God is

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

We posted at the same time, so you might have missed my post directly above your last post. If perfection necessarily implies existence, then you are assuming your conclusion in your first premise, making you (actually Anselm) a question beggar.


I've got a pretty vivid imagination. I am imagining a being greater than God right now. Let's call Him Super Joe.

What's so special about Super Joe? Anything Jesus can do, Super Joe can do 17% better.

• He can feed 17% more families on five loaves of bread and two fish (i.e. 5850 instead of a measly 5000).
• He can create a rock 17% bigger than any rock God can create, and then lift it.
• The wine that Super Joe makes from water is 17% higher quality.
• Super Joe is 17% stronger than a unicorn.
• The people He resurrects live 17% longer.
• When He saves you, you are 17% more saved, and
• When He damns you to Hell, you will suffer 17% worse.

Sigh you so don't get it. Look back at the concept of God we all agreed on, he is perfect, no greater can be conceived. It is illogical (and impossible) to attempt to conceive of anything greater. You can put it down on paper "I am greater then God!" but you are being illogical and contradicting the concept we all agree on.

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Re: God is

Now you are dropping all pretense at logic.

You will have to prove that God is the only possible perfect thing. You'll also have to tell me what definition of "perfect" you are using. I suspect you are playing fast and loose with shades of meaning (etymological fallacy), deliberately taking advantage of ambiguities in the language.

Utopia is defined as a perfect society in the dictionary. Your argument here is with the dictionary, not me.


Is a perfect God incapable of creating a perfect tree or billy-goat? Wouldn't that make God less than perfect if It only creates imperfect things?

Besides, you are using special pleading when you say that the ontological argument only applies to God.


I'm not buying it. Plato's forms are perfect by definition. They therefore exist by definition, according to your borrowed argument.

Well, this entire thread is based upon the false premise that one must use logic, regardless of how flawless the reasoning, to reach the unsaved mind.

So what is the next step? Are we to reach out with lovingkindness to try to turn the minds and hearts of those who have hardened themselves to the truths found in the AV1611?

2 Corinthians (AV1611)

1Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

--emphasis mine.

Our job is to preach the gospel. That doesn't mean argue the gospel, or debate the gospel, or try to make the gospel pretty so the twisted minds of those who refuse to believe it might like the idea!

Malachi 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

God curses those who will not hear. Let's not lower ourselves to reason and logic. God wants faith.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

We posted at the same time, so you might have missed my post directly above your last post. If perfection necessarily implies existence, then you are assuming your conclusion in your first premise, making you (actually Anselm) a question beggar.

On the other hand nothing greater then God can be conceived.

I've got a pretty vivid imagination. I am imagining a being greater than God right now. Let's call Him Super Joe.

What's so special about Super Joe? Anything Jesus can do, Super Joe can do 17% better.

• He can feed 17% more families on five loaves of bread and two fish (i.e. 5850 instead of a measly 5000).
• He can create a rock 17% bigger than any rock God can create, and then lift it.
• The wine that Super Joe makes from water is 17% higher quality.
• Super Joe is 17% stronger than a unicorn.
• The people He resurrects live 17% longer.
• When He saves you, you are 17% more saved, and
• When He damns you to Hell, you will suffer 17% worse.

[Captain James T. Kirk]

Re: God is

1) God is an Omniscient perfect being. Most peoples concept of God is that, even atheists. They just don't believe.

I'm an atheist, and I have no concept of a perfect god, even and especially the God as laid out in the Bible. A perfect god or perfect gods would have created a perfect universe. The universe isn't perfect, therefore there is no perfect deity.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

You don't know what the word perfect means? It means completely infallible, spotless etc. literally nothing better.

The problem with 'perfect items' is they will always be an item and "greater things" as anselm put it, can always be conceived. On the other hand nothing greater then God can be conceived.

This of course is a discussion that was ended 800 years ago in favour of God (naturally) so if you don't understand me, just go look for Anselm's answer to Gaunilo's Island analogy.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

I forgot to add: if perfection necessarily implies existence, then you are assuming your conclusion in your first premise. That's called begging the question, and it is another logical fallacy.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

I am dropping no logic at all, merely laughing at your lack of it! Of course people will use the adjective perfect, but in Philosophy we take words a lot more seriously. A perfect society simply can't exist if it is not somehow God. Rendering it useless as a counter explanation.

Maybe I'm stupid. I don't think I'm stupid, but stupidity isn't something that one can easily detect in oneself.

I might buy that something has to be perfect before we can consider it to be God. However, if you are going to claim that something has to be God before we can consider it to be perfect and that perfection necessarily implies existence, then I'm going to need for you to show me your work before I get it.

You say that you take words seriously, but it seems to me that you have simply redefined perfect to mean "exists and is God".

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

Now you are dropping all pretense at logic.

You will have to prove that God is the only possible perfect thing. You'll also have to tell me what definition of "perfect" you are using. I suspect you are playing fast and loose with shades of meaning (etymological fallacy), deliberately taking advantage of ambiguities in the language.

Utopia is defined as a perfect society in the dictionary. Your argument here is with the dictionary, not me.

I am dropping no logic at all, merely laughing at your lack of it! Of course people will use the adjective perfect, but in Philosophy we take words a lot more seriously. A perfect society simply can't exist if it is not somehow God. Rendering it useless as a counter explanation.

Is a perfect God incapable of creating a perfect tree or billy-goat? Wouldn't that make God less than perfect if It only creates imperfect things?

No, that wouldn't make logical sense, would it? God is perfect so whatever he "does" as you loosely put it, will be whatever a perfect thing does. Do not depart from logic.

Besides, you are using special pleading when you say that the ontological argument only applies to God.

Anselm himself successfully shut Gaunilo up while he was still alive over 800 years ago when he tried to pull what you are trying to pull .

I'm not buying it. Plato's forms are perfect by definition. They therefore exist by definition, according to your borrowed argument.

Okay you are seeming a little retarded as far as logic goes, I don't know how many times i've explained this, read up.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

A society is not God and therefore not perfect.

Now you are dropping all pretense at logic.

You will have to prove that God is the only possible perfect thing. You'll also have to tell me what definition of "perfect" you are using. I suspect you are playing fast and loose with shades of meaning (etymological fallacy), deliberately taking advantage of ambiguities in the language.

Utopia is defined as a perfect society in the dictionary. Your argument here is with the dictionary, not me.

Plato's theory of the forms falls under the same fallacy. How can something be a perfect anything if it is not God?

Is a perfect God incapable of creating a perfect tree or billy-goat? Wouldn't that make God less than perfect if It only creates imperfect things?

Besides, you are using special pleading when you say that the ontological argument only applies to God.

Existence is a predicate of perfection as if the perfect does not exist it isn't perfect.

I'm not buying it. Plato's forms are perfect by definition. They therefore exist by definition, according to your borrowed argument.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

You'll have to pardon me if I'm underwhelmed here. I can "prove" that lots of perfect things exist using the same argument.

1) Utopia is the most perfect society conceivable.
2) It is better to exist than it is to not exist.
3) A society that exists is better than one that does not exist. Existence is a predicate of perfection.
4) Utopia therefore exists rather than doesn't exist.

1) Plato imagined that there is a perfect version of everything.
2) It is better to exist than it is to not exist.
3) A thing that exists is better than one that does not exist. Existence is a predicate of perfection.
4) A perfect version of everything therefore exists rather than doesn't exist.

You can't prove that something exists without observation, which is what ontological arguments attempt to do.

Existence isn't a property of a thing. Existence has to do with whether a concept cooresponds to something that is real. Your second premise is not valid, and existence is not a predicate of perfection.

A society is not God and therefore not perfect.

Plato's theory of the forms falls under the same fallacy. How can something be a perfect anything if it is not God?

Existence is a predicate of perfection as if the perfect does not exist it isn't perfect.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

You'll have to pardon me if I'm underwhelmed here. I can "prove" that lots of perfect things exist using the same argument.

1) Utopia is the most perfect society conceivable.
2) It is better to exist than it is to not exist.
3) A society that exists is better than one that does not exist. Existence is a predicate of perfection.
4) Utopia therefore exists rather than doesn't exist.

1) Plato imagined that there is a perfect version of everything.
2) It is better to exist than it is to not exist.
3) A thing that exists is better than one that does not exist. Existence is a predicate of perfection.
4) A perfect version of everything therefore exists rather than doesn't exist.

You can't prove that something exists without observation, which is what ontological arguments attempt to do.

Existence isn't a property of a thing. Existence has to do with whether a concept cooresponds to something that is real. Your second premise is not valid, and existence is not a predicate of perfection.

[Unfalsifiable]

1) God is an Omniscient perfect being. Most peoples concept of God is that, even atheists. They just don't believe.
2) It is better to exist then it is to not exist
3) A perfect being therefore exists rather not existing. Existence is a predicate of perfection
4) God therefore exists rather then doesn't exist.

Thought I'd clear that up for all you people who don't believe. It is pretty illogical to not believe in God's existence.


Thanks.