why a god is impossible

[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

 

[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

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 up}.

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

Yes it's a puzzle...not.

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!

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. 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?


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 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.

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.