Originally posted by bbarrIt is not a counter argument, I am calling what you said semantical garbage.
Bah, calling an argument a name doesn't suffice as a counter-argument. To say that God is perfect implies that he is perfect in all areas. If he weren't perfect in all areas, then he would have an imperfection, to have an imperfection is to not be perfect. Since moral excellence is an area in which it is possible to be imperfect, God must be morally perfe ...[text shortened]... cular definition and a question-begging argument. I guess this is something like a hat-trick.
God is perfect in all areas. Ok that is agreed. If he were less than perfect he would be imperfect. Agreed and not necessary to say since an imperfection is the opposite of perfection. Your conclusion is correct but the standard on which we judge (now Reaper or somebody will post that we shouldn't judge) can't be based on our limited understanding. I really don't understand what the problem is that you are having? I am going to use a concrete example from general chemistry to illustrate. In general chemistry you are taught that a nucleus contains only protons and neutrons, you are also taught that like charges repel so based on the limited understanding you have, the nucleus should blow itself to pieces. It is later on that you are taught about subatomic particles. Your limited understanding led to an error. Another chemistry example for you. You have already been taught that a nucleus contains only protons and nuetrons, then you are taught about beta decay where a nucleus spits out an electron. Your limited understanding (or knowledge) in this case again leads to an error. Do you see a problem created by an application of limited understanding (or knowledge)?
Saying perfection is the opposite of imperfection was NOT a definition of perfection. For you to even claim otherwise is a direct insult.
I didn't define God as a perfect being. I said we define God as perfect. Can you please explain where being is in my statement? I also did not
say God exists because we define him as perfect. Where did you get that idea? So far, you have taken everything I said and twisted it which in itself is a sign of sophistry. As a philosophy student you understand that a sophistic argument is really nothing more than hot air.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
1 edit
" ....... then it is possible that he could, for example, choose course A and then switch to course B at the last instant." Royalchicken.
Yes, at the last instant. You're trying to outwit us all and what's more important, you're trying to outwit God ...
I wish you lots of success, but I'm not buying that !!
IvanH.
This is from your post ealier:
Originally posted by Feivel
It is not a counter argument, I am calling what you said semantical garbage.
God is perfect in all areas. Ok that is agreed. If he were less than perfect he would be imperfect. Agreed and not necessary to say since an imperfection is the opposite of perfection. Your conclusion is correct but the standard on which we judge (now Reaper or somebody will pos ...[text shortened]... c argument is really nothing more than hot air.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
"Perfection is perfection...the opposite of imperfection. Now where are morals mentioned in that definition and I would like you to explain how that is the wrong definition of perfection."
So you did intend that as a definition, but probably not as a circular one.
Again, Feivel, calling an argument a name just doesn't cut it. Why don't you try to diagnose the error instead? I could call your claims obscurantist ramblings, or Tourette-like outbursts, but this wouldn't really get us anywhere, would it?
Are you telling me that you think it is justifiable to say "God is perfect" but not justifiable to say "God is a perfect being"?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo one's outwitting anyone. You have yet to present a logically viable position, or make a legitimate ttack on my reasoning. If god is not attackable or justifiable by reason, then I certainly wouldn't consider it worshipable.
" ....... then it is possible that he could, for example, choose course A and then switch to course B at the last instant." Royalchicken.
Yes, at the last instant. You're trying to outwit us all and what's more important, you're trying to outwit God ...
I wish you lots of success, but I'm not buying that !!
IvanH.
Originally posted by OmnislashI've read through most of this thread and there seems to be a lot of disagreement(big surprise there.) I don't think that the question can be answered without a question in return. What do you mean by "a God"? Do you speak in terms of Greek Mythology, where there were many, did each God exist; or perhaps in Christian Mythology (just kidding) Does a specific God from one of those many sects exist. Or does the question override all different religions?
Is there a God? Why?
Originally posted by bbarrI hate to get stuck on words; but, according to almost all dictionaries I can find, atheism is defined as the doctrine that there is NO diety. It is not based on the belief that since there is no compelling evidence it is not rational to believe in god.
This is a misconstrual of atheism, as Comrade Rwingett has pointed out in these threads innumerable times. The atheist does not make the claim "There is no God" but, rather, "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, and since there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of God (e.g., the existence of preventable suffering) it ...[text shortened]... counts as a metaphysical statement to the point where all statements are similarly metaphysical.
2 edits
Originally posted by Cheshire CatI'm glad you brought this up again. i've already replied to this comment of Bennett's (see quote in post above this), and would be interested in responses. basically i said what you just pointed out: some of the people we call atheists make the metaphysical claim that there is no God.
I hate to get stuck on words; but, according to almost all dictionaries I can find, atheism is defined as the doctrine that there is NO diety. It is not based on the belief that since there is no compelling evidence it is not rational to believe in god.
Ok, to make it easy, here's my original reply to Bennett, back on page 1:
'I think there ARE atheists who make the metaphysical claim 'there is no God' (what else would you call people who make this claim?). It is this kind of atheist my remarks were intended to apply to.
After all, Omnislash didn't ask 'do we have rational grounds for believing in God?'. He asked 'Is there a God?', which appears to be a question of metaphysics'.
1 edit
Originally posted by Cheshire Catas a good empiricist, i don't believe we do base any justifiable conclusions on anything else ultimately than experience and logical inferences from experience. as for reason, i'm talking about a priori truths such as 'triangles have three sides' there. there have been attempts to use reasoned argument to prove the existence of God, but all those proposed so far (by St Anselm, Descartes and many others) have all been shown to be flawed. i don't think we can have an experience that is indubitably an experience of God (it could always be the case that we inadvertently swallowed some magic mushies, for example). i believe the objects that reason operates on are properly those of experience, so it seems to follow that reason alone, or reason and experience together cannot lead to a certain knowledge of God, or even a justified claim that God exists.
Why do you think that justification cannot be based on reason and/or experience. What else do we base conclusions on?
Originally posted by dfm65A common term like 'atheism' serves to unite what are actually widely different views. I think it is a tactical mistake to boldly claim that there is no God, as the inevitable calls for justification will embroil one in relatively complex epistemological debates. Instead of advancing the positive thesis "There is no God", I think it better to advance the negative thesis "The theists provide no compelling evidence to support their claim". Both the positive and negative theses fall under the broad heading 'atheism' (check out the Catholic Church's definition of atheism for an interesting discussion of the differences).
I'm glad you brought this up again. i've already replied to this comment of Bennett's (see quote in post above this), and would be interested in responses. basically i said what you just pointed out: some of the people we call atheists make the metaphysical claim that there is no God.
Ok, to make it easy, here's my original reply to Bennett, back on pag ...[text shortened]... ieving in God?'. He asked 'Is there a God?', which appears to be a question of metaphysics'.
Originally posted by bbarri totally agree with you that this is the better tactic. my claim was only that there are atheists of the sort who make the strong metaphysical claim that there is no God, and that their claim is just as untenable as the strong metaphysical claim that there is a God.
A common term like 'atheism' serves to unite what are actually widely different views. I think it is a tactical mistake to boldly claim that there is no God, as the inevitable calls for justification will embroil one in relatively complex epistemological debates. Instead of advancing the positive thesis "There is no God", I think it better to advance the ...[text shortened]... e Catholic Church's definition of atheism for an interesting discussion of the differences).
Originally posted by Feivel
God is perfect in all areas. Ok that is agreed. If he were less than perfect he would be imperfect. Agreed and not necessary to say since an imperfection is the opposite of perfection. Your conclusion is correct but the standard on which we judge (now Reaper or somebody will post that we shouldn't judge) can't be based on our limited understanding. I really don't understand what the problem is that you are having? I am going to use a concrete example from general chemistry to illustrate. In general chemistry you are taught that a nucleus contains only protons and neutrons, you are also taught that like charges repel so based on the limited understanding you have, the nucleus should blow itself to pieces. It is later on that you are taught about subatomic particles. Your limited understanding led to an error. Another chemistry example for you. You have already been taught that a nucleus contains only protons and nuetrons, then you are taught about beta decay where a nucleus spits out an electron. Your limited understanding (or knowledge) in this case again leads to an error. Do you see a problem created by an application of limited understanding (or knowledge)?
Look, you are claiming that we are justified in attributing the property of perfection to God. You are also claiming that arguments to the effect that God cannot have this property are themselves based upon our limited understanding. Can't you see that if our understanding is so limited that we cannot assess whether our initial attribution of the property of perfection to God was justifiable, then our initial attribution of the property of perfection was, in fact, unjustified? If we have a limited understanding of the property of perfection, then we are in no position to go around attributing it to God. Again, your position seems to reduce to the claim that "God is perfect, whatever that means".
Originally posted by dfm65To state unequivocably that there is no god would be to overstep the bounds of what atheism can offer. It would be more correct for the atheist to say that there is very little probability that god exists.
i totally agree with you that this is the better tactic. my claim was only that there are atheists of the sort who make the strong metaphysical claim that there is no God, and that their claim is just as untenable as the strong metaphysical claim that there is a God.
Originally posted by rwingetti don't know that 'probability' is the right term to use here...does probability have anything to do with it, at least in the sense that we say 'the probability of throwing a six on a fair six-sided die is 1 in 6? what is the probability there is a God? one in a thousand, one in a million? i think Bennett is more correct in saying the theist offers little justification for his beliefs. sorry if this seems like nit-picking, but i'm curious to know if you really are talking about 'probability' in some sense...
To state unequivocably that there is no god would be to overstep the bounds of what atheism can offer. It would be more correct for the atheist to say that there is very little probability that god exists.
on a slightly different (but related) topic, a question for the Apostles: let's us accept that the 10 commandments (for example) define morally right behaviour. are they right because God says they are, or does God say they are right because they are?