why a god is impossible

[RandFan]

Why woudn't they?

For one very simple reason. They are perfectly satisfied. If they were not perfectly satisfied they would not be perfect. QED.

Is a being that wants ice cream perfectly satisfied? Yes or no?

Why is a desire a flaw?

You just want to define perfect to mean not perfect in every way. Perfection is an absolute that is not logically tenable unless you play fast and lose with your definition and perfections includes imperfections such as imperfectly satisfied.

 

[drkitten]

Surely, if a perfect being changed in any way it would become imperfect?

You answered this questions yourself.

No.

[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.

Unless, of course, there is a causal or temporal relationship between perfect states. A state that is perfect now is not necessarily perfect later, and vice versa.

For example, for a melody to be "perfect" implies that the individual notes are themselves perfect, and that they are aranged in a perfect sequence. Rearranging a sequence of perfect notes would not necessarily result in a perfect melody.

But this cannot be so as a perfect God would not be arbitrary or capricious.

Why not? A perfect coin flip is both arbitrary and capricious, by definition.

So, there must be one perfect state.

No.

 

[RandFan]

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...

Yep, we are trying to find the edges of infinity. Absolutes don't lend themsleves to finite thinking. Having a want is a finite desire that a perfect being would not have.

 

[drkitten]

Is a being that wants ice cream perfectly satisfied? Yes or no?

Depends on the being. In the case of a perfect being that wants ice cream, yes.

 

[drkitten]

Having a want is a finite desire that a perfect being would not have.

You know, RandFan, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any truer.

 

[RandFan]

For example, for a melody to be "perfect" implies that the individual notes are themselves perfect, and that they are aranged in a perfect sequence. Rearranging a sequence of perfect notes would not necessarily result in a perfect melody.

You need to get out of your head this concept of perfect. There is no perfect melody. Such a thing is abstract. It is an absolute to measure against. All melodies are identical. It is only subjective judgment that renders them differently.

Our ability to measure the degree to which a note approaches perfection is imporving. Science doesn't operate on the notion that there are things that can be perfectly measured. Only the ability to measure with in a degree of precision.

 

[RandFan]

Depends on the being. In the case of a perfect being that wants ice cream, yes.

If it is perfectly satisified then why would it want ice cream? That makes no sense. When you are completly satisfied do you want ice cream?

 

[RandFan]

You know, RandFan, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any truer.

This does not establish that my statement is true or false. It doesn't advance an argument or the discussion. It's just an attempt to persuade through rhetoric. It's poor form.

 

[Beleth]

Why would a perfect being want something?

I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

If a perfect being wants nothing, then it would want to do nothing. Such a being, then, would in fact do nothing -- which is functionally identical to being unable to do anything. That's the definition of "helpless", not the definition of "omnipotent".

'Tis a strange definition of "perfect" that is inferred from omnipotence yet implies helplessness...

 

[drkitten]

You need to get out of your head this concept of perfect.

Funny, I'm not the one who brought it up or who is trying to define limitations on perfection. But I need to get the concept out of my head.

Physician, heal thyself.

I think our discussion iis at an end. You have no coherent concept to discuss, no evidence to support your vacuous assertions, and no ability to express yourself other than repeating what has already been rejected in the pious but forlorn hope that saying something three or four times will suddenly make it true.

 

[drkitten]

I am starting to get from this thread that perhaps perfection and omnipotence are incompatible.

If a perfect being wants nothing, then it would want to do nothing. Such a being, then, would in fact do nothing -- which is functionally identical to being unable to do anything. That's the definition of "helpless", not the definition of "omnipotent".

'Tis a strange definition of "perfect" that is inferred from omnipotence yet implies helplessness...

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire. There's nothing "imperfect" in wanting ice cream -- indeed, wanting is a form of pleasure in itself (have you ever enjoyed looking forward to something?) A perfect being could easily want ice cream, enjoy the feeling of wanting as a perfection in and of itself, and then fulfil that want by obtaining (presumably perfect) ice cream.

 

[RandFan]

Funny, I'm not the one who brought it up or who is trying to define limitations on perfection. But I need to get the concept out of my head.

Physician, heal thyself.

I'm NOT trying to define limitation on perfections. I'm telling you why the concept is logically untenable and why it can't be logically defended.

You have no coherent concept to discuss, no evidence to support your vacuous assertions...

1. X != Not X is a logical statement. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises.
2. X != Not X is not vacuous.

X = perfection.
Not being satisfied is an imperfect state or Not X

QED

 

[RandFan]

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire.

A desire implies the lack of satisfaction. A lack of something is an imperfection.

 

[RandFan]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.

In other words, You can keep repeating your arguments but no one else can because you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[drkitten]

A desire implies the lack of satisfaction. A lack of something is an imperfection.

Do you really think that if you repeat yourself often enough, you will magically become correct?

This was incorrect ten posts ago. It's still incorrect.

 

[Beleth]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.

Indeed; hence the last line of my previous post.

Omnipotence implies the ability to satisfy any desire, not the lack of desire.

But if there is no desire, the ability to satisfy any desire is academic at best and nonexistent at worst. Do I have the ability to fill a bucket with water, if there is no water?

A perfect being could easily want ice cream, enjoy the feeling of wanting as a perfection in and of itself, and then fulfil that want by obtaining (presumably perfect) ice cream.

I disagree. That would require a state change in the perfect being. Either it would be more perfect after the change, or less perfect after the change, or stay the same level of perfection.

It's obvious that it does not stay at the same level of perfection. It goes from wanting something to obtaining that something. It may stay at the same level of pleasure, but that's different. If it gets more perfect then it wasn't a perfect being at the outset. If it gets less perfect then it isn't perfect afterwards.

 

[drkitten]

I disagree. That would require a state change in the perfect being. Either it would be more perfect after the change, or less perfect after the change, or stay the same level of perfection.

It's obvious that it does not stay at the same level of perfection.

Quite the contrary. It's not only not obvious, but it's wrong.

It goes from wanting something to obtaining that something.

And since neither "wanting" nor "having" is an imperfection, it's gone from one state of perfection to another.

 

[Beleth]

This should instead suggest to you that the definition of "perfection" thus inferred is incorrect.

I just want to point out something that may not be clear from my previous post:

I agree with you on this, drkitten.

 

[Beleth]

Edited: Never mind, I'm being Devil's Advocate for something I have no desire to be Devil's Advocate for.

 

[Earthborn]

The soul is supposed to be a unity, not a collection of different modes of information.

I think you are just making up what you think the 'soul' and 'unity' ought to be, but there is no real reason to accept your idea of what it is.

Actually, no, it is not a problem for the physical model because there is a big difference between a metaphysical unity and a perceived unity.

Really? I think when one is speaking about metaphysics, pretty much anything is possible and nothing can be rules out, which makes it rather difficult to make claims that something as vague as 'unity' is completely different from something we perceive as a unity.

Some function is always lost.

The same is true for messing with your telly. There really is no necessarily discernable difference between the brain as a receiver of the soul and the brain as the producer of the mind. It is just what one choses to believe.

Not arguing for definitive proof, only for the more likely.

You can't assign probabilities to metaphysical concepts, because they cannot be clearly defined. If you disagree, tell me which is more likely: that Golliboggelotz exists or that Golliboggelotz does not exist?

It is the most metabolically active tissue in the body

That does not provide us with evidence against a receiver concept. My television set also uses a whole heck of a lot of energy.

So there is no need to suggest any entity outside the brain.

Claiming that there is no need to suggest such an entity is taking a philosophical stance. It is not a philosophical justification for taking that stance. Saying that you do not see the need to suggest Golliboggelotz exists does not convince someone who does see that need.

How does this dualism work? How does the completely other -- the immaterial -- interact with the material?

Those are good questions and I have no answer for them, but then again I am not a dualist. An actual dualist might answer it in the way most metaphysical stuff is answered: "It's a mystery".

There are more serious problems with it than there are with a physical model of consciousness.

Problems that only arise when you take a pragmatic deductive-nomological stance on philosophy, which is of course a very useful stance to take if you don't wish to worry too much about the hard problems philosophers have created for themselves. But it is a belief nonetheless.