What is blameworthy requires an ability to have avoided the blameworthiness or else it's not blameworthy.
Now perhaps it's an axiomatic truth, that if God did exist, then the purpose of being able to avoid blameworthy actions, is so that we do.
And in this case, the possible non-blameworthy humans, are of a sublime rank higher than blameworthy humans.
But there is something more to it. Society to function needs organization.
The way societies always function is that they look to leaders to lead them and form a consensus around them.
Perhaps it's an axiomatic truth, in the presence and knowledge of possible non-blameworthy humans, that they are the most worthy to lead humanity.
The reason obviously is that they would be of the sincerest intentions in leading them with a benevolent intention, since it would be blameworthy to lead them out partial lust of power. Furthermore, they would be the humans in which power doesn't corrupt them.
Now that being said, if it's the purpose of morality to act upon it, and the purpose of blameworthiness is to avoid it, then it seems to follow it's probable that such humans existed.
On the other hand, if no such humans existed, it seems it calls to question, of whether avoiding blameworthiness was ever really possible. If it was not possible to avoid, it follows there is no blameworthy actions as well, which would make morality a delusion as well.
That being said, what would be expected of such humans if they existed? Would they be silent? How would they prove their position and rank without sounding deceiving and selfish?
It seems it really is God that can manifest these people and that it would be wrong to have us not follow such leaders.
Perhaps, this is a proof that either religion or atheism is the truth, and that deism is highly problematic.
Now perhaps it's an axiomatic truth, that if God did exist, then the purpose of being able to avoid blameworthy actions, is so that we do.
And in this case, the possible non-blameworthy humans, are of a sublime rank higher than blameworthy humans.
But there is something more to it. Society to function needs organization.
The way societies always function is that they look to leaders to lead them and form a consensus around them.
Perhaps it's an axiomatic truth, in the presence and knowledge of possible non-blameworthy humans, that they are the most worthy to lead humanity.
The reason obviously is that they would be of the sincerest intentions in leading them with a benevolent intention, since it would be blameworthy to lead them out partial lust of power. Furthermore, they would be the humans in which power doesn't corrupt them.
Now that being said, if it's the purpose of morality to act upon it, and the purpose of blameworthiness is to avoid it, then it seems to follow it's probable that such humans existed.
On the other hand, if no such humans existed, it seems it calls to question, of whether avoiding blameworthiness was ever really possible. If it was not possible to avoid, it follows there is no blameworthy actions as well, which would make morality a delusion as well.
That being said, what would be expected of such humans if they existed? Would they be silent? How would they prove their position and rank without sounding deceiving and selfish?
It seems it really is God that can manifest these people and that it would be wrong to have us not follow such leaders.
Perhaps, this is a proof that either religion or atheism is the truth, and that deism is highly problematic.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
