answer-is-42, you are conflating gnosticism with closed-mindedness. They are not one and the same.
I am a gnostic atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced I'm wrong. For example, I am gnostic about the fact that I'm human, but, if a DNA test proved otherwise, I'd have no choice but to accept it. Being certain about something doesn't mean you can't be convinced you're wrong. It just means you're certain. Technically, gnosticism is the claim that you have absolute knowledge about something, so, in that case, you'd just be wrong. If you can prove that logical paradoxes aren't logical paradoxes, feel free to do so.
As for defining "perfection", there's no reason why you would need to agree with my requirements for perfection. Perfection is inherently different in each individual's view.
I want to correct something I said, nevertheless. I might consider an omnipotent and omniscient being a god, but I would never willingly bow to it if it wasn't benevolent as well.
Finally, if we were to accept others' definitions of "god", why not simply call ourselves gnostic theists and be done with it? Pantheists worship the Universe, and it definitely exists. Why won't you accept their definition (assuming you won't), but would accept the god of the Bible as a god if he were proven to exist?
I am a gnostic atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced I'm wrong. For example, I am gnostic about the fact that I'm human, but, if a DNA test proved otherwise, I'd have no choice but to accept it. Being certain about something doesn't mean you can't be convinced you're wrong. It just means you're certain. Technically, gnosticism is the claim that you have absolute knowledge about something, so, in that case, you'd just be wrong. If you can prove that logical paradoxes aren't logical paradoxes, feel free to do so.
As for defining "perfection", there's no reason why you would need to agree with my requirements for perfection. Perfection is inherently different in each individual's view.
I want to correct something I said, nevertheless. I might consider an omnipotent and omniscient being a god, but I would never willingly bow to it if it wasn't benevolent as well.
Finally, if we were to accept others' definitions of "god", why not simply call ourselves gnostic theists and be done with it? Pantheists worship the Universe, and it definitely exists. Why won't you accept their definition (assuming you won't), but would accept the god of the Bible as a god if he were proven to exist?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
![[Image: LB_Header_Idea_A.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i280.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk172%2FBlaziken_rjcf%2FLB_Header_Idea_A.jpg)
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
