[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

Unfalsifiable,

Do you or do you not agree that the Quofotan exists?

http://landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=155674&postcount=60

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

Unfalsifiable,

Do you or do you not agree that the Quofotan exists?

http://landoverbaptist.net/showpost....4&postcount=60

Bob L has now sunken in to insane angry atheist babblings which amount to insults and circular refutations, so I think we can assume he is done. Thank you Salvation Seeker for pointing that out.

However I am intrigued by your post Black Lion. As far as your reasoning was concerned it did not arrive at the conclusion of existence of this thing because the premises were completely disjointed, unlike the pure low of logic in the ontological argument. Remember, the ontological argument only works for the perfect, you can "think things in to existence", but the perfect is seemingly an 'exception' (although, not really as it is purely logical) as i'm sure you know?

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

However I am intrigued by your post Black Lion. As far as your reasoning was concerned it did not arrive at the conclusion of existence of this thing because the premises were completely disjointed, unlike the pure low of logic in the ontological argument. Remember, the ontological argument only works for the perfect, you can "think things in to existence", but the perfect is seemingly an 'exception' (although, not really as it is purely logical) as i'm sure you know?

Unfalsifiable,

The very first statement - "God is an Omniscient perfect being" - is a gross assertion to which you presented no evidence whatsoever. It is my very point that the whole of your ontological argument is disjointed. Not only is it disjointed, but you also fail to establish a subject (what is this "God" thing?) for which your argument is supposed to prove the existence of. Furthermore, your failure to state the meaning of “perfection”, within the context of your would-be argument, renders your entire statement vague and without substance.

Answer these following questions for me.

1.) What is “God”?

Please define what “God” is; Otherwise, you cannot formulate any type of coherent argument seeing as you currently have not so much as established the subject to which you are arguing in favor of.

2.) What is your definition of “perfection”?

The standard definition of perfection makes it an inherently subjective concept based on the preferences of the individual ego and has no objective reality to which everyone will agree to without argument. Therefore, it is important to your case to state the definition of perfection as expressed in your own logic.

This discussion cannot even begin to proceed until you establish the subject matter of your argumentum and define the attributes of perfection which appears to be the pivotal crux of your entire position.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

Unfalsifiable,

The very first statement - "God is an Omniscient perfect being" - is a gross assertion to which you presented no evidence whatsoever. It is my very point that the whole of your ontological argument is disjointed. Not only is it disjointed, but you also fail to establish a subject (what is this "God" thing?) for which your argument is supposed to prove the existence of. Furthermore, your failure to state the meaning of “perfection”, within the context of your would-be argument, renders your entire statement vague and without substance.

Answer these following questions for me.

1.) What is “God”?

Please define what “God” is; Otherwise, you cannot formulate any type of coherent argument seeing as you currently have not so much as established the subject to which you are arguing in favor of.

2.) What is your definition of “perfection”?

The standard definition of perfection makes it an inherently subjective concept based on the preferences of the individual ego and has no objective reality to which everyone will agree to without argument. Therefore, it is important to your case to state the definition of perfection as expressed in your own logic.

This discussion cannot even begin to proceed until you establish the subject matter of your argumentum and define the attributes of perfection which appears to be the pivotal crux of your entire position.

The concept of the perfect is known by almost everyone. There is nothing better then the perfect, flawless. I think that is all you really asked of me in that post.

I've made it clear in this thread that calling the perfect God is perhaps the only criticism, the Ontological Argument does prove that the perfect is the Christian God, rather it proves the perfect.

However if an atheist would pick up a KJV once in a while they might realise that it has to be the Christian God.

[Underpants Gnome]

Re: God is

Not really, no.

I was simply trying to tell you that a perfect being cannot be non-existant. A perfect being must exist for it to be perfect.
Thus, if God actually WAS non-existant, He would most surely be non-perfect.
Simple as that. But it still seems it went right over your little head.

Okay, so the argument if god didn’t exist god wouldn’t be perfect? That makes sense in a trivia pursuit kind of way. Still proves nothing about god existing when you get down to it.

And at the moment it is all too bad for you that God does very much exist.

But it doesn't have to be that way.. God doesn't have to be your enemy, He can be your friend instead.
And a better friend you will never find, Glory!
Please, will you not accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
For only He can save you from your sins and thus hell.

This discussion kind of reminds of the Underpants Gnomes episode from South Park. You guys are totally oblivious to the part of proving god existing in the first place.

You sure you don’t want to stick to saying (If I may paraphrase)“God exists because we Christians imagined him”?

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: God is

This discussion kind of reminds of the Underpants Gnomes episode from South Park. You guys are totally oblivious to the part of proving god existing in the first place.

You sure you don’t want to stick to saying (If I may paraphrase)“God exists because we Christians imagined him”?

So if God doesn't exist, how come we exist?
And don't say "big bang" and "evolution"..

The whole big bang idea rests on the insane notion that gigantic explosions can happen without a cause, and that all that there is, is created from them.

And evolution could only, at best, explain how life changes once it already exists. For without genes, no evolution could be possible.
Thus, evolution cannot account for the origin of life.
(Though, I'm only speaking as if I actually accepted your insane "science" as true here, cause genes sure don't really exist.)

So.. I'm waiting. If God didn't create us, what did?

[Underpants Gnome]

Re: God is

So.. I'm waiting. If God didn't create us, what did?

With no supernatural then obviously it was a natural event. I love this whole thinking from you theist "We have an event we don't understand,..er,..ah,.. and GOD EXISTS!" This more underpants gnome thinking, you keep on having that blind spot as to were is the evidence for god's existence.

Lets put this way, you have a watchmaker he is obviously going to need tools. If somebody points to some guy who has no tools, never had them, never will, then that guy an't the watchmaker. God's/ The gods' tools are magic. Well, there is no magic so they an't the creator.

[Captain James T. Kirk]

Re: God is

The concept of the perfect is known by almost everyone. There is nothing better then the perfect, flawless.

The concept of perfect is known by most people (I would never say everyone), but what's viewed of as perfect varies wildly. Is the perfect god one who sets the universe in motion then steps back or one who sets rules then tortures people who disobey? Is the perfect god one who allows children to be raped and murdered, or is it one who ensures that all lives are great lives? I personally think the perfect god is one who doesn't exist as I see no need for one in the universe.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

The concept of perfect is known by most people (I would never say everyone), but what's viewed of as perfect varies wildly. Is the perfect god one who sets the universe in motion then steps back or one who sets rules then tortures people who disobey? Is the perfect god one who allows children to be raped and murdered, or is it one who ensures that all lives are great lives? I personally think the perfect god is one who doesn't exist as I see no need for one in the universe.

Perfection as a pure concept has no ambiguity.

Also, although you are still unclear in your mind between the perfect in the ontological argument, and the step we take to the Christian God, i'll explain as if you do anyway. God is perfection and whatever he does with you universe has been the action of the perfection, there's no real inroad there for argument on your part, can you see why now?

[Deaner]

Re: God is

The concept of perfect is known by most people (I would never say everyone), but what's viewed of as perfect varies wildly. Is the perfect god one who sets the universe in motion then steps back or one who sets rules then tortures people who disobey? Is the perfect god one who allows children to be raped and murdered, or is it one who ensures that all lives are great lives? I personally think the perfect god is one who doesn't exist as I see no need for one in the universe.

I think the perfect God would be the one to come and kick your blaspheming teeth right out of your head you atheist weirdo. God doesn't allow people to be tortured, raped or murdered. He allows satan to do it. Now show some respect in this forum or we'll beam you into Quarantine.

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

The concept of the perfect is known by almost everyone. There is nothing better then the perfect, flawless. I think that is all you really asked of me in that post.

You do realize that your statement of perfection is a vague concept open to infinite interpretation, don't you? I will now give you an example of perfection defined, as opposed to the ambiguity you postulate.

I set out to carve a smooth, glossy, cubic square of pure ebony onyx, the dimensions of which are to be 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. I come to possess a block of raw ebony onyx with no impurities and carve out a cube in accordance with the dimensions I mentioned previously and I polish it so that it is glossy. I now have a smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. That onyx cube is a perfect manifestation of what I set out to manufacture. It is a perfect smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. There is no way I can improved upon it. It is flawless.

In the above example I demonstrated perfection as an objective truth that everyone will agree with. I defined perfection in tangibly quantifiable terms that are not merely a factor of my own subjective preferences.

However, in your ambigious statement flawlessness is in the eye of the beholder as you failed to define the parameters that determine the supposed perfection of this "God" thing. Your idea of perfection is nothing more than an abstraction of your own ego, your preferences, and your personal ideal best. Perfection without parameters is an ambigious concept that is unique to everyone. It has no objective standard to which everyone inherently agrees with. Your entire premise is based on a vague intangible concept with no objective reality, existing solely in the individual conceptions of everyone's independent egos.

This is why I need you to define your concept of perfect within the context of this discussion. If you are unable to do as such, so be it. But know that if you cannot give a concrete description of what it is that makes "God" perfect, the use of the word "perfect" is meaningless and hollow.

It is very rude to ignore a person's question, Unfalsifiable. Please answer my first question which was,

1.) What is “God”?

Please define what “God” is; Otherwise, you cannot formulate any type of coherent argument seeing as you currently have not so much as established the subject to which you are arguing in favor of.

[JennyD]

Re: God is

Perfection as a pure concept has no ambiguity.

Also, although you are still unclear in your mind between the perfect in the ontological argument, and the step we take to the Christian God, i'll explain as if you do anyway. God is perfection and whatever he does with you universe has been the action of the perfection, there's no real inroad there for argument on your part, can you see why now?

Sorry to step into this heated philosophical debate, but how can God be "perfection"?

Perfection is merely a concept. Are you stating that God is a concept? If so, then it is easy to say that God exists, because the concept exists. Likewise, the living dead exist, as I can conceive of them.

However, the Bible clearly indicates that God is an actual being, not a concept. Nothing you have stated thus far has given evidence that God, the actual being, exists.

That is why we True Christians(tm) rely upon the Bible and faith, not your silly philosophizing (commonly known as "mental M-ing").

Why do you hate Jesus so much that you set up these weak ontological arguments for Black Lion and the Underpants Gnome to knock down? Why do you ignore faith and Scripture and attempt to "justify" your belief in God through the devil's "logic"?

Are you studying philosophy at university (first year, I believe?) to try to "prove" that God exists as a being instead of merely a concept?

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

You do realize that your statement of perfection is a vague concept open to infinite interpretation, don't you? I will now give you an example of perfection defined, as opposed to the ambiguity you postulate.

I set out to carve a smooth, glossy, cubic square of pure ebony onyx, the dimensions of which are to be 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. I come to possess a block of raw ebony onyx with no impurities and carve out a cube in accordance with the dimensions I mentioned previously and I polish it so that it is glossy. I now have a smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. That onyx cube is a perfect manifestation of what I set out to manufacture. It is a perfect smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. There is no way I can improved upon it. It is flawless.

In the above example I demonstrated perfection as an objective truth that everyone will agree with. I defined perfection in tangibly quantifiable terms that are not merely a factor of my own subjective preferences.

However, in your ambigious statement flawlessness is in the eye of the beholder as you failed to define the parameters that determine the supposed perfection of this "God" thing. Your idea of perfection is nothing more than an abstraction of your own ego, your preferences, and your personal ideal best. Perfection without parameters is an ambigious concept that is unique to everyone. It has no objective standard to which everyone inherently agrees with. Your entire premise is based on a vague intangible concept with no objective reality, existing solely in the individual conceptions of everyone's independent egos.

This is why I need you to define your concept of perfect within the context of this discussion. If you are unable to do as such, so be it. But know that if you cannot give a concrete description of what it is that makes "God" perfect, the use of the word "perfect" is meaningless and hollow.

It is very rude to ignore a person's question, Unfalsifiable. Please answer my first question which was,

Gosh, how many times do I have to say this? Items which exist in space and time are not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" and they are not perfect. People confuse themselves (I'm repeating myself here) with the sloppy use of perfect as an adjective. Gaunilo tried this centuries a go and it didn't work then, and no surprise its not working for you.

As for the perfect? The concept of the perfect is that which nothing (no thing) greater can be conceived. We call this God.

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: God is

With no supernatural then obviously it was a natural event. I love this whole thinking from you theist "We have an event we don't understand,..er,..ah,.. and GOD EXISTS!" This more underpants gnome thinking, you keep on having that blind spot as to were is the evidence for god's existence.

Lets put this way, you have a watchmaker he is obviously going to need tools. If somebody points to some guy who has no tools, never had them, never will, then that guy an't the watchmaker. God's/ The gods' tools are magic. Well, there is no magic so they an't the creator.

God has tools Bob L, I am one of them. Let us witness a tool of God's in action; you mocked God by talking about Underpants Gnomes so I changed your' name to the false idol you raised. Are you happy now you made God do this?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: God is

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)

I am having a problem telling the difference here over who is the bigger idiot; you Unfalsifiable or Bob L with his stupid gnomes. God is not perfect because we can think of nothing greater, He is perfect because He says so and He promises to toss anyone into Hell who doesn't believe Him. Going by the Bible God backs that promise up with some pretty nasty actions.