• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why a god is impossible

Hyparxis said:
Hey Piggy, good to see you!
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Piggy..other ways to debunk God please?:D
 
Earthborn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Forgive my ignorance, but what does zSB(3,3) mean?
Click to expand...

'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...
 
idunno said:

  1. God is perfect. (premise)
  2. God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
  3. Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
  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)Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want. (from 2, 5)
  6. It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
  7. Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything. (from 4, 6)
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
So maybe refine the argument to apply only to the Judeo-Christian god?
Click to expand...
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
 
drkitten said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Darth Rotor said:
Can you walk me through how being perfect and having volition are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

No, I can't. That's one of my points; it's an unsupported and counterintuitive assertion of idunno's.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
idunno said:
You also offer no reasons not to think they are true, which leaves you
no counter-argument.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darth Rotor said:
What is the rationale for confining purpose to a single thing? That seems a baseless assumption.
Click to expand...
I don't clain anysuch rationale.

A purpose? Multipurpose strikes me more in keeping with the nature of something, or someone, "omni."
Click to expand...
So long as there is no unfulflled purpose. Prior to creating humans were all of god's purposes fullfiled?
 
drkitten said:
IIn none of these is the implication present that a perfect being cannot have a desire ("want").
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
It's a beautiful day, near perfect. I want some Ice Cream. My happiness would be perfect if I had some ice cream.
Click to expand...

... 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?
Click to expand...

Because perfect beings can have volition, too.

Why woudn't they?

Why is a desire a flaw?
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom