why a god is impossible

[idunno]

hi



Nearly every religion posits some sort of hidden, immaterial realm which exists behind the visible, physical, and material realm in which we live. Often we are supposed to be partaking in this immaterial realm because who we "really" are is defined by an immaterial, immortal soul. This immaterial realm is also treated as being higher and more important than the material one because it's the realm in which gods live and which we are destined to inhabit after our physical bodies die.
However important these beliefs may be to religious theists, there isn't any solid, verifiable evidence that even suggests any of it is true. On the contrary, everything we do know and everything we continue learn points to the conclusion that all of those claims are completely false, and instead that the following are true: life is material and natural, we don't have anything like an immaterial or immoral soul, and an immaterial, disembodied "mind" like gods are supposed to have just isn't possible. zSB(3,3), that doesn't necessarily mean that it's false, but it is unreasonable to believe it.

Edit: original article here: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm

This is a breach of rule 4.

Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘creator‘ of the universe (if not more). Are these qualities compatible or incompatible? There are two good arguments that they are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, if not impossible.



The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all:
God is perfect. (premise)
God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)
Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. zSB(3,3)Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)
It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6)If God is perfect, then God can’t have any needs or wants; hence, God wouldn’t bother creating something. If God deliberately creates something, it must be because of some need or want — even if it is as simple as curiosity.

Theists may reject premise #3 — the idea that perfection means not having any needs or wants. One argument is that God was so full of love that it wanted to share its love with other and thus created other beings — but this example of a want does not give a reason why the premise is wrong, it simply denies it.
Another argument against premise #3 is that perfection is compatible with having needs or wants. I just don’t see any merit to this, as it goes against the basic understanding of what “perfect” means: lacking nothing essential to the whole. If God needed something, then God lacked something essential.
Perhaps God lacked nothing essential if creation merely resulted from a want of something. This might be effective, but its logical conclusion is that, as far as God is concerned, this universe is rendered trivial and unessential — even irrelevant. A child’s ant farm would have more purpose and use.
Theists might also challenge premise #5 and argue that the creation of the universe was not deliberate but instead accidental. If an accidental creation is compatible with a perfect God, this argument would render the existence of the universe even more trivial than the previous argument. Because perfection is incompatible with error, any being that can do something accidentally is unlikely to be perfect.
None of the above critiques are very effective and I would reject any claims to perfection made by or on behalf of any god that needed something or wanted something. Both signify a lack of something — one objective, the other subjective — and neither fits with any idea of real perfection which I can come up with. Please tell me your views on this:D

[drkitten]

The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all:
God is perfect. (premise)
God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)
Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. zSB(3,3)Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)

It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6)


That's a not a very convincing argument. I see no reason to accept premise 3 , 4,or 5, and every reason to reject them.

As you yourself admit, theists can find ample reason to reject #3 on the basis of Scripture. I reject it on a more simple basis. It just doesn't make sense.

Similarly, I see no reasons why "simple curiosity" would qualify as a "need or want." Basically, I have no reason to believe that any of premises 3, 4, or 5 are true.


None of the above critiques are very effective

They don't need to be. They merely need to be better than the argument -- and that bar has not been set high.

[Darth Rotor]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]hi
The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all.
I fail to understand why "need" is a necessary condition for the act of creation. Could you address this please?

Also, would you be kind enough not to use so small a font? It makes for a suboptimal visual presentation.

Thanks.

DR

[idunno]

That's a not a very convincing argument. I see no reason to accept premise 3 , 4,or 5, and every reason to reject them.

As you yourself admit, theists can find ample reason to reject #3 on the basis of Scripture. I reject it on a more simple basis. It just doesn't make sense.

Similarly, I see no reasons why "simple curiosity" would qualify as a "need or want." Basically, I have no reason to believe that any of premises 3, 4, or 5 are true.



They don't need to be. They merely need to be better than the argument -- and that bar has not been set high.

and why it doesnt make sense?:o

[idunno]

I fail to understand why "need" is a necessary condition for the act of creation. Could you address this please?

Also, would you be kind enough not to use so small a font? It makes for a suboptimal visual presentation.

Thanks.

DR

a perfect being is complete, he has no needs or desires.In order to create there must be some need to create:eye-poppi

[Beerina]

Are you Austin Cline? (http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm)

[drkitten]

a perfect being is complete, he has no needs or desires

Why? I see no reason why "desire" is incompatible with "perfection."

.In order to create there must be some need to create

Why? I doodle all the time in staff meetings, and there's no "need' for me to create. It's simply something that I choose to do. There are many other things that I could also do -- creation is simply one choice among many.

And that's why your argument doesn't make sense. You're ascribing mandatory properties to terms like "perfection" and "creation' that are easily shown to not be connected at all.

[idunno]

Are you Austin Cline? (http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm)

no but i became an atheist or at least an agnostic after reading his articles.Why?:)

[Darth Rotor]

a perfect being is complete, he has no needs or desires.In order to create there must be some need to create:eye-poppi
I overestimated you ability to elaborate. I don't understand why you assume away volition in any being, perfect or otherwise, and what the criterion would be to do so. Do you wish to explain that, the basis for using that axiom (??), or am I delving too deeply?

I'll not take up any more of your time, as drkitten is better than me at framing what is lacking in substance here.

DR

[slingblade]

Actually, I get that part, and can agree with it.

(don't be too pleased, idunno--I'm not all that bright)

I think we might be talking mostly about the Judeo-Christian God as far as perfect gods. I would think you'd have to do comparative studies and find out if all (or even just most) gods are considered perfect in their cosmology. Many aren't. For instance, Coyote is a god-like being and he is far from perfect.

The buddha isn't a god, is he? I'm pretty sure he's not.

So maybe refine the argument to apply only to the Judeo-Christian god?

However, I've thought about the same premise(s) for 40 years. If God has everything and is everything, why would he make people? The Bible says he was lonely. If God is perfect, how can he be lonely?

Yeah, that part I get.

[Beerina]

In any case:

1. God is perfect. (premise)

2. God deliberately created the universe. (premise)

3. Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)

Religious apologists have long proposed it is simply in the nature of a perfect and good creature to make beings of lesser, imperfect stature. However, this seems to be a necessary property of god, added after the fact of observing the highly flawed and painful universe, rather than one one would expect to find in the nature of such a god.

4. Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)

5. Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. zSB(3,3)

As mentioned, one could do it for a different reason. Given God knows everything, one does wonder, though, what's the point of making a creation where He knows how everything will turn out. And I reject that he creates a creation with randomness, where he chooses not to know deliberately when he could with just a little bit of effort. It seems like academic silliness to me, on God's part.

[idunno]

Why? I see no reason why "desire" is incompatible with "perfection."



Why? I doodle all the time in staff meetings, and there's no "need' for me to create. It's simply something that I choose to do. There are many other things that I could also do -- creation is simply one choice among many.

And that's why your argument doesn't make sense. You're ascribing mandatory properties to terms like "perfection" and "creation' that are easily shown to not be connected at all.

whatever.I cannot envisage a god like humans, with the same weaknesses, otherwise whats the point of whorship him. I wouldnt want to spend time with a god who punishes me for not believing him without a rational reason. That god is more selfish and evil than i.God is obviously a man made thing:D

[drkitten]

However, I've thought about the same premise(s) for 40 years. If God has everything and is everything, why would he make people?

Because God is Good, and Creation (see Genesis) is also "good." Because God is Good, he wants (hence, he has volition, even though he is perfect) to do as much that is good as possible. Hence creation.



The Bible says he was lonely.

Does it? I'm not familiar with that verse.

[slingblade]

Um, I might have supplied that from my own teachings....not sure.

[idunno]

I overestimated you ability to elaborate. I don't understand why you assume away volition in any being, perfect or otherwise, and what the criterion would be to do so. Do you wish to explain that, the basis for using that axiom (??), or am I delving too deeply?

I'll not take up any more of your time, as drkitten is better than me at framing what is lacking in substance here.

DR

all i can say is i dont pick my guitar unless i have an urge to create or perform

[idunno]

Because God is Good, and Creation (see Genesis) is also "good." Because God is Good, he wants (hence, he has volition, even though he is perfect) to do as much that is good as possible. Hence creation.





Does it? I'm not familiar with that verse.

that «good» is a bit vaggue. Good as opposed to evil? Where did good come from?:D

[drkitten]

Yup. Argument from incredulity.

[drkitten]

that «good» is a bit vaggue.

Perhaps, but it's also Scriptural.

Good as opposed to evil?

That's the usual opposite of "good," yes.

Where did good come from?

The Good that is Created, by definition, would have come from the Creator.

[idunno]

Yup. Argument from incredulity.

huh? What?:confused:

[idunno]

Perhaps, but it's also Scriptural.



That's the usual opposite of "good," yes.



The Good that is Created, by definition, would have come from the Creator.

Mad gibberish!!!!!:mad: good and evil are on our minds. From an universal point of view they dont exist.

[drkitten]

Mad gibberish!!!!!:mad: good and evil are on our minds. From an universal point of view they dont exist.

I -- and the rest of the philosophical community -- await your proof with bated breath.

[Z]

I -- and the rest of the philosophical community -- await your proof with bated breath.


Um.... no. Most of the 'philosophical community' is still divided on the issue. There's quite a few who agree that 'good' and 'evil' are nothing but human concepts, and don't exist objectively.

You might like to catch up a bit.

Now, as to this (snicker) argument...

A perfect thing fulfills a purpose. Which means a perfect thing must have a purpose. God's purpose, obviously, is to create - thus, he has neither needs nor wants, beyond fulfillment of purpose, and is therefore perfect.

:)

After all, a thing without purpose is useless... and therefore not perfect. See 'philosophical argument', 'quale', and 'HPC' for examples.

[idunno]

I -- and the rest of the philosophical community -- await your proof with bated breath.

friend! we consider evil anything that hurts humans. Thats the human idea of evil. An animal or plant or an Alien may be of a different opinion especially if they love human meat.:rolleyes:
I should have known youre a philosopher..always walking in circles,aint ya?

[Earthborn]

If an immaterial mind is what does our thinking for us, then changing the brain shouldn't produce any, or at least any significant, changes in our thinking.There is no reason to suppose this. Some believers in an immaterial mind have compared the brain with a receiver. If you tinker with a television, the image on the screen will change. If the brain is a receiver, it is also to be expected that if you tinker with it, you'll change the mental states that are communicated outward.

Moreover, people who believe in immaterial minds don't normally attribute this to non-human animalsI don't think this is true. It is only true of a very narrow brand of dualists, but most major religions recognise that animals have similar mental states as humans. Most have taboos and rules on how animals are to be treated (such as: 'kill them quickly so they don't suffer too much'), what parts of an animal can be eaten ('Not the blood as it carries their soul') and that one must ask for forgiveness when killing it.

All medical and scientific evidence we have points to our minds, our memories, and our personalities being products of our physical brains.That is of course because all medical and scientific evidence is limited to the physical. It is not a very good philosophical argument if you know you are locked in a closed room and unable to get access to evidence from outside the room, to say "all evidence I have of existence points to the inside of the room, therefore it is unlikely that there is anything outside the room."


God is perfect. (premise)
God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)There is no reason to accept any of your premises, and your argument assumes at least one other premise: that God is unchangeable and unchanged by creating the universe. Your argument falls flat on its face if we assume that before Creation God was perfect except for one thing; It had a need or want to create the universe. Then by creating the universe It became perfect and it would cause no contradiction to call It perfect and having deliberately created the universe.

All your argumentation shows is that it is just as foolish for an atheist to try to prove there isn't a God as it is for a theist to try to prove that there is.

[drkitten]

we consider evil anything that hurts humans.

That may be your consideration of "evil." It's hardly universal, even among humans.



I should have known youre a philosopher..always walking in circles,aint ya?

No.

Perhaps I can put this in simpler terms.

Premise 1a -- "Pentagonality entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise because that's not what the word "pentagonal" means.

Premise 1b -- "Purpleness entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise because that's not what the word "purple" means.

Premise 1c -- "Paramagnetism entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise becaue that's not what the word "paramagnetic" means.

Premise 1d -- "Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants."

That premise is exactly as flawed, and for exactly the same reason, as premises 1a-c.
No. It doesn't. That's not what "perfect" means.

[idunno]

There is no reason to suppose this. Some believers in an immaterial mind have compared the brain with a receiver. If you tinker with a television, the image on the screen will change. If the brain is a receiver, it is also to be expected that if you tinker with it, you'll change the mental states that are communicated outward.

I don't think this is true. It is only true of a very narrow brand of dualists, but most major religions recognise that animals have similar mental states as humans. Most have taboos and rules on how animals are to be treated (such as: 'kill them quickly so they don't suffer too much'), what parts of an animal can be eaten ('Not the blood as it carries their soul') and that one must ask for forgiveness when killing it.

That is of course because all medical and scientific evidence is limited to the physical. It is not a very good philosophical argument if you know you are locked in a closed room and unable to get access to evidence from outside the room, to say "all evidence I have of existence points to the inside of the room, therefore it is unlikely that there is anything outside the room."

There is no reason to accept any of your premises, and your argument assumes at least one other premise: that God is unchangeable and unchanged by creating the universe. Your argument falls flat on its face if we assume that before Creation God was perfect except for one thing; It had a need or want to create the universe. Then by creating the universe It became perfect and it would cause no contradiction to call It perfect and having deliberately created the universe.

All your argumentation shows is that it is just as foolish for an atheist to try to prove there isn't a God as it is for a theist to try to prove that there is.

thats why i first said i was more of an agnostic than an atheist. It looks impossible to prove or disprove God, but it seems possible to debunk things often attributed to god by believers:boxedin:

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some believers in an immaterial mind have compared the brain with a receiver. If you tinker with a television, the image on the screen will change. If the brain is a receiver, it is also to be expected that if you tinker with it, you'll change the mental states that are communicated outward.


Hmmm, but certain parts of the receiver are responsible for language, some for personality, some for mathematics, some for word recognition, some for vision, etc., etc.

If the message is a unity, as virtually all ideas of "soul" involve, how can we explain such findings? Why do we not see any obvious change with large damage to certain areas and huge changes from small regions of damage?

[idunno]

That may be your consideration of "evil." It's hardly universal, even among humans.




No.

Perhaps I can put this in simpler terms.

Premise 1a -- "Pentagonality entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise because that's not what the word "pentagonal" means.

Premise 1b -- "Purpleness entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise because that's not what the word "purple" means.

Premise 1c -- "Paramagnetism entails the lack of needs or wants."

I reject that premise becaue that's not what the word "paramagnetic" means.

Premise 1d -- "Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants."

That premise is exactly as flawed, and for exactly the same reason, as premises 1a-c.
No. It doesn't. That's not what "perfect" means.

Electric women are perfect!!!:boxedin:

[slingblade]

:p This is why I never submit any logical arguments. I'm just not that good. :p

[Earthborn]

Hmmm, but certain parts of the receiver are responsible for language, some for personality, some for mathematics, some for word recognition, some for vision, etc., etc.Some parts of a television are responsible for sound, others for colour, some for the picture itself, some for displaying teletext...

If the message is a unity, as virtually all ideas of "soul" involve, how can we explain such findings?That is of course not just a problem for a "receiver" model of the mind, but also for a completely physical model. We experience our conciousness usually somewhat as a unity, but how exactly all those parts of the brain work together and produce a consistent and unified mind is still a mystery.

Why do we not see any obvious change with large damage to certain areas and huge changes from small regions of damage?Nothing in about a "receiver" concept of mind would prohibit this. If you damage the teletext circuit of a television, you won't experience obvious change. Nobody ever uses that anyway. If you damage the part that produces stereo sound and you'll end up with mono sound, it is no great loss. Mess with the colour decoder, and you may notice change, but not a great loss in function. You may still be able to watch telly in black and white. But even small damage to the transformer, and it won't work at all. None of this is evidence that television programs originate from within the television itself.

No amount of tinkering with the brain can be definitive proof that the mind or soul are not received from some otherworldly realm. You may believe that there is no reason to suppose that it does, but that's a philosophical position and not proof.

[skeptifem]

I highly suspect this was copied and pasted from somewhere else...

carry on

[Earthborn]

It looks impossible to prove or disprove God,Yep.

but it seems possible to debunk things often attributed to god by believers:boxedin:Yes, it is. You just avoided all the things that are often attributed to God that can be debunked, and focussed on the things that cannot. But go ahead if your idea of fun is trying to do the impossible while easy tasks are waiting...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some parts of a television are responsible for sound, others for colour, some for the picture itself, some for displaying teletext...

But the television signal is not a unity. There are different codes within it for sound, for visual information, etc. The soul is supposed to be a unity, not a collection of different modes of information.

That is of course not just a problem for a "receiver" model of the mind, but also for a completely physical model. We experience our conciousness usually somewhat as a unity, but how exactly all those parts of the brain work together and produce a consistent and unified mind is still a mystery.

Actually, no, it is not a problem for the physical model because there is a big difference between a metaphysical unity and a perceived unity. To use the TV example, we experience a unitary signal that actually consists of flickering and inconstant visual images. We fill in the missing bits. Gestalt has shown us how common this process is. But with a unitary soul, unity is a metaphysical concept, not merely a way of experiencing the world.

Nothing in about a "receiver" concept of mind would prohibit this. If you damage the teletext circuit of a television, you won't experience obvious change. Nobody ever uses that anyway. If you damage the part that produces stereo sound and you'll end up with mono sound, it is no great loss. Mess with the colour decoder, and you may notice change, but not a great loss in function. You may still be able to watch telly in black and white. But even small damage to the transformer, and it won't work at all. None of this is evidence that television programs originate from within the television itself.

We aren't talking about parts of the brain that don't serve any function here. You can say that you remove any particular part of the TV that doesn't function or that someone doesn't use, but with the brain there are areas that definitely serve functions that we do not notice when they are missing -- the real reason is because we are not good at testing these functions. Some function is always lost. The important issue here is that if soul is a unity, then why does removal of a large area not result in such obvious problems as removal of a small area? It cannot be based on size as many people would like to argue if microtubules are responsible. It is purely based on function.

No amount of tinkering with the brain can be definitive proof that the mind or soul are not received from some otherworldly realm. You may believe that there is no reason to suppose that it does, but that's a philosophical position and not proof.

Not arguing for definitive proof, only for the more likely. The OP argued for definitive proof of the non-existence of God, which was clearly in error; but the mental aspects he proposed as only more likely.

With the brain we don't have tissue that sits there, like a receiver. It is the most metabolically active tissue in the body with constant opening and closing of ion channels. We have models that show us that information can be manipulated by such systems -- all we need is positive and negative with varying circuitry. So there is no need to suggest any entity outside the brain. Is it possible that there is a soul and the brain receives messages? Well, only if we have some means of determining how. How does this dualism work? How does the completely other -- the immaterial -- interact with the material?

Of course no one can completely discount the possibility, but no one has ever supplied any workable solution to the problem. Sorry, I just couldn't let the receiver model go by without challenge. There are more serious problems with it than there are with a physical model of consciousness.

[idunno]

[quote=drkitten;2547958]That's a not a very convincing argument. I see no reason to accept premise 3 , 4,or 5, and every reason to reject them.

As you yourself admit, theists can find ample reason to reject #3 on the basis of Scripture. I reject it on a more simple basis. It just doesn't make sense.

Similarly, I see no reasons why "simple curiosity" would qualify as a "need or want." Basically, I have no reason to believe that any of premises 3, 4, or 5 are true.


--You also offer no reasons not to think they are true, which leaves you
no counter-argument. For example, you cannot dismiss the concept of
perfection being used without demonstrating that a different definition
of perfection - and a valid one - is used in Christian theology.
Everything you wrote is already addressed in the argument itself.:mad:

[wollery]

Um, I might have supplied that from my own teachings....not sure.I'd take your teachings over the bible any day of the week and twice on Sunday. :hug5

[Solus]

Could you maybe make your OP a little shorter in the future. Unless it's coming from a forumite I highly respect, I wouldn't even bother reading through something that size at first pass (time is valuable :p). If you want to get your message out, try doing it in one reasonable sized paragraph, rather than several large ones.

More people will read your rantings that way, take it from an expert!

[196]

I highly suspect this was copied and pasted from somewhere else... It was copied from an article on About.com. Beerina already called the OP out in an earlier post, but the point got lost in the discussion. It is from an article by Austin Cline at http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/LifeMaterial.htm.

[Piggy]

idunno, I don't like your chances.

You seem to want to debunk bogus philosophy by engaging in more philosophy.

I don't recommend it.

It's like trying to debunk homeopathy on the basis of invalid homeopathic principles. You'd do better to simply demonstrate that homeopathic principles are inherently flawed and be done with it.

My advice is to get out of the clouds and argue with your feet planted firmly on the ground.

There are much better ways to demonstrate that God is a fiction. And you'll never get there if you continue to tie your head up in abstract arguments about airy concepts such as perfection, I'm afraid.

Leave all that, please, and get real.

And I say that because, if we don't, we're forever going to be drawn into endless, pointless, groundless back-and-forth nattering over baseless philosophical principles rather than tackling the honest nuts and bolts of the matter.

[Hokulele]

Well, if basic physics holds true for deities, for every god there should be an equal and opposite god.

[Apathia]

Hey Piggy, good to see you!

Not good to see Iduno plagerizing Austin Cline.
As a former English teacher, I used to hand out "duck's eggs" for that kind of thing.

[mijopaalmc]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does zSB(3,3) mean?

[Piggy]

Hey Piggy, good to see you!

Thanks. To paraphrase Justin Wilson, it's good for you to see me. ;)

Turns out, y'all are like heroin... I'd try to get away, but then I'd find myself in some familiar skeptical landscape, and I'd be jonesing for a JREF fix.

Y'all are my people -- even the ones I don't like... and if that's not family, then I don't know what is.

So I'm back. You're stuck with me.

[idunno]

Thanks. To paraphrase Justin Wilson, it's good for you to see me. ;)

Turns out, y'all are like heroin... I'd try to get away, but then I'd find myself in some familiar skeptical landscape, and I'd be jonesing for a JREF fix.

Y'all are my people -- even the ones I don't like... and if that's not family, then I don't know what is.

So I'm back. You're stuck with me.

Piggy..other ways to debunk God please?:D

[sphenisc]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does zSB(3,3) mean?


I forgive you, and I don't know either.

[swifty]

It looks impossible to prove or disprove God

Thus placing one in the position of disbelief until given a reason to believe [evidence].

[Jekyll]

No amount of tinkering with the brain can be definitive proof that the mind or soul are not received from some otherworldly realm. You may believe that there is no reason to suppose that it does, but that's a philosophical position and not proof.
If you demote the brain to just being some kind of radio then the only errors it can make are in transmitting and receiving. So if we start with a single soul controlling us an iron bar going through the brain and making us blind is understandable. An iron bar going through the brain and making us forget the last ten years of our life is not.

It would be like putting a magnet against the side of a TV and then one of the actors on the box going "Holy Crap! I've gone yellow!"

You'll need a massive plurality of souls to explain all the possible physiological malfunctions of the brain in terms of failure to send or receive data.

[Piggy]

Piggy..other ways to debunk God please?:D
Search for the thread "Proof of strong atheism". You'll get more than you care for. ;)

[Beerina]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does zSB(3,3) mean?

'z' is short for sleep (as in zzzzzz....), SB is Sandra Bullock, and (3, 3) is 3 on 3, i.e. he'd like to sleep with Sandra Bullock in a 3-way with an unmentioned 3rd person, presumably a female.

Unless you have a better (which is to say, preferred) interpretation...

[RandFan]

God is perfect. (premise)
God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants. (from 1, 3)
Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. zSB(3,3)Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)
It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6) I've read through the thread and I have to say that I like your argument. I think that it is right. I don't normally disagree with piggy but here I will make an exception. Of course the problem we have is what does it mean to be perfect? It's an abstract concept with no real world embodiement. There is nothing to measure it against and it's not really something we can use as a standard to determine whether something is perfect because it's not really something we can define in any absolute way. Though to be certain there has been no lack of trying.

Delta of the Metaphysics

1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.
--Aristotle

I think #3 best suits our purpose here. Did god have a purpose when he/she created humans? What was that purpose? If god had a purpose in creating humans then it had not attained its purpose prior.

The problem is that a believer can simply define perfection to exclude purpose. I don't think so but it's something that debating won't easily solve.

[Darth Rotor]

So maybe refine the argument to apply only to the Judeo-Christian god?

How about the Islamic God, Allah?

Maybe you refer to the "Abrahamic God" to be a bit more inclusive, and more precise?

As I recall what little I know of Islamic doctrine, the perfection of God/Allah is an article of Faith.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

all i can say is i dont pick my guitar unless i have an urge to create or perform
I don't pick my nose unless I wanna boogie. :cool:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Because God is Good, and Creation (see Genesis) is also "good." Because God is Good, he wants (hence, he has volition, even though he is perfect) to do as much that is good as possible. Hence creation.

Can you walk me through how being perfect and having volition are mutually exclusive? There is no reason a perfect being would not have volition.

DR

[drkitten]

Can you walk me through how being perfect and having volition are mutually exclusive?

No, I can't. That's one of my points; it's an unsupported and counterintuitive assertion of idunno's.

[Darth Rotor]

I think #3 best suits our purpose here. Did god have a purpose when he/she created humans? What was that purpose? If god had a purpose in creating humans then it had not attained its purpose prior.

The problem is that a believer can simply define purpose to exclude purpose. I don't think so but it's something that debating won't easily solve.
What is the rationale for confining purpose to a single thing? That seems a baseless assumption.

A purpose? Multipurpose strikes me more in keeping with the nature of something, or someone, "omni."

DR

[drkitten]

You also offer no reasons not to think they are true, which leaves you
no counter-argument.

I need none. it's your claim. And in your case, it doesn't follow.

Basically, I reject your entire argument out of hand for the simple reason of non sequitur -- "It does not follow." If you tell me that a bat is a kind of a whale, I can simply point out that it isn't, without bothering to draw a complete taxonomy of Mammallia.

For example, you cannot dismiss the concept of perfection being used without demonstrating that a different definition of perfection - and a valid one - is used in Christian theology.

Wordnet offers three definitions of "perfection," all fairly standard.


the state of being without a flaw or defect
paragon: an ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept
the act of making something perfect

In none of these is the implication present that a perfect being cannot have a desire ("want").

Words have meanings. I suggest you learn and use them.

[RandFan]

What is the rationale for confining purpose to a single thing? That seems a baseless assumption. I don't clain anysuch rationale.

A purpose? Multipurpose strikes me more in keeping with the nature of something, or someone, "omni."So long as there is no unfulflled purpose. Prior to creating humans were all of god's purposes fullfiled?

[RandFan]

IIn none of these is the implication present that a perfect being cannot have a desire ("want").It's a beautiful day, near perfect. I want some Ice Cream. My happiness would be perfect if I had some ice cream.

Why would a perfect being want something?

Perfection is an absolute. To be perfect suggests that a being is free of any non-absolutes as in perfect happiness. A god that is not perfectly happy is not perfect. A god that is not perfectly satisfied is not perfect.

[drkitten]

It's a beautiful day, near perfect. I want some Ice Cream. My happiness would be perfect if I had some ice cream.

... so get some. If you're omnipotent, nothing is stopping you from fulfilling that particular want.

Why are you less perfect because you recognize that ice cream is a pleasure on a nice day?


Why would a perfect being want something?

Because perfect beings can have volition, too.

Why woudn't they?

Why is a desire a flaw?

[Z]

Indeed, a lack of desire could be seen as a flaw.

[chriswl]

Surely, if a perfect being changed in any way it would become imperfect? Unless it switches between a set of equally perfect states. But then its actons would be arbitrary, as any sequence of these perfect states would be as perfect as any other. But this cannot be so as a perfect God would not be arbitrary or capricious. So, there must be one perfect state. This renders God static and incapable of action or thought.

Unless God changes (perfectly) in response to things outside of it that it does not control and its perfection is judged in the context of this external world. But an omnipotent God has complete control of everything. In fact, an omnipoptent God has the same control over the universe that it has over itself and so it effectively is the universe and creation is just a change in God.

But God is perfect so this can't happen...

[RandFan]

Why woudn't they?For one very simple reason. They are perfectly satisfied. If they were not perfectly satisfied they would not be perfect. QED.

Is a being that wants ice cream perfectly satisfied? Yes or no?

Why is a desire a flaw? You just want to define perfect to mean not perfect in every way. Perfection is an absolute that is not logically tenable unless you play fast and lose with your definition and perfections includes imperfections such as imperfectly satisfied.

[drkitten]

Surely, if a perfect being changed in any way it would become imperfect?

You answered this questions yourself.

No.

[Unless it switches between a set of equally perfect states.

But then its actons would be arbitrary, as any sequence of these perfect states would be as perfect as any other.

Unless, of course, there is a causal or temporal relationship between perfect states. A state that is perfect now is not necessarily perfect later, and vice versa.

For example, for a melody to be "perfect" implies that the individual notes are themselves perfect, and that they are aranged in a perfect sequence. Rearranging a sequence of perfect notes would not necessarily result in a perfect melody.


But this cannot be so as a perfect God would not be arbitrary or capricious.

Why not? A perfect coin flip is both arbitrary and capricious, by definition.



So, there must be one perfect state.

No.

[RandFan]

Surely, if a perfect being changed in any way it would become imperfect? Unless it switches between a set of equally perfect states. But then its actons would be arbitrary, as any sequence of these perfect states would be as perfect as any other. But this cannot be so as a perfect God would not be arbitrary or capricious. So, there must be one perfect state. This renders God static and incapable of action or thought.

Unless God changes (perfectly) in response to things outside of it that it does not control and its perfection is judged in the context of this external world. But an omnipotent God has complete control of everything. In fact, an omnipoptent God has the same control over the universe that it has over itself and so it effectively is the universe and creation is just a change in God.

But God is perfect so this can't happen...Yep, we are trying to find the edges of infinity. Absolutes don't lend themsleves to finite thinking. Having a want is a finite desire that a perfect being would not have.

[drkitten]

Is a being that wants ice cream perfectly satisfied? Yes or no?

Depends on the being. In the case of a perfect being that wants ice cream, yes.

[drkitten]

Having a want is a finite desire that a perfect being would not have.

You know, RandFan, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any truer.

[RandFan]

For example, for a melody to be "perfect" implies that the individual notes are themselves perfect, and that they are aranged in a perfect sequence. Rearranging a sequence of perfect notes would not necessarily result in a perfect melody. You need to get out of your head this concept of perfect. There is no perfect melody. Such a thing is abstract. It is an absolute to measure against. All melodies are identical. It is only subjective judgment that renders them differently.

Our ability to measure the degree to which a note approaches perfection is imporving. Science doesn't operate on the notion that there are things that can be perfectly measured. Only the ability to measure with in a degree of precision.

[RandFan]

Depends on the being. In the case of a perfect being that wants ice cream, yes. If it is perfectly satisified then why would it want ice cream? That makes no sense. When you are completly satisfied do you want ice cream?

[RandFan]

You know, RandFan, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any truer.This does not establish that my statement is true or false. It doesn't advance an argument or the discussion. It's just an attempt to persuade through rhetoric. It's poor form.

[Beleth]

Why would a perfect being want something?
I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

If a perfect being wants nothing, then it would want to do nothing. Such a being, then, would in fact do nothing -- which is functionally identical to being unable to do anything. That's the definition of "helpless", not the definition of "omnipotent".

'Tis a strange definition of "perfect" that is inferred from omnipotence yet implies helplessness...

[drkitten]

You need to get out of your head this concept of perfect.

Funny, I'm not the one who brought it up or who is trying to define limitations on perfection. But I need to get the concept out of my head.

Physician, heal thyself.

I think our discussion iis at an end. You have no coherent concept to discuss, no evidence to support your vacuous assertions, and no ability to express yourself other than repeating what has already been rejected in the pious but forlorn hope that saying something three or four times will suddenly make it true.

[drkitten]

I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

If a perfect being wants nothing, then it would want to do nothing. Such a being, then, would in fact do nothing -- which is functionally identical to being unable to do anything. That's the definition of "helpless", not the definition of "omnipotent".

'Tis a strange definition of "perfect" that is inferred from omnipotence yet implies helplessness...

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire. There's nothing "imperfect" in wanting ice cream -- indeed, wanting is a form of pleasure in itself (have you ever enjoyed looking forward to something?) A perfect being could easily want ice cream, enjoy the feeling of wanting as a perfection in and of itself, and then fulfil that want by obtaining (presumably perfect) ice cream.

[RandFan]

Funny, I'm not the one who brought it up or who is trying to define limitations on perfection. But I need to get the concept out of my head.

Physician, heal thyself. I'm NOT trying to define limitation on perfections. I'm telling you why the concept is logically untenable and why it can't be logically defended.

You have no coherent concept to discuss, no evidence to support your vacuous assertions...

X != Not X is a logical statement. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises.
X != Not X is not vacuous.X = perfection.
Not being satisfied is an imperfect state or Not X

QED

[RandFan]

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire. A desire implies the lack of satisfaction. A lack of something is an imperfection.

[RandFan]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.In other words, You can keep repeating your arguments but no one else can because you are right and everyone else is wrong.

[drkitten]

A desire implies the lack of satisfaction. A lack of something is an imperfection.

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct?

This was incorrect ten posts ago. It's still incorrect.

[Beleth]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.
Indeed; hence the last line of my previous post.

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire. But if there is no desire, the ability to satisfy any desire is academic at best and nonexistent at worst. Do I have the ability to fill a bucket with water, if there is no water?

A perfect being could easily want ice cream, enjoy the feeling of wanting as a perfection in and of itself, and then fulfil that want by obtaining (presumably perfect) ice cream.
I disagree. That would require a state change in the perfect being. Either it would be more perfect after the change, or less perfect after the change, or stay the same level of perfection.

It's obvious that it does not stay at the same level of perfection. It goes from wanting something to obtaining that something. It may stay at the same level of pleasure, but that's different. If it gets more perfect then it wasn't a perfect being at the outset. If it gets less perfect then it isn't perfect afterwards.

[drkitten]

I disagree. That would require a state change in the perfect being. Either it would be more perfect after the change, or less perfect after the change, or stay the same level of perfection.

It's obvious that it does not stay at the same level of perfection.

Quite the contrary. It's not only not obvious, but it's wrong.

It goes from wanting something to obtaining that something.

And since neither "wanting" nor "having" is an imperfection, it's gone from one state of perfection to another.

[Beleth]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.
I just want to point out something that may not be clear from my previous post:

I agree with you on this, drkitten.

[Beleth]

Edited: Never mind, I'm being Devil's Advocate for something I have no desire to be Devil's Advocate for.

[Earthborn]

The soul is supposed to be a unity, not a collection of different modes of information.I think you are just making up what you think the 'soul' and 'unity' ought to be, but there is no real reason to accept your idea of what it is.

Actually, no, it is not a problem for the physical model because there is a big difference between a metaphysical unity and a perceived unity.Really? I think when one is speaking about metaphysics, pretty much anything is possible and nothing can be rules out, which makes it rather difficult to make claims that something as vague as 'unity' is completely different from something we perceive as a unity.

Some function is always lost.The same is true for messing with your telly. There really is no necessarily discernable difference between the brain as a receiver of the soul and the brain as the producer of the mind. It is just what one choses to believe.

Not arguing for definitive proof, only for the more likely.You can't assign probabilities to metaphysical concepts, because they cannot be clearly defined. If you disagree, tell me which is more likely: that Golliboggelotz exists or that Golliboggelotz does not exist?

It is the most metabolically active tissue in the bodyThat does not provide us with evidence against a receiver concept. My television set also uses a whole heck of a lot of energy.

So there is no need to suggest any entity outside the brain.Claiming that there is no need to suggest such an entity is taking a philosophical stance. It is not a philosophical justification for taking that stance. Saying that you do not see the need to suggest Golliboggelotz exists does not convince someone who does see that need.

How does this dualism work? How does the completely other -- the immaterial -- interact with the material?Those are good questions and I have no answer for them, but then again I am not a dualist. An actual dualist might answer it in the way most metaphysical stuff is answered: "It's a mystery".

There are more serious problems with it than there are with a physical model of consciousness.Problems that only arise when you take a pragmatic deductive-nomological stance on philosophy, which is of course a very useful stance to take if you don't wish to worry too much about the hard problems philosophers have created for themselves. But it is a belief nonetheless.

[chriswl]

Unless, of course, there is a causal or temporal relationship between perfect states. A state that is perfect now is not necessarily perfect later, and vice versa.

For example, for a melody to be "perfect" implies that the individual notes are themselves perfect, and that they are aranged in a perfect sequence. Rearranging a sequence of perfect notes would not necessarily result in a perfect melody.
That's a very interesting idea. One answer is that we could evaluate the individual moments in the melody for "perfection" and maximum perfection would lie in finding the most perfect moment and extending it indefinitely, in preserving that particular state of mind. Strictly speaking, the feelings at that moment are a result of the brain state at that moment, not directly a result of the sequence of events up to that time. So you just replicate that brain state.

But I'm not very happy with that answer. I think it does make sense to consider the perfection of things like melodies "as a whole". But I still agree with the OP's statement that a perfect being has no desires or wants. My state of mind when I am listening to or playing music is not one of "desire" for the next note nor of wishing to hang onto the current note. If at any point in the melody I desired it to be different, it would be imperfect.

However, the music example is causing me to doubt the point 5 "Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want". Perhaps it is possible to act without desire, to create without desire?

[drkitten]

My state of mind when I am listening to or playing music is not one of "desire" for the next note nor of wishing to hang onto the current note. If at any point in the melody I desired it to be different, it would be imperfect.

Most music theorists -- and indeed, composers and performers -- would disagree with you. The structure of music composition implies the existence of a melodic "progression" (think, for example, of a chord progression) with the eventual goal of an overall resolution. The idea, for example, of putting deliberate disharmony in order to enhance the listener's feeling of tension, in order to create a more powerful resolution when the dissonance is removed, is a cliche.

You can "see" it for yourself fairly simply. Take a simple example -- Pachelbel's Canon in D, and hum the bass part to yourself. Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum............hold that last note and just listen to it. It's out of key! It doesn't "belong" in the structure of the song, and if you hold that note for long enough, you can easily pick up on the lack of "resolution." This applies to almost any genre of music -- you get the same effect in jazz, blues, R&R, classical, and so forth.

You can see the same thing in literature, if you like. Part of what makes a good book good (and by extension, what would make a perfect book perfect) is that you can't just pick it up and put it down at any point. It's got a logical progression, a flow from beginning to end, and in the next to last chapter, you want to see things resolved. That's part of the feeling and effect that the story is creating -- an interest in the rest of the story through to completion.\

I would therefore argue that your statement "My state of mind when I am listening to or playing music is not one of "desire" for the next note nor of wishing to hang onto the current note" is incorrect, that the desire for the next note is key to the unity of the entire piece. If you really didn't desire the next note.... why are you bothering to play it? Why not just stop mid-piece?

[Beleth]

I think a big problem is that most analogies we're using are subjective, whereas the definition of "perfect" should be objective.

There is the concept of a "perfect sphere". We can easily define it, and easily construct it (at least in theory), easily correct something that isn't one, and easily determine what is relevant to its perfection and what isn't -- a perfect sphere could be any color, for instance.

There isn't a concept of a "perfect melody". Well, there are, but they are subjective. Everyone has their own opinion of what one is.

Is the concept of a "perfect being" objective, or subjective? I think that this thread is a very good indication that it's subjective. Idunno's definition includes "not needing anything" as a necessary condition; many other people's definitions don't.

We're not going to be able to define God into, or out of, existence anyway.

[drkitten]

I think a big problem is that most analogies we're using are subjective, whereas the definition of "perfect" should be objective.

Easy enough dealt with. Here's an objective analogy.

I am, I claim, a "perfect" tic-tac-toe player. Depending upon where you grew up, you may know the game as noughts-and-crosses or any of several other names. Basically, we both place X's and O's in succession on a 3x3 grid, and the first one to get three in a row wins. I claim to be a perfect player because I never lose, and I can always win if you make a mistake permitting it. (We'll ignore fatigue and error here for the moment.)

That's fairly easy to confirm objectively. The game is small enough that it can be analyzed in full, and my play can be demonstrated to conform to the mathematical ideal. If I were considerably smarter than I am, I might be able to achieve perfection at go, at shogi, or at chess. But I'm not that smart.

Does that mean that every game I play is identical? Of course not. The game is multiway symmetric, so I can, for example, win by starting out in any of the four corners.

Now, let's look at any individual move in the game. I will make a "perfect" move at any given time (by definition), but that doesn't mean that the move is "perfect" at any other time. In particular, I may be forced to play to a side square at some point (and probably will be), but playing a side square at any other time may be a fatal mistake. The idea that a "perfect" move is static and unchanging is obviously wrong; "perfect" is context-dependent.

Is my game more or less perfect after I've made a move? Well, neither. it was perfect before, and perfect after. It's just achieved a different stage of perfection.

Am I still "perfect" if I play a corner sometimes and a side sometimes? Not only am I still "perfect," but in fact, I have to be able to do that to achieve "perfection." Part of what makes me "perfect" is the ability to develop and to change strategies over time during the course of a game. But I remain perfect throughout.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think you are just making up what you think the 'soul' and 'unity' ought to be, but there is no real reason to accept your idea of what it is.

Well, it's not my definition. It was originally Plato's, then the church's, then Descartes, etc. I'm not sure how to make sense of a non-unitary immaterial "substance", "thing", whatever. What would that mean?

Really? I think when one is speaking about metaphysics, pretty much anything is possible and nothing can be rules out, which makes it rather difficult to make claims that something as vague as 'unity' is completely different from something we perceive as a unity.

Well, the definition of a soul was always that it was a unity, a single immaterial substance that constituted what we are. Of course, we could always try to come up with a different definition, but I don't know how a non-unitary immaterial "thing" could make any sense.

The same is true for messing with your telly. There really is no necessarily discernable difference between the brain as a receiver of the soul and the brain as the producer of the mind. It is just what one choses to believe.

But if the brain is the receiver of the soul, it must do it somehow. One proposal has been the wacko QM solution that has the microtubules picking up the collapsing wave function of the universe serving as the soul. If that were the case, then removing large parts of the nondomiant frontal cortex should have more effect on the "soul" than pinpoint damage to the upper brainstem. The one is almost imperceptible, the other causes deep coma. If the soul is, as has been previously defined by others, a unity, then it seems as though any damage to the brain should cause perturbation of the entire soul-brain process. Having a localized tuner for the audio component of a TV signal makes sense. Having a localized tuner for audition created through an immaterial unity doesn't. There is also the issue of not only long-term memory, but also procedural memory. The brain can't simply be a tuner or receiver. It also does things. It acts. How does it do that as a tuner? And how does it remember how to brush my teeth? TVs do not act in that fashion.

You can't assign probabilities to metaphysical concepts, because they cannot be clearly defined. If you disagree, tell me which is more likely: that Golliboggelotz exists or that Golliboggelotz does not exist?

Sure we can. We do it all the time. We think it is more likely that our TVs work by high-def signals hitting a receiver and translating the images into something pleasing, at least when Tammy Fay Baker isn't on. I don't think it likely that there are pixies acting out 24 inside a box in my house. Different metaphysical possibilities have differering degrees of evidence supporting or not supporting them. I cannot prove that pixies do not act out 24 or The Daily Show inside that box, so I cannot completely rule out different metaphysical propositions, but I can surely assign probablities to them.

That does not provide us with evidence against a receiver concept. My television set also uses a whole heck of a lot of energy.

That wasn't my point. The point was that we know what happens when we turn off the ion channels -- brain activity stops and the "mind" stops. And we are able to model thinking that uses a similar paradigm in our computers -- the yes/no or 1/0 model that our brains use, although nervous tissue is much more complicted. The issue is not that you can also turn off a TV and get no signal, but that those metabolically active cells that are supposed to be just dumb receivers are modelled by other supposedly dumb silicon bits that can do some amazing things, like add and subtract. When they are not metaboliclly active, the cells are still there. They should still be able to receive a signal, but they don't.

We also know that if we stimulate certain nerve cells we can recreate activities that are supposedly the result of the "mind". We can stimulate neurons that generate memories, that produce movement, etc. We can't do that with a TV set. A TV set can receive its input and translate it. A brain can accept what would otherwise be random stimulation and produce recognizable activity. The best you could get with a TV set with random stimualtion would be a non-informative flicker. Not the same as with a brain.

Claiming that there is no need to suggest such an entity is taking a philosophical stance. It is not a philosophical justification for taking that stance. Saying that you do not see the need to suggest Golliboggelotz exists does not convince someone who does see that need.

That's not what I'm claiming. We can assign probablities to different philosophical stances based on the available evidence. That does not provide definitive proof, no argument there. We do not add unecessary baggage onto explanations but prefer to be the most parsimonious that we can be.

Problems that only arise when you take a pragmatic deductive-nomological stance on philosophy, which is of course a very useful stance to take if you don't wish to worry too much about the hard problems philosophers have created for themselves. But it is a belief nonetheless.

Since your stance seems to be that you just can't tell the difference anyway (everything is possible in metaphysics), I'm not sure what the point of this last bit is.

[Darth Rotor]

Prior to creating humans were all of god's purposes fullfiled?
That is a question that has no answer by those temporally bound. It's an interesting point of departure for speculation, surely, but it requires, among other things, being able to ascertain all purposes, of God.

I don't see that as an available body of knowledge, as of now. Those who profess to know all of God's purposes have a slight credibility problem. ;) Maybe more than slight. :cool:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

A desire implies the lack of satisfaction. A lack of something is an imperfection.
Sure, I lack cancer, therefore I am imperfect. :p I suspect we have a non sequitur here. What do you think?

DR

[Beerina]

How about the Islamic God, Allah?

Maybe you refer to the "Abrahamic God" to be a bit more inclusive, and more precise?

I presume this is the same Yahweh who used to have a girlfriend named Ishtar before the rest of His pantheon was carved away by humans?

[idunno]

... so get some. If you're omnipotent, nothing is stopping you from fulfilling that particular want.

Why are you less perfect because you recognize that ice cream is a pleasure on a nice day?



Because perfect beings can have volition, too.

Why woudn't they?

Why is a desire a flaw?

because desire brings sorrow.
You may argue that perfect beings can have sorrow as well...:boxedin:

[drkitten]

Well, it's not my definition. It was originally Plato's, then the church's, then Descartes, etc. I'm not sure how to make sense of a non-unitary immaterial "substance", "thing", whatever. What would that mean?

Really? I don't have any problem with it at all. I suggest, for example, that the EM spectrum is a good analogy.

EM radiation is, in the strict sense, an "immaterial substance." Certainly many of the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science found it to be so, although they spent more of their time talking about "light" than about "EM radiation." The idea that there were lots of different kinds of EM radiation -- radio waves, X-rays, and so forth -- was novel and interesting, but hardly world-shattering.

And, in fact, the idea of the "soul" being somehow tied to the EM spectrum has quite a long history in the literature.

So is the EM spectrum "unitary"? Of course not. X-rays don't behave like light, which doesn't behave like radio. If it were, then X-ray photographs woudn't exist.

[drkitten]

because desire brings sorrow.


Unfulfilled desire, perhaps. I see no reason why fulfilled desires should bring sorrow. If I want ice cream, and I go get some ice cream, am I thereby saddened?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? I don't have any problem with it at all. I suggest, for example, that the EM spectrum is a good analogy.

EM radiation is, in the strict sense, an "immaterial substance." Certainly many of the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science found it to be so, although they spent more of their time talking about "light" than about "EM radiation." The idea that there were lots of different kinds of EM radiation -- radio waves, X-rays, and so forth -- was novel and interesting, but hardly world-shattering.

And, in fact, the idea of the "soul" being somehow tied to the EM spectrum has quite a long history in the literature.

So is the EM spectrum "unitary"? Of course not. X-rays don't behave like light, which doesn't behave like radio. If it were, then X-ray photographs woudn't exist.

But it isn't an immaterial substance. EM radiation consists of photons, which have the same material reality that those other things we call particles have, only in different forms. That people once thought EM radiation was immaterial is part of the problem discussing subjects like this -- because everyone has in their heads the image of "energy". A true, dualist, immaterial soul is something completely different.

We can interfere with the transmission of photons -- block them before they get to the receiver because they are not immaterial. How do we interfere with the soul before it gets to the brain?

[idunno]

Unfulfilled desire, perhaps. I see no reason why fulfilled desires should bring sorrow. If I want ice cream, and I go get some ice cream, am I thereby saddened?


only an omnipotent being can have all desires fullfilled,:boxedin:

[drkitten]

only an omnipotent being can have all desires fullfilled,:boxedin:

... and, since God is omnipotent (says so right on the label), He can have all his desires fulfilled. Which means that His desires do not bring sadness, and therefore could not be regarded as imperfections.

[drkitten]

But it isn't an immaterial substance.

Really? Pour me a quart of photons, then, and we'll talk.

EM radiation consists of photons, which have the same material reality that those other things we call particles have, only in different forms. That people once thought EM radiation was immaterial is part of the problem discussing subjects like this -- because everyone has in their heads the image of "energy". A true, dualist, immaterial soul is something completely different.

Yes, that's why it's an analogy. To the people, going back to Plato, who were trying to get a handle on what the concept "soul" meant, light was an excellent metaphor, precisely because it's so different from what is generally considered "material."

To put it another way, you claim that we no longer consider light to be non-material because we have a better understanding of light. I would argue exactly the reverse; we have a substantialy worse understanding of "material" or of "substance" than we did three hundred years ago, because the words don't seem to fit some of the phenomena at the edge of physics.



We can interfere with the transmission of photons -- block them before they get to the receiver because they are not immaterial. How do we interfere with the soul before it gets to the brain?

So, since we can't interfere with gravity, gravity is therefore "immaterial"? Fair enough. But in that case, let's look at the hypothesized properties of gravitons. I don't think any theory of physics suggests that all gravitons are identical -- which suggest that "gravitons" are non-unitary non-material "things."

[idunno]

... and, since God is omnipotent (says so right on the label), He can have all his desires fulfilled. Which means that His desires do not bring sadness, and therefore could not be regarded as imperfections.


you project your human desireson god. i simply cant imagine god being a being let alone one similar to us:D

[drkitten]

i simply cant imagine god

I know. I've remarked on that before. That's called "argument from incredulity" and it's a fallacy. It says more about your inability to imagine than it does about the thing you can't imagine.

[HypnoPsi]

That's a not a very convincing argument. I see no reason to accept premise 3 , 4,or 5, and every reason to reject them.


I see no reason to accept any of these premises. This seems to be an argument agains the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God.

Does a tree choose to grow and to look 'pretty' when it's in flower? For all we know "God" may very well be entirely ego-less and just a pure creative force as some Buddhists might suggest.

_
HypnoPsi

[Earthborn]

Well, it's not my definition. It was originally Plato's,That is not true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) Plato's concept of the soul was not unitary but ternary.

I don't know how a non-unitary immaterial "thing" could make any sense.Your problem obviously is that you assume metaphysical concepts need to 'make sense'.

But if the brain is the receiver of the soul, it must do it somehow.As soon as you start discussing 'mechanisms' for how it does what it does, you stop discussing metaphysics and you start considering physics.

The brain can't simply be a tuner or receiver. It also does things. It acts. How does it do that as a tuner? And how does it remember how to brush my teeth? TVs do not act in that fashion.

(snip)

We can stimulate neurons that generate memories, that produce movement, etc. We can't do that with a TV set.You are taking the analogy too far. Obviously there are differences between brains and televisions, just like there are differences between brains and computers or whatever you like to compare them to. But none of those differences can prove that there isn't some mysterious outside force acting on them, as a differently constructed receiver may also "do things" and "remember things".

Different metaphysical possibilities have differering degrees of evidence supporting or not supporting them.I don't think that is true. If there were pixies acting out television shows, they would not be metaphysical but rather physical beings inside your television and we estimate how probable it is that they exist.

That wasn't my point. The point was that we know what happens when we turn off the ion channels -- brain activity stops and the "mind" stops.We know that the mind stops having a method of communicating to the physical world that it exists. If it has a metaphysical component that does not necessarily mean it stops completely.

And we are able to model thinking that uses a similar paradigm in our computers -- the yes/no or 1/0 model that our brains use, although nervous tissue is much more complicted.That is not at all how the brain works.

When they are not metaboliclly active, the cells are still there. They should still be able to receive a signal, but they don't.Or maybe they do, and just can't communicate outward that they do. Taking the batteries out of a radio does not mean the radio signal disappears, it just means it cannot sound it out.

We can assign probablities to different philosophical stances based on the available evidence.Only if those philosophical stances have different empirical consequences. If two philosophical positions make the same predictions about what sort of evidence can be found, you cannot assign different probabilities to them.

We do not add unecessary baggage onto explanations but prefer to be the most parsimonious that we can be.Exactly my point. It is a preference.

I'm not sure what the point of this last bit is.My point is that the only difference between a materialist and a dualist view of the workings of the brain is your personal beliefs and philosophical preferences. If you see problems with one view, it is only because you can't make that view fit into your own.

[idunno]

I see no reason to accept any of these premises. This seems to be an argument agains the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God.

Does a tree choose to grow and to look 'pretty' when it's in flower? For all we know "God" may very well be entirely ego-less and just a pure creative force as some Buddhists might suggest.

_
HypnoPsi
gimme the Buddhists. But i dont ~buy the Karma theory.Looks too human. How much good Bill Gates must have done in previous lives to be so rich in this one...:eye-poppi

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is not true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) Plato's concept of the soul was not unitary but ternary.

I thought that was his concept of mind in The Republic, not soul. It's been a while since I read the The Republic, though. I stand corrected.

Your problem obviously is that you assume metaphysical concepts need to 'make sense'.

True, but it's usually a good place to start.:)

As soon as you start discussing 'mechanisms' for how it does what it does, you stop discussing metaphysics and you start considering physics.

Depends on what we mean. A pure materialist position is a metaphysical position that consists completely of physics, so the distinction cannot hold completely.

You are taking the analogy too far. Obviously there are differences between brains and televisions, just like there are differences between brains and computers or whatever you like to compare them to. But none of those differences can prove that there isn't some mysterious outside force acting on them, as a differently constructed receiver may also "do things" and "remember things".

Again, I'm not offering proof, only the likelier possibility based on the available evidence. Of course this assumes a metaphysical position to some degree and an epistemic position that I can and should trust what I experience as reality, but still.....

I don't think that is true. If there were pixies acting out television shows, they would not be metaphysical but rather physical beings inside your television and we estimate how probable it is that they exist.

But these pixies are not a material reality. They look just like the pictures in your TV screen and "live" in the 8th dimension. They just appear to us here like TV images.

We know that the mind stops having a method of communicating to the physical world that it exists. If it has a metaphysical component that does not necessarily mean it stops completely.

But there is no memory and no experience. We know what occurs with sleep and dreams -- we are not able to communicate with the outside world, but there is still experience and we experience the passage of time. When the brain is turned off there is no experience of the passage of time.

That is not at all how the brain works.

I am not arguing that the brain is a digital computer, but that otherwise inert material stuff can do the sort of thing that was thought impossible for otherwise inert material stuff to do -- but only by functioning, not by being present. Not by receiving. By acting.

Or maybe they do, and just can't communicate outward that they do. Taking the batteries out of a radio does not mean the radio signal disappears, it just means it cannot sound it out.

But the soul would not stop being in that situation. It should still hang around somewhere and experience the passage of time. If it didn't, then what is it? If it has no dimension, no materiality, and no experience how can it be said to exist in any way. If we stop the brain, does a person die?

Only if those philosophical stances have different empirical consequences. If two philosophical positions make the same predictions about what sort of evidence can be found, you cannot assign different probabilities to them.

What I am saying is that they have different empirical consequences. I don't see how an immaterial soul received by the brain could act the same as a mind created by brain chemistry. The other issues I've raised are those other consequences. How could stimulating nervous tissue produce anything coherent if it were merely a receiver?

Exactly my point. It is a preference.

Then we agree. But one preference has evidence to back it up and one does not. Again, I am not trying to prove the absolute impossibility of an immaterial soul, only its relative unlikelihood.

My point is that the only difference between a materialist and a dualist view of the workings of the brain is your personal beliefs and philosophical preferences. If you see problems with one view, it is only because you can't make that view fit into your own.

I don't know, I think I would probably state that more forcefully. It isn't just a difference in personal beliefs and preferences. One possibility makes more sense with the available data. It's like literature interpretation. While all views are potentially valid, some interpretations are better than others. I just don't buy the Huckleberry Finn was an alien implant theory.

[idunno]

> --I need none. it's your claim. And in your case, it doesn't follow.

That is something you would have to establish. You try by challenging
how I define "perfect" here, but as demonstrated below you fail in every
way possible.


> Words have meanings. I suggest you learn and use them.

Let's see... you're snidely suggesting that I learn how to use "words"
and their meaning, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to you to look
up the term in the context that it is being used (despite my
specifically bringing it up): Christian theology. ONLY the meaning of
"perfect" that Christian theologians use when they apply the term to
their god is relevant here because the argument is about a contradiction
between their description of their god as perfect and their attributing
various acts to their god. Other meanings of "perfect" aren't relevant
and an absence of a contradiction between those meanings of "perfect"
and acts attributed to the Christian god cannot qualify as a challenge
to the argument - that's committing the fallacy of equivocation. This
means that copying & pasting a list of definitions from a dictionary not
only fails to challenge the argument, it misses the point of the
argument completely.

You claim that perfection is not defined as lacking needs or wants, but
you demonstrate no knowledge of the various way sin which the concept is
defined. You demonstrate no knowledge that in the field of ontology, for
example, that is precisely how it is defined. You demonstrate no
knowledge of theology where this is how the concept is normally used. In
Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes: "we call that perfect which lacks
nothing of the mode of its perfection." As part of his proof that there
is but one god, he writes: "If then many gods existed, they would
necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to
one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one
of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of
them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist."
In a letter to Pope Urban, he also wrote: "That the Father lacks
nothing, there is no doubt: and the same is true of the Son or the Holy
Spirit."

A serious and thoughtful challenge would have demonstrated an
understanding of all this. There should be no need to say twice that you
need to focus on the theological concept of God as "perfect" and there
is no good reason for you to have reached for a standard dictionary to
try to make an argument. If you had a theological case to make - that is
to say, if you could demonstrate that "perfect" means something else in
theology than how it is used in the argument, or that the standard
theological definition of "perfect" doesn't create the contradiction
described - then you would have a potentially legitimate objection to
the argument. You didn't, so I must conclude that you don't and,
therefore, don't have any good reasons for rejecting the argument as it
stands. The reason you offer - that "perfect" is not defined in the
manner specified - is simply false in context.
:eek:



--

[idunno]

Search for the thread "Proof of strong atheism". You'll get more than you care for. ;)

cant find that link.Is it in religion?:D

[RandFan]

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct? STOP RESPONDING TO IT!

If you keep making the same stupid rebuttals I'm going to keep pointing out why you are wrong.

[RandFan]

And since neither "wanting" nor "having" is an imperfection, it's gone from one state of perfection to another.Mr. Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle.

You keep making the same claim. I can only demonstrate why you are wrong. Wanting something implies not having something. If one were perfectly happy then one wouldn't want anything.

Now, if you don't want me to keep pointing out why you are wrong then stop making the very same claim over and over.

[RandFan]

{snipped}

[RandFan]

That is a question that has no answer by those temporally bound. It's an interesting point of departure for speculation, surely, but it requires, among other things, being able to ascertain all purposes, of God.

I don't see that as an available body of knowledge, as of now. Those who profess to know all of God's purposes have a slight credibility problem. ;) Maybe more than slight. :cool:

DRI think you are making this more difficult than it need be. If god created humans he either did it for a purpose or he didn't. Right?

[Marquis de Carabas]

You keep making the same claim. I can only demonstrate why you are wrong. Wanting something implies not having something. If one were perfectly happy then one wouldn't want anything.
At the very least, I imagine a perfectly happy being would want to continue being perfectly happy.

[mijopaalmc]

cant find that link.Is it in religion?:D

Here you go: Proof of Strong Atheism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64463)

Enjoy :)

[porch]

Okay, 1) God is perfect, and 2) God created the universe deliberately. If these are premises regarding the same God I'm thinking of, then we should also bear in mind some further premises: A) God exists outside of the universe (including time), yet also within it. B) Us puny mortals can't even begin to fathom the full scope of His greatness. Remember Raider's of the Lost Ark? To gaze directly upon His true nature melts your freakin' face off.

God made the rules that bind us. That doesn't mean that these rules bind Him. You think you can trip Him up with some rinky-dink logic puzzles?! "Like, OMG, could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?" At this point I'd like to remind you all that to even try to give too detailed a description of The Almighty with our imperfect words is a great conceit, and approaching blasphemy. So, uh, watch your backs.

[RandFan]

At the very least, I imagine a perfectly happy being would want to continue being perfectly happy.There's no question that we can find lot's of fun with such concepts given the limits of our language and the inherent problems of such absolutes.

Why would a god "want" to continue being perfectly happy? Would he not know that he is perfectly happy and being perfectly happy could never not be perfectly happy? "Want" implies the possibility that there could be a state in which god would not be happy thus causing him to "want" to always be happy. If you knew that you were immortal would you concern yourself with living? Would you worry about dying? Wouldn't your wanting to contue living be a trivial fact that would obviate want?

Yes. Of course it would.

[RandFan]

Okay, 1) God is perfect, and 2) God created the universe deliberately. Why would a perfect being deliberately creat the universe?

Why create the universe now? Keeb in mind that god, if he or she exists has existed forever. There was no begining for god. So, here you've got this being that has existed perpetually, think back a billion years, now a billion times that and even a billion times that, a speck of time for god. So here he is, having always existed and always knowing that he would create a universe at precisely, when?

If these are premises regarding the same God I'm thinking of, then we should also bear in mind some further premises: A) God exists outside of the universe (including time)... Time IS change. A thought cannot exist without change. Change cannot exist without time. You are creating square circles and calling it god.


At this point I'd like to remind you all that to even try to give too detailed a description of The Almighty with our imperfect words is a great conceit, and approaching blasphemy. So, uh, watch your backs.So, stop thinking, shut up, and pray...

No thanks. If there is a god, and that is extremly unlikely there are a few premises that you need to consider.

God gave me a brain. I'm going to use it. If I was, in fact, designed by a supreme being I wasn't designed to ignore the universe and not ask hard questions. If god wanted compliant children perhaps he shouldn't have given us a brain and free will. He should have just made us permanant children.
A just god wouldn't be such an egotistical fool as to demand supplication. That's for the kings that existed at the time when a formalized concept of "god" came into being. Humans have moved on and many of us have stopped kissing the hind quarters of tyrants. Perhaps it's time to come up with a more enligtened deity.

[Marquis de Carabas]

There's no question that we can find lot's of fun with such concepts given the limits of our language and the inherent problems of such absolutes.

Why would a god "want" to continue being perfectly happy? Would he not know that he is perfectly happy and being perfectly happy could never not be perfectly happy? "Want" implies the possibility that there could be a state in which god would not be happy thus causing him to "want" to always be happy. If you knew that you were immortal would you concern yourself with living? Would you worry about dying? Wouldn't your wanting to contue living be a trivial fact that would obviate want?
Hour late. Mind foggy. I'm pretty sure I followed that, but to be certain, I'll ask you kindly to clarify. Are you saying that a being which was perfectly happy could never--in any conceivable circumstances--become less than perfectly happy?

[Aussie Thinker]

DrKitten,

I’ll admit from the start I am a bit tentative about posting this as you argue very well and will probably give me short shrift (I also generally agree with you on most things).

In this instance you are following a completely illogical line.

Idunno and randfan are spot on.

ANY logical definition of perfection would imply no needs or wants and in fact no CHANGE at all required.

You completely hedge around the topic by implying a state of perfection could include having needs. I don’t think you have really thought hard enough about that. Having a desire would mean something is unfulfilled and therefore CANNOT have been perfect in the first place.

Its all a matter of our take on what perfection is I will admit.. but the way more logical version implies NO needs etc !

[RandFan]

Hour late. Mind foggy. I'm pretty sure I followed that, but to be certain, I'll ask you kindly to clarify. Are you saying that a being which was perfectly happy could never--in any conceivable circumstances--become less than perfectly happy?No, I'm saying that a perfect being could not everd, in any conceivable circimstance, become less than perfectly happy.

Assuming of course that happiness is an attribute of perfection. In all honesty, perfection is a silly concept that is logically untenable. However, once we decide that happiness is part of perfection then a perfect being would, by definition, have to always be perfectly happy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, I'm saying that a perfect being could not everd, in any conceivable circimstance, become less than perfectly happy.

Assuming of course that happiness is an attribute of perfection. In all honesty, perfection is a silly concept that is logically untenable. However, once we decide that happiness is part of perfection then a perfect being would, by definition, have to always be perfectly happy.
Is this because circumstances which might make them unhappy could not possibly occur, or because they would always respond perfectly to such circumstances in such a way to maintain their happiness?

[RandFan]

Is this because circumstances which might make them unhappy could not possibly occur, or because they would always respond perfectly to such circumstances in such a way to maintain their happiness?Because it is a ridiculous concept.

Perfect != Not Perfect

I have no idea how the person who creates the concept or perceives the concept overcomes or explains all of the problems inherent in such a ridiculous absolute.

I only know that once you construct this abstract concept of a perfect being you have set certain parameters that cannot be violated because to do so would render your concept imperfect. Now, I suppose that you could argue that happiness is not an attribute of perfection. Who knows? What the hell is perfect anyway? I don't know. I don't know where one goes to find which human attributes like happiness or euphoria a perfect being would possess. Apparently the state of Nirvana precludes lust and craving. In Eastern Philosophy want is clearly a no no.

So, until we discover a law of physics that spells out precisely what it means to be a perfect being I have simply no idea. I only know what a perfect being can't have if the concept of perfect is to be consistent. Want is not consistent with perfection.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Because it is a ridiculous concept.

Perfect != Not Perfect

I have no idea how the person who creates the concept or perceives the concept overcomes or explains all of the problems inherent in such a ridiculous absolute.

I only know that once you construct this abstract concept of a perfect being you have set certain parameters that cannot be violated because to do so would render your concept imperfect. Now, I suppose that you could argue that happiness is not an attribute of perfection. Who knows? What the hell is perfect anyway? I don't know. I don't know where one goes to find which human attributes like happiness or euphoria a perfect being would possess. Apparently the state of Nirvana precludes lust and craving. In Eastern Philosophy want is clearly a no no.
The God of which we speak is not Eastern philosophy. Why should the concept be beholden to its ideals?

So, until we discover a law of physics that spells out precisely what it means to be a perfect being I have simply no idea. I only know what a perfect being can't have if the concept of perfect is to be consistent. Want is not consistent with perfection.
So you keep saying.

The following are three of the first four definitions of perfect from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect). They seemed to me to be the most relevant. I do not believe that any of them preclude desire. Feel free to browse the others or find another definition if you feel I have omitted one that is applicable.

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
In this case, the type in question is being. By this definition, a perfect being is one in which all characteristics of beingness are realized to their full potential. I do not see how this precludes desire.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
This one may come a little closer to denying desire, but I don't think it quite makes it. Here, by perfect being, we would mean one that could not be improved. This only precludes desire if we presume that all desire must be a desire for improvement.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime
This is the one I imagine most people have had on their minds in this discussion. Only if you take desire to be a flaw, defect, or shortcoming does this disallow want. As noted, this is certainly the case in Eastern philosphies, but I see no reason to accept it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So a perfect being can't know the pleasure of losing something and then finding it? Or the bittersweet emotional pleasure you get from reading a sad novel or watching a sad movie?

I know, these are human emotions, but so are "happy" and "content" even when they're appended to "perfectly".

Still, I'm an atheist. I find more compelling arguments against omniscience. If there is an omniscient god, then future events are predetermined. If they're not predetermined, then they're not known.

Even if this limitless being can keep an eye on every quantum sparrow, I can't buy that the future is predetermined. Also, if so, it makes a difficult case for the other stuff that usually goes along with deism (but, I admit, are not part and parcel) such as morality, reward and punishment, prayer, salvation, the existence of ghastly suffering and tragedy, etc.

[RandFan]

The God of which we speak is not Eastern philosophy. Why should the concept be beholden to its ideals? I never said it should. You are missing the point.

What is perfection? What is the objective criteria that we use to determine whether Eastern philosophy is right or not? The concept of perfection is at best, AT BEST, controversial. There are some very good arguments in favor of Eastern philosophy.

So why even try to figure out what constitutes perfection in the first place? It seems to me that you are saying, here, let's define perfection in this way and see if our ideas are consistent with that definition.

I'm sorry but that is just silly. It really is.

The following are three of the first four definitions of perfect from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect). They seemed to me to be the most relevant. Relevant to what? Your preconcived notion about perfection?

A definition is not a pysical law that governs the universe. Words are used to convey meaning. They help us communicate not dictate physical laws or logical abstract reasoning.

I do not believe that any of them preclude desire. Feel free to browse the others or find another definition if you feel I have omitted one that is applicable. I think I could make an argument from one of yours but I've already posted another that I prefer.

Perfection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection)

1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.

#2 If god wanted ice cream then it implies that god would some how be "better" if he had the ice cream.

When I eat Ice Cream, I often experience pleasure, well being and enjoyment. A state that is better than the state before.

How can god attain a "better" state if god is perfect?

Of course, this assumes much that we don't know. It's a ridiculous concept fraught with many vagaries.

[Beleth]

Easy enough dealt with. Here's an objective analogy.

I am, I claim, a "perfect" tic-tac-toe player. Depending upon where you grew up, you may know the game as noughts-and-crosses or any of several other names. Basically, we both place X's and O's in succession on a 3x3 grid, and the first one to get three in a row wins. I claim to be a perfect player because I never lose, and I can always win if you make a mistake permitting it. (We'll ignore fatigue and error here for the moment.)
So the definition of "perfect" tic-tac-toe, in its entirety, is "get three in a row first, or failing that, do not permit your opponent to get three in a row."

That's it.

Does that mean that every game I play is identical? Of course not. The game is multiway symmetric, so I can, for example, win by starting out in any of the four corners.
That's because the internal process of the game is irrelevant. As long as the criteria for a perfect game is met, that's all that matters.

What I'm saying is that we do not have an objective definition of what a "perfect being" is, and until we do, it's jumping the gun to use a definition to rationalize God out of, or into, existence.

[drkitten]

So the definition of "perfect" tic-tac-toe, in its entirety, is "get three in a row first, or failing that, do not permit your opponent to get three in a row."

That's it.

More or less, yes.



What I'm saying is that we do not have an objective definition of what a "perfect being" is, and until we do, it's jumping the gun to use a definition to rationalize God out of, or into, existence.

Which is also more or less what I'm saying. Since "perfect" does not mean "without desire," it is at best a mistake and at worst downright stupid to claim (as RandFan does) that a perfect being must be without desire. You might as well claim that "perfection entails being made of chocolate" and infer from that that God melts in the hot sun.

RandFan simply has no basis, in logic or in language, for asserting, as he does, that

If god wanted ice cream then it implies that god would some how be "better" if he had the ice cream.

[slingblade]

I'm wondering if a thing can be perfect and have a consciousness? Does having a consciousness mean having a sense of self? If one has a sense of self, does that mean having a sense of what is self and not-self? What is the purpose of a sense of self? To recognize and provide for one's needs? If one has a sense of self because it is necessary to ensure provenance of one's needs, then one has needs and therefore cannot be perfect.

But then, I know we're still trying to decide what perfect is. :D I don't know if we can without playing an endless meta game.

What's perfect? Something without flaw.
What's a flaw? Something that renders a thing less than perfect.

Well, great. Now we're chasing our metaphoric tails.
A flaw can be the lack of something. But a flaw can also be the addition of something, or the existence of something not needed. A superfluity. So, something that's perfect not only needs or lacks nothing, but also has nothing superfluous. It is whole and entire.

Oooh. So either God was lacking something when he made us, which means he wasn't perfect at creation, but was after. Or else he made us without needing us, so he's not perfect now, but was before.

Is that a false dichotomy, or does that work? And does it mean that, regardless, our existence renders God imperfect?

[slingblade]

Oooh, and if it's not perfect, can it be a god? If it exists, I mean, of course. Hypothetically speaking. And if it's not a God, maybe it's just a big bully who can do a few more things than we can and wants us to think it's a God.

Why, yes, I do like science fiction. Why do you ask?

[drkitten]

I'm wondering if a thing can be perfect and have a consciousness?

Sure. Why the hell not?

Given that you can't define "perfect," I see no reason why you can't attribute another undefinable entity to it.

Now, what I wonder is whether or not it's possible for a frilnap to be both blorgatious and eplifarvian at the same time. In Wisconsin. Legally, of course.

And I'm sure that some people on this thread will be happy to answer that question, despite the fact that they have no idea what any of the content words actually mean.




What's perfect? Something without flaw.
What's a flaw? Something that renders a thing less than perfect.

Well, great. Now we're chasing our metaphoric tails.
A flaw can be the lack of something. But a flaw can also be the addition of something, or the existence of something not needed. A superfluity. So, something that's perfect not only needs or lacks nothing, but also has nothing superfluous. It is whole and entire.

Oooh. So either God was lacking something when he made us, which means he wasn't perfect at creation, but was after. Or else he made us without needing us, so he's not perfect now, but was before.

Is that a false dichotomy, or does that work?

Neither. It's simply wrong. It assumes that something can't change and still be perfect.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. As I pointed out upthread, I can play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe. It starts out perfect, it continues to be perfect, and it remains perfect until the point at which the game ends.

Was the game less perfect before I made my second move? Did my making the third move suddenly render the game imperfect? Or is the perfection inherent in the unfolding from one perfect state to another?

[slingblade]

Sure. Why the hell not?

I'm asking. And then I provide a line of thought for examination.

Given that you can't defined "perfect," I see no reason why you can't attribute another undefinable entity to it.

I....guess. So we can't discuss it? Just dismiss it with a dash of snark?

Okay. :(

[drkitten]

I....guess. So we can't discuss it? Just dismiss it with a dash of snark?

Oh, was that only a dash? I'm sorry. I guess I need to make a run to the store and replenish my supply. That was intended to be a full-court-press dessert spoon, at least.

Sure, we can discuss it. It's simply that there's very little there to discuss. The question of what "perfect" means has been the central issue more or less since the OP, without resolution.

I guess I'm not clear on what effect you think surrounding "perfect" with other undefinable terms will have on the "discussion."

[joobz]

I think the reasoning isn't convincing either.

Someone of faith could always say that if god wants, the wanting is the perfect state. If god hates, then hating is the perfect state. If god goes bowling....

Simply the fact that god is god makes him perfect.

---
ps. I don't agree with this, but this just highlights the trouble with the perfect claim.

I'd rather stick with the argument that Randfan has used many times before: God likes to kill children, therefore god is amoral contradicting all other claims of god.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd rather stick with the argument that Randfan has used many times before: God likes to kill children, therefore god is amoral contradicting all other claims of god.

Immoral.

Remember who planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil!

[Beleth]

More or less, yes.
What did I miss, or unnecessarily include?

I hate harping on this but I can't proceed until we agree exactly on what a perfect game of tic-tac-toe entails.

As I pointed out upthread, I can play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe. It starts out perfect, it continues to be perfect, and it remains perfect until the point at which the game ends.

Was the game less perfect before I made my second move? Did my making the third move suddenly render the game imperfect? Or is the perfection inherent in the unfolding from one perfect state to another?
If my definition of a perfect game of tic-tac-toe is correct, then the game's perfection is undetermined while it is being played. Otherwise you run into all sorts of paradoxes -- is a game that "was perfect" up until its fifth move, which turned out to be a huge blunder and allowed the opponent to win on the sixth move, truly perfect before the fifth move? Is a perfect game in progress equally perfect to a finished perfect game? And so on.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I never said it should. You are missing the point.

What is perfection? What is the objective criteria that we use to determine whether Eastern philosophy is right or not? The concept of perfection is at best, AT BEST, controversial. There are some very good arguments in favor of Eastern philosophy.

So why even try to figure out what constitutes perfection in the first place? It seems to me that you are saying, here, let's define perfection in this way and see if our ideas are consistent with that definition.

I'm sorry but that is just silly. It really is.
Of course it's silly. We're two guys arguing aout the perfection of a being we don't believe in. Kinda fun, though.

Relevant to what? Your preconcived notion about perfection?

A definition is not a pysical law that governs the universe. Words are used to convey meaning. They help us communicate not dictate physical laws or logical abstract reasoning.
Right, but if we're going to have a useful discussion about anything, we should have an idea of what we mean by a word we use. I personally do not care which definition of perfect we're using, as I see none that preclude desire...

Including the one you gave. All you are saying is that any desire is a desire for improvement, an idea I already said I disagree with. Why does God wanting an ice cream mean that God would be better with an ice cream? The only way this is true is to accept the premise that a desire is in itself a flaw the satisfaction of which is improvement. Why should this be so?

[slingblade]

Oh, was that only a dash? I'm sorry. I guess I need to make a run to the store and replenish my supply. That was intended to be a full-court-press dessert spoon, at least.


Yes. Sometimes I need to be hit repeatedly in the head with a two-by-four before I learn the lesson of staying the hell away from the person swinging it.

I have now learned that lesson and am adding you to ignore.

[drkitten]

What did I miss, or unnecessarily include?

A perfect game of tic-tac-toe should be won if the position is winnable. If I'm given a winning position and manage only to eke out a draw, then it's not perfect.


If my definition of a perfect game of tic-tac-toe is correct, then the game's perfection is undetermined while it is being played. Otherwise you run into all sorts of paradoxes -- is a game that "was perfect" up until its fifth move, which turned out to be a huge blunder and allowed the opponent to win on the sixth move, truly perfect before the fifth move?

That's not a paradox. That simply doesn't happen with skilled (or "perfect") players; we know enough about the game to be able to identify the implications of each move as it happen. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of a "perfect" player -- in any situation, a perfect player will play an optimal move. In the case of tic-tac-toe, "optimal" is objectively verifiable.

Even in a much more complicated game (such as chess), skilled players can identify good and bad moves while the game is still in progress.

Is a perfect game in progress equally perfect to a finished perfect game? And so on.

Yes.

[Belz...]

Why? I see no reason why "desire" is incompatible with "perfection."

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything ? If you don't have that for which you have a need, how are you perfect ?

[joobz]

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything ? If you don't have that for which you have a need, how are you perfect ?
Can you not be in a perfect state of wanting?

[drkitten]

By definition, if you're perfect, why would you have NEED for anything?

You keep using that "by definition" phrase.

Show me the definition of perfect that includes "without need" and we'll talk.

Or else unpack your argument.

[Belz...]

Can you walk me through how being perfect and having volition are mutually exclusive? There is no reason a perfect being would not have volition.

Yes, there is. Any need shows that something's lacking. By definition, a perfect beign has no need. If it has no need, there is no reason to do anything, including creating stuff for the hell of it.

... so get some. If you're omnipotent, nothing is stopping you from fulfilling that particular want.

Nothing's stopping you, but nothing making you either.

I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

Omnipotence is incompatible with perfection, omnipresence, omniscience, and even itself. It's an untenable concept.

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct?

Do you have an actual argument ?

[Belz...]

Quite the contrary. It's not only not obvious, but it's wrong.

I don't think you're using the same definition of "perfect" than RandFan or I.

[RandFan]

Of course it's silly. We're two guys arguing aout the perfection of a being we don't believe in. Kinda fun, though.I was thinking about that today. :)

Right, but if we're going to have a useful discussion about anything, we should have an idea of what we mean by a word we use. I personally do not care which definition of perfect we're using, as I see none that preclude desire... Yes, I agre that we should agree with what we are talking about. The problem is that it really is so damn hard to define. It's like trying to comprehend infity. We can't really do it because our minds are finite. Much is the same with perfection. We can only apply finite reasoning to an absolute that doesn't lend itself to such reasoning. I have to take exception. A perfect state that can be improved is not perfect.

Including the one you gave. All you are saying is that any desire is a desire for improvement, an idea I already said I disagree with. Why does God wanting an ice cream mean that God would be better with an ice cream? Why on earth would he want something that wouldn't imrpove his state? I can honestly say that I've never experienced this in my life. Do you want things that won't improve your state of being? Make you feel better?

The only way this is true is to accept the premise that a desire is in itself a flaw the satisfaction of which is improvement. No, the premise is that the state is improved. When I eat icecream it improves my state of being. I'm better. Happer. If that were not true I wouldn't eat the ice cream. You are for some reason confusing flaw with improvement. I don't think that follows. The definition doesn't mention flaw. You are simply assuming that.

2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better

So, if god is improved in any way by eating ice cream then that would negate his state being so goo that nothing could make it better.

[RandFan]

Since "perfect" does not mean "without desire,"On the contrary. It means, in part, exactly that.

Desire implies that one's state could be improved.

2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better

...it is at best a mistake and at worst downright stupid to claim (as RandFan does) that a perfect being must be without desire.
Ad hominem.

You might as well claim that "perfection entails being made of chocolate" and infer from that that God melts in the hot sun. Poor analogy. When I eat ice cream it improves my state.

RandFan simply has no basis, in logic or in language, for asserting, as he does, thatNot true at all. I've given the logic again and again. All you can do is assert that it is wrong. That's poor form.

[RandFan]

Show me the definition of perfect that includes "without need" and we'll talk.I know you don't like repetition but if you refuse to acknowledge something.

2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better.

If nothing could be better then what exactly does it "need"? Need implies that a think or state could be better. Otherwise it wouldn't need it.

Do you ever buy anything that you don't need or want?
Do you ever buy something that you don't think will better your state of being?

When I buy ice cream I do it because it makes me feel better (see definition).

[Belz...]

Can you not be in a perfect state of wanting?

Incoherent. Perfection implies that you cannot possibly want anything, because you already had it all.

[Belz...]

You keep using that "by definition" phrase.

I assume you know what it means.

Show me the definition of perfect that includes "without need" and we'll talk.

I think we agree that "perfect" means that it cannot, possibly, conceivably, get better. Any being that "needs" something doesn't HAVE that something. Having that something fills that needs. Having needs is, basically, a flaw, because it's something that you don't have, and therefore that would make you better. We're talking about PERFECTION, here.

[Belz...]

Why on earth would he want something that wouldn't imrpove his state? I can honestly say that I've never experienced this in my life. Do you want things that won't improve your state of being? Make you feel better?

In fact, some people have a condition that makes them want to get rid of one of their limbs. To them, such an ablation would be an improvement. So clearly, even in the worst cases needs are a search for a better state.

[joobz]

Incoherent. Perfection implies that you cannot possibly want anything, because you already had it all.
Why, becuase you assert as such? If it is a perfect state of wanting, the act of wanting is the ideal state.

[slingblade]

that's why I asked if having a consciousness could possibly rule out perfection. I thought it was a reasonable question. Anyone want to give an opinion on it?

[joobz]

that's why I asked if having a consciousness could possibly rule out perfection. I thought it was a reasonable question. Anyone want to give an opinion on it?
It is reasonable. I just don't know if an answer exists. Perhaps only a perfect form of consciousness could know this answer.:D


I do think that the notion of perfection and desire being mutually exclusive is not logical. the original explantion using the perfect peice of music clearly illustrated this.

[RandFan]

Why, becuase you assert as such? If it is a perfect state of wanting, the act of wanting is the ideal state.I could perfectly want my head to stop hurting but that doesn't mean anything.

If my state of being were perfect I wouldn't want my head to stop hurting.

If I was perfectly happy and perfectly satisfied why would I want anything?

I've asked this question a dozen times but no one will answer. Dr. Kitten will call me stupid though and accuse me of arguing ad nauseam but he won't answer the question.

Joobz, if you were perfectly happy and perfectly satisfied would you want anything and why?

[RandFan]

I do think that the notion of perfection and desire being mutually exclusive is not logical. the original explantion using the perfect peice of music clearly illustrated this.At the height of orgasm I have never, ever wanted ice cream. I've wanted it after because the orgasm was gone but never during.

Isn't perfection an eternal orgasm?

I think the notion of perfection is a silly absolute and beyond us to really sit and deduce what it is or isn't. I'm sure though that as soon as you define what it is or isn't you've set perfection up to meet the wishes and wants of humans with needs and desires. Using music which cannot ever be perfect except in an abstract way solves nothing. There is no law of physics or any such standard to judge such a perfection.

[joobz]

Joobz, if you were perfectly happy and perfectly satisfied would you want anything and why?
Hi, Randfan.
I know where you are coming from. But I do not know why you couldn't want to have a desire? there is pleasure in wanting, in titilation. It adds to the enjoyment.

We can't even get consensus here on what perfection is and this goes back to my original point. To the faithful, god is perfection in what he does. So, anything that seems a contridiction to this is merely our failing to understand because of our imprefections and not god's fault.

So, again, I do not think that this line of logic is effective in anything.

[slingblade]

It's a bit out of my depth, but maybe I can learn something.



A state of perfect longing is made imperfect by gaining what it wants.

A state of perfect satisfaction is made imperfect either by addition of a superfluity, or by a loss of an existing facet.

A state of perfect experience....seems to be always subjective and dependent on the subject or recipient, such as the perfect piece of music.

What other kinds might there be?

EDIT: Never mind. I see while I was thinking about it, a better answer may have presented. Point against a perfect god: perfection is impossible to maintain in an entropic universe.

[joobz]

At the height of orgasm I have never, ever wanted ice cream. I've wanted it after because the orgasm was gone but never during.

Isn't perfection an eternal orgasm?
Back in college, we had a sign above our door based on that exact line of reasoning:
"god is eternally cuming"

I think the notion of perfection is a silly absolute and beyond us to really sit and deduce what it is or isn't.Fully agree. which is why i think placing stipluations on a perfect being is a silly game.

although, hasn't stopped me from participating. Mainly me just highlighting my imprefections.

[joobz]

EDIT: Never mind. I see while I was thinking about it, a better answer may have presented. Point against a perfect god: perfection is impossible to maintain in an entropic universe.
god as a perfect crystal? :) why is god limited by physics?

[slingblade]

god as a perfect crystal? :) why is god limited by physics?

I....don't know. I'm new at thinking like this, so I apologize for my errors. Post kittens and gentle me along. ;)

Not that a perfect god is impossible to attain, but to maintain. Given my limited time perspective I can only speculate, but how long does or can today's perfect crystal stay perfect? What made me think of that was RF's perfection/orgasm post. You can attain that, but I've yet to meet anyone who could maintain it. Does that hold true for anything in a changing universe? Can god stay perfect in a universe that changes?

Ha. I find I'm a bit lost. Am I needlessly restating the argument if I ask: What are we? The thing that made God perfect, or the thing that flawed him, or some other?

[joobz]

I....don't know. I'm new at thinking like this, so I apologize for my errors.
Don't apologize. I find this area of reasoning to be tenuous and out of my area of skill. I was just enjoying the notion of god as a perfect crystal, since that is the state where entropy and temperature=0. God as the third law of thermo. I defer more to others here who are better apt to answer your questions intelligently.

[RandFan]

Hi, Randfan.
I know where you are coming from. But I do not know why you couldn't want to have a desire? there is pleasure in wanting, in titilation. It adds to the enjoyment.If you are perfect then you already have the enjoyment. You allredy have the desire. If you didn't have the desire you would not be perfect.

We can't even get consensus here on what perfection is and this goes back to my original point. To the faithful, god is perfection in what he does. So, anything that seems a contridiction to this is merely our failing to understand because of our imprefections and not god's fault.Forgive me but I've always found this a cop out. If doctrine declared that god is a square circle then it would simply be our problem for not being able to comprehend how something could be square and a circle at the same time (see Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking Glass). Once you get to this point then logic and reason are meaningless.

So, again, I do not think that this line of logic is effective in anything.Well of course not. No line of logic is. No line of reason is. This is the great take your ball and go home argument. It's absolutely meaningless. At this point god is Satan, tiny Tim and the Pillsbury dough boy all rolled up into one and who is to say different? Every thing is up for grabs and it all makes sense.

Actually that is the only value that it has. The argument devolves to any and everything and the believer is left clutching magical thinking to believe or accepting of reality.

I'm not here because I expect believers to be rational and capable of following a line of logic.

[RandFan]

Back in college, we had a sign above our door based on that exact line of reasoning:
"god is eternally cuming"

Fully agree. which is why i think placing stipluations on a perfect being is a silly game.

although, hasn't stopped me from participating. Mainly me just highlighting my imprefections.:) We agree.

[RandFan]

It's a bit out of my depth, but maybe I can learn something.



A state of perfect longing is made imperfect by gaining what it wants.

A state of perfect satisfaction is made imperfect either by addition of a superfluity, or by a loss of an existing facet.

A state of perfect experience....seems to be always subjective and dependent on the subject or recipient, such as the perfect piece of music.

What other kinds might there be?

EDIT: Never mind. I see while I was thinking about it, a better answer may have presented. Point against a perfect god: perfection is impossible to maintain in an entropic universe.Excellent points. No never mind about it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I was thinking about that today. :)
I typed a f:Dkoff long reply to this that not only would have convinced you that I was utterly and unquestionably correct, but contained the cure for cancer, the solution to peace in the middle east, and one damned fine chocolate chip cookie recipe to boot, but then I closed the wrong tab...

In short it was "believers are ****** weird, and I don't think any of them would buy the proof in the OP, which renders it pretty well useless, however we might like to define perfect [cure for cancer] [peace plan] [cookie recipe]".

Copout done. I'm going to bed.

Bring back Janeane.

[Belz...]

Why, becuase you assert as such? If it is a perfect state of wanting, the act of wanting is the ideal state.

I believe RandFan made it clear. But let me add this: if "perfect" can be used to mean anything you want, then can I also way "why, becuase you assert as such?" ?

I know where you are coming from. But I do not know why you couldn't want to have a desire? there is pleasure in wanting, in titilation. It adds to the enjoyment.

We're not talking about a being of utter pleasure: we're talking a being of perfection.

And slingblade's points, though interesting, are somewhat besides the point, methinks, because now we're throwing the word "perfect" around as a modifier to other nouns and adjectives rather than the subject at hand: a perfect beign.

Assuming the concept isn't completely nonsensical and incoherent, what do we mean by "perfect", exactly ? If we agree that it means "can't possibly get better", than it can't possibly need anything because it already has it.

[joobz]

I believe RandFan made it clear. But let me add this: if "perfect" can be used to mean anything you want, then can I also way "why, becuase you assert as such?" ?exactly. that's why the whole concept is pointless.



We're not talking about a being of utter pleasure: we're talking a being of perfection.But why do you see this as a being of utter pleasure? Wouldn't a perfect being also be perfectly happy?

Assuming the concept isn't completely nonsensical and incoherent, what do we mean by "perfect", exactly ? If we agree that it means "can't possibly get better", than it can't possibly need anything because it already has it.
I can't make that assumtion because it is completely nonsensical :o

[slingblade]

But why do you see this as a being of utter pleasure? Wouldn't a perfect being also be perfectly happy?

Unless it was a being of perfect misery.


I'm not willing to make the step that perfection implies happiness. Happiness would negate perfect misery, perfect anger, or any other perfect emotional negative.

I think.

[Belz...]

But why do you see this as a being of utter pleasure? Wouldn't a perfect being also be perfectly happy?

I'm not sure happiness = pleasure, but you could be right. Of course, that's assuming "perfect" also means "has every state". Of course, as Slingblade said, that means he's also perfectly unhappy, which is crazy.

I can't make that assumtion because it is completely nonsensical :o

Well, if perfection is nonsensical, a perfect god is impossible.

[The Grave]

That's a not a very convincing argument. I see no reason to accept premise 3 , 4,or 5, and every reason to reject them.

As you yourself admit, theists can find ample reason to reject #3 on the basis of Scripture. I reject it on a more simple basis. It just doesn't make sense.

Similarly, I see no reasons why "simple curiosity" would qualify as a "need or want." Basically, I have no reason to believe that any of premises 3, 4, or 5 are true.



They don't need to be. They merely need to be better than the argument -- and that bar has not been set high.


Every reason to reject them? Then state those reasons and open yourself to the world of criticism!

It is plain that if a THING is perfect it has all IT requires/needs/that which makes it whole...if not it tries to improve. Any desire is to be regarded as imperfection, simply because it negates perfection.

That was not a response, it was a side step...are you I wonder in politics?

If a THING was perfect, it's creation would be perfect, yet no!

The bible is not perfect...Gen 1-8 IT separated light from dark...This is impossible, so god can not do it , so god is not perfect, so there is no point following a LESS THAN PERFECT thing...is there?

Some one complimented D.K. for framing a response? What response?

Griff...

[The Grave]

Sure. Why the hell not?

Given that you can't define "perfect," I see no reason why you can't attribute another undefinable entity to it.

Now, what I wonder is whether or not it's possible for a frilnap to be both blorgatious and eplifarvian at the same time. In Wisconsin. Legally, of course.

And I'm sure that some people on this thread will be happy to answer that question, despite the fact that they have no idea what any of the content words actually mean.





Neither. It's simply wrong. It assumes that something can't change and still be perfect.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. As I pointed out up thread, I can play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe. It starts out perfect, it continues to be perfect, and it remains perfect until the point at which the game ends.

Was the game less perfect before I made my second move? Did my making the third move suddenly render the game imperfect? Or is the perfection inherent in the unfolding from one perfect state to another?


BARKING UP THE WRONG META-TREE!

I thought I'd left philosophy way behind in infancy, but it just keeps pooping up {I mean popping ****.

Do we lack a definition of perfect? I think not. Oh sorry, I think therefore I am. Or am not?:boggled:

Yes it's a puzzle...not.:rolleyes:

In your 'game' {which I don't know how to play, unless it's known by another name} if the 1st move is not perfect it cannot win the game? Is that it? Or if move 1 is perfect then 2 becomes a signatory of imperfection! So, logically move 1 wasn't perfect!:crowded:

Sorry wrong! Many battles have been won using luck and poor tactics...To win does not equate with a necessary level of perfection.

I love theists and philosophers alike...they claim there is something else out there, beyond..., a bit like star trek! Only that's real.:eye-poppi Something that we can not be aware of @~ yet they are! Wow, must be just us stupid people then! ~@

If a situation is perfect it, by definition, can't change to another perfect thing {there is none}. The perfect thing, once achieved, is perfect. The desire to change means that the first was judged imperfect, and a change was needed. To desire to be blonde when you are ginger implies there is fault with ginger.

I think you don't fully understand the concept of want/need/desire.

Griff...

[The Grave]

This dumb analysis of a silly game...yawn yawn...If there is a perfect game of tic toc tic toc then the first move (s) etc would all be the same and that makes it boring!

So ergo, if god is perfect IT is boring, and to try to be interesting is imperfection...

Can you have Perfect imperfection?
:boggled:

And can you have Imperfect perfection?

Gosh O'Reilly...

Griff...

[Belz...]

You're not being particularily coherent, Polaris.

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't perfection an eternal orgasm?

No, death is eternal orgasm, which follows from the French word for orgasm, 'le petit mort' or "little death." :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I think you are making this more difficult than it need be. If god created humans he either did it for a purpose or he didn't. Right?
That seems rational to me, a human, though I do not know if God is bound by such constraints as dichotomy. For purposes of discussion, let us establish that as an axiom.

If God created humans for no reason, but simply as a part of His being, the way my body grows hair without me willing it to or not to, then we quite simply "are" and purpose is what we have tried to divine due to our own nature, which is part of the created item.

With purpose, what follows is another question: is the purpose discrete, or a continuum? Is it bounded by time, or unbounded by time?

DR

[Belz...]

No, death is eternal orgasm, which follows from the French word for orgasm, 'le petit mort' or "little death." :)

DR

The French word for orgasm is "orgasme", and "le petit mort" is grammatically incorrect, as "mort" is a feminine word.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, the premise is that the state is improved. When I eat icecream it improves my state of being. I'm better. Happer. If that were not true I wouldn't eat the ice cream. You are for some reason confusing flaw with improvement. I don't think that follows. The definition doesn't mention flaw. You are simply assuming that.
I see no way to avoid the assumption. You are saying that the satisfaction of a desire is an improvement and that perfection cannot improve. So an unsatisfied (or presatisfied) desire precludes perfection. That which precludes perfection is an imperfection by definition, and that is just a fancy word for flaw. No other conclusion is possible.

As to the perfection issue itself, we must remember that this whole thing started as a premise in a proposed proof of the impossibility of (a certain type of) God. Now, what good is the argument? If it's just a circle-jerk for non-believers, well, it is of little consequence. I have my reasons for nonbelief, and don't particularly need or want any others. It seems to me if the argument is to have any value whatsoever, it has to be effective in a debate with a theist. I do not believe it is, largely due to the premise under discussion.

A theist presented with this argument has (at least) three rebuttals of the third premise, of varying degrees of rationality.

My God is not constrained by logic. Even if what you say is true, and a perfect being cannot want, this does not apply to God. He can be perfect and flawed, create rocks so big he can't lift them yet still lift them, create squared circles, and make Claus and Steve kiss with tongue.

This guy's off the charts. No reason to continue discussion with him. Let's move on.

I accept your definition of perfect as one that applies to my God, but I disagree that it precludes desire. You define it as

Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better

The question is of what kind is God? Anything with multiple traits can of course be classified in multiple ways. We could say God is of the kind creators of universe(s), but since He is the only one of that kind, He would be perfect by definition. This is too narrow. I submit that the correct kind to place God within for the purpose of your definition is intelligent agent, that is a being possessing power of discernment and an ability to act.

In this case, God is the intelligent agent that no other intelligent agent can be better than (or, I might add, as good as). If God is an agent and actor, and desire is a precondition of conscious action, then the state of being the perfect agent cannot be a state which precludes desire. It would only mean that God's desires are better desires than any others', perfect desires, in fact.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear that your definition precludes improvement itself. It could be taken to mean that a perfect thing is always the best of its kind at any particular moment, but it is not necessarily so that its kind should include future instances of itself. In other words, there is no greater being than God now, five minutes ago there was no better being than God, but in those five minutes, God may have made himself better.

The third option open to the theist I won't expound on much. I merely would like to point out something AussieThinker said that is really quite important, but has been overlooked.


ANY logical definition of perfection would imply no needs or wants...

This is the crux of the matter. What AT says here must be true, or the premise fails. We can pick whatever definition of perfect we like, and we may very well be able to pick one that does preclude desire, but the theist is under no obligation to hold to our definition. If there exists a reasonable definition of perfect that allows for desire (and I believe there does exist at least one, as noted previously), then the premise does not work. The argument only shows that for some particular definition of perfect, a perfect being cannot exist. The theist is free to say Well, that's fine. It wasn't the God I believed in anyway.

[slingblade]

The third option open to the theist I won't expound on much. I merely would like to point out something AussieThinker said that is really quite important, but has been overlooked.


ANY logical definition of perfection would imply no needs or wants...

This is the crux of the matter. What AT says here must be true, or the premise fails.

I thought idunno, Belz and RF were all arguing just that? I can't see how it's been overlooked. And I agree with it; I've just been thinking of reasons why it can't work, is all. Perfection must entail wholeness: nothing is lacking, nothing is extra. Ever. If a god exists, it cannot be perfect.

[Darth Rotor]

The French word for orgasm is "orgasme", and "le petit mort" is grammatically incorrect, as "mort" is a feminine word.
I saw it both ways, le petite morte and le petit mort. So, "le petite morte" would be correct?

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

I thought idunno, Belz and RF were all arguing just that? I can't see how it's been overlooked. And I agree with it; I've just been thinking of reasons why it can't work, is all. Perfection must entail wholeness: nothing is lacking, nothing is extra. Ever. If a god exists, it cannot be perfect.
If Belz and idunno have been broader in their arguments, I apologize for overlooking it. RF, with whom I've been discussing so naturally on whose posts I have mostly focused, has been arguing from one particular definition of perfection. This is not enough, even if his definition precluded desire (which I don't feel it does, as explained).

Be that as it may, it is certainly not the case that every definition of perfect precludes desire. To throw out one (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect) that has not been discussed before:

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose

To channel my inner theist once more...

God is precisely the being necessary to create and maintain this universe. None could have done it better. In this sense, he is perfect.

[slingblade]

Okay, reading your last, I understand better now what you mean. Thanks!

[Earthborn]

So, "le petite morte" would be correct?No. "La" not "le"; "La petite mort".

[Darth Rotor]

No. "La" not "le"; "La petite mort".
Ah, got it, and here I was afraid I didn't understand French.

Oh, wait, I generally don't. :eye-poppi

DR

[Belz...]

Well, it is a complicated language. Much more fun than the other ones, though.

[Belz...]

I thought idunno, Belz and RF were all arguing just that? I can't see how it's been overlooked. And I agree with it; I've just been thinking of reasons why it can't work, is all. Perfection must entail wholeness: nothing is lacking, nothing is extra. Ever. If a god exists, it cannot be perfect.

I disagree. If God exists, he CAN be perfect. He just can't be perfect if WE exist.