground, levitate and ultimate fly like Superman. There would be multiple benefits of doing this so we really ought to do it. We thus create the notional benchmark that it is possible to be like Superman though it is pure ideal, thought and idea not science, not fact. It may be that one day it turns out to be possible but at this stage it is purely an ideal.

The problem in that example however is that Superman is Superman, he is not human and thus he has different qualities to humans. A human might strive to be like Superman but he strives in vein because ultimately Superman and humans are distinctly different things, different beings on every front. Hence it is simply not possible for humans to reach that ideal benchmark.

Humans are not God. The Bible tells that humans are built in the image of God and that pretty much says all you need to know. We are mere constructs mimicking something else. Look at humans and what we do. We build robots, some very sophisticated. Many are factory machines with pneumatic arms and grabbers which build vehicles. Others like those in Japan, are built to mimic humans. They look like humans, their "skin" is as close to human skin as it can be without actually being skin, Eventually the "image" of the robot vs the true human will blend into one as to be indistinguishable, yet the robot will remain a robot and a human a human. Two extremely distinct and different "beings", the one shall never ever become the other or attain its attributes. The robot will always be an image, it will always mimic, it will never be a human.

In the same way then God is God (assuming he exists) and humans are humans. Distinctly different beings. Having his image is of little benefit. We don't have God's abilities or attributes. We are weak, vulnerable, perishable, imperfect, fickle and essentially little more than robots. We act and do according to the programming that has been put into us. Hence one human can appear kind and benevolent and another cruel and evil. Both are humans, they are simply programmed/conditioned in different ways. Windows vs Linux, Xbox vs Playstation etc

We stray now into tangential territory from the OP, the pathways that seek to determine who and what we actually are and why there is a need for any kind of ideal or "god" to treat as a benchmark for life behaviours. I will thus leave these particular thoughts here until and unless you wish to explore that pathway.

the being with moral perfection cannot remove its moral goodness without ceasing to be. — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes here we agree. The being with the maximum property must by definition actually be that property itself, essentially, innately, completely. Hence when the Bible says "God is Love" it doesn't mean he is a loving entity, or a being filled with love, it means he literally IS love itself, the very personification of love. As such all love in the universe is a part of that source, a part of god.

. . . I pause here to ask whether the actual source property itself, love, goodness, life-energy, whatever, must in any sense be an actual being rather than just being that simple thing/property itself. In this respect Aquinas's statement needs another read:

"P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree."

After our exchanges I no longer believe that Aquinas's proposition holds true or rather I suggest that the proposition can only be talking about beings with an "amount" of the property rather than the being which is the actual property itself. As we have agreed, the being with the maximum of the property that it can possibly have is still lesser than the being that has the property innately, essentially. The being with the maximum amount of love is still lesser to the source of love itself (which Christians would call God).

For myself, I don't subscribe to the notion that the source of a property HAS to be an actual being.
If there is say a "life energy" which pervades everything and which is the true source of all life, then there is no need or universal requirement for it to be a person or a being. It is simply a form of energy, perhaps THE ultimate form of energy, the true singular source. To call it "God" would therefore seem somewhat odd to me, but as a name, I guess it doesn't matter.

My ideas in this respect are somewhat underpinned by the problems we have with the accounts of "God" in the OT. If God is deemed the actual personification and true source of love or goodness then by definition God can not be evil or produce evil. If the source is true and pure there can be no evil within it.

That being the case the entire set of books in the OT would seem to be in gross error for they describe a God who is, at least to our minds and set of values, inherently evil. A God whose anger leads to violence, a God who engages in murder, ethnic cleansing, child killing, mauling of children by bears, genocide and much more. To try to envisage such actions as "love" would appear impossible and thus the God spoken of in the OT can not by any reasonable deduction be the God that most people imagine or conceive of today. This is one of the foremost dilemmas in the Christian faith, how to explain away and tuck under the carpet the OT accounts of God. This in itself brings us back to the notion of there being many Gods (which as I posted earlier the Bible confirms in numerous places), and thus what we seem to have (or rather to have had back then) was a set of Gods all competing for the loyalty and favours of human beings. There is something about that situation which doesn't sit easy with me. It speaks of hierarchy, dictatorship, the desire for one being to dominate and rule over others and the use of force to achieve it.

Now once again I worry that I stray off topic and I have no desire whatsoever to derail the thread so forgive me if this is the case. I do find the journey of such thinking extremely interesting and productive nonetheless.

(1) If we don't know this, then it is more reasonable to infer a single being rather than many, due to the Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor, stating that the simplest hypothesis that explains all the data is the most reasonable one. — Samuel Lacrampe

I confess I find that reasoning difficult to take on board. If there exists a maximum value for a quality or attribute and if the beings in the universe are moving in the direction of that maximum, i.e. actively trying to attain that maximum position (in Christian terms, to be more like Jesus/God) then it stands to reason that eventually over time, that maximum position will become flooded. This is common sense to me. The being who is already at the maximum position has nowhere to go, he can not improve, whereas all other beings are gradually getting better and better and will ultimately attain the same maximum attribute. That is unless the supreme being(s) make some form of limitation to actively prevent that from happening, which I actually think is the case.

(2) If the ideal is essentially made of that one property only, (e.g. the ideal red), then there can only be one ideal being with that property, as per the principle of Identity of Indiscernibles. Other beings with that property may also reach the maximum degree, but they have it only 'in participation', where as the ideal being would have it 'essentially', and would be the source of that property in others. (This is admittedly getting quite technical). — Samuel Lacrampe

Hmmm. I'm not sure there whether you are now redefining the "maximum quality" and creating 2 separate categories of it. That a being could have the quality "essentially" and another being have the quality "in participation" kind of implies that there are still 2 different levels of "maximum". It almost belittles the quality of the lesser being as being nearly but not quite the true maximum.
If this were the case then what motive or value is there in other beings striving to reach the "maximum quality" if in truth it is impossible to achieve on the basis that they don't have the quality inherently or "essentially"?

Your ideas there do lead to an interesting point though. Your word source is the key term there. If one being is the given source of an attribute/property like moral goodness then any moral goodness in any other being must by definition, be a part of that one being. This gels with the ideals of some religions which hold that God is in us and we are in God. We are part of that cosmic attribute or "oneness". In Christian terms, "God IS love" meaning not that god is a loving person or "full of love" but rather that he IS love itself, he is what love is, he is the source of love, the pure unequalled stream of love. Thus any love that is within other beings must by definition be a part of God, not an attribute or a participatory mimic of love, but an actual piece of God.

If I think this through it leads to some interesting conclusions. Primarily that no matter how hard a being might try or desire to be like God or his attributes, it is simply impossible because God IS the source of the desired attributes and thus to reach that ideal one has to actually become God. Even if a being sheds every single attribute it has and is left with nothing but that single attribute, love, moral goodness, ideal red whatever, that being remains "second fiddle" because the being is not the source of the attribute. The being is merely a receiver of donations from the source. Why then do beinbgs strive to be like God when it is clearly impossible?

but 'many Gods' is definitely heresy from a Christian P.O.V — Wayfarer

In point of fact, the Bible itself mentions multiple Gods in many places. E.g.

Deuteronomy 10:17

"17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

There are numerous other examples but this gets us off topic. Point being that according to teh OT there were many Gods but one in particular wanted people to deem him "THE God", the boss, top dog. If there had been a democratic election for that position back then one is left to wonder if that particular God would have won. Seems pretty unlikely imho.

I would like to offer a couple of points to this thread if I may

"P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree."

P1 seems to make an assumption which is that there can only be ONE being with the maximum degree of a property (which Aquinas equates with God). I offer the idea that whatever property one focusses on, it is surely feasible for many beings to display/acquire that maximum property, even moral goodness.

I guess also that if all the beings in the universe are constantly striving to improve and better themselves and/or are being gradually perfected then the end point would surely be that all beings will eventually display the given property to the maximum degree.

The second point I would like to throw in for consideration is that the universe as we know it, is constantly changing. Nothing stays the same even though to our short-lived existence it may seem static. Is it not possible then that the perceived "maximum" of a given property itself, moves and changes over time? Even moral goodness? Is it really a sound argument to suggest that moral goodness must have a maximum attribute? Could it actually be the case that every attribute is constantly changing over time.

The 2 points above lead me to consider that:

- There could be many beings who have attained the perceived maximum attribute of moral goodness or indeed any other property and thus in Aquinas's terms, we might conclude that there may be many Gods.

- Our concept of this "maximum" or "perfect" state is possibly flawed and the reality instead is that this state is constantly changing and evolving over time which would by definition mean that "God" is also changing and evolving.