A question for atheists and agnostics

[Nathan45]

Because God is perfect.

that is what you're trying to show, isn't it? I still havn't seen a definition for perfect that even makes sense to apply to God.

I mean in whatever topic two Christians of opposing world view or denomination post.

It's a different epistemology... the difference between reason based on parsimony and empiricism versus taking every word of the bible as literally true.

 

[MaxP]

(the 'box' being scripture only)
I can't even give you a compliment without it being opposed.

Ah, well.

Haha, I just HAD to get a shot in at protestants, you know us Catholics.

It may be late, but thank you.

 

[MaxP]

that is what you're trying to show, isn't it? I still havn't seen a definition for perfect that even makes sense to apply to God.

Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect.

It's a different epistemology... the difference between reason based on parsimony and empiricism versus taking every word of the bible as literally true.

Well, I don't think not necessarily following much of the Old Testament when it describes things pertaining to the old covenant(given it has served its purpose) is parsimony.

 

[MaxP]

BTW, I can't remember who said it(Aristotle?), but this is one my favorite quotes:

"I find it difficult to believe in a God who would give us the capacity to reason and use logic but expect us to disregard both in our belief in Him."

I keep that in mind.

 

[pantless rationalist]

Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect.

This assumes that we what exists is the best possibility, which is a leap.

 

[MaxP]

This assumes that we what exists is the best possibility, which is a leap.

God may not be the existence that we see; He is more the source of all existence.
As Plato reasoned, we are all, in this life, an imperfect copy of His ideal form.
Not that He created us to be imperfect, but more that we were originally perfect(as we can be) with Him but lowered our corporal existence through our own choice.

 

[Nathan45]

BTW, I can't remember who said it(Aristotle?), but this is one my favorite quotes:

"I find it difficult to believe in a God who would give us the capacity to reason and use logic but expect us to disregard both in our belief in Him."

I keep that in mind.

Galileo Galilei :

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use

 

[MaxP]

Galileo Galilei :

Thank you!
I been trying to remember the exact wording and person who said it.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect..

I guess the only way your God could be even more perfect(?), is by pulling all this off, without existing at all.

*

 

[Nathan45]

Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect.

Even if i accept this as true by definition it's still an equivocation fallacy on the word perfect. You still havn't shown that God is conscious, intelligent or anything related to the christian religion.

Well, I don't think not necessarily following much of the Old Testament when it describes things pertaining to the old covenant(given it has served its purpose) is parsimony.

i was comparing the two different worldviews, parsimony as opposed to biblical literalism.

anyway it's about midnight in Texas, so i'm going to sleep.

Good night.

 

[pantless rationalist]

God may not be the existence that we see; He is more the source of all existence.
As Plato reasoned, we are all, in this life, an imperfect copy of His ideal form.
Not that He created us to be imperfect, but more that we were originally perfect(as we can be) with Him but lowered our corporal existence through our own choice.

I'm familiar with Plato's theory of forms, but this is pure conjecture. It's nice to talk about, but that doesn't mean there is a basis for the belief in reality.

 

[MaxP]

I guess the only way your God could be even more perfect(?), is by pulling all this off, without existing at all.

*

If He didn't exist, existence wouldn't.
So He couldn't pull it off.

 

[MaxP]

Even if i accept this as true by definition it's still an equivocation fallacy on the word perfect. You still havn't shown that God is conscious, intelligent or anything related to the christian religion.

I suppose the boiled-down argument is:
God is the cause of us.
We cannot possess the perfections that the definition of perfection, the ultimate form, does not.
Intelligence is a perfection.
He must possess it.

i was comparing the two different worldviews, parsimony as opposed to biblical literalism.

anyway it's about midnight in Texas, so i'm going to sleep.

Good night.

Haha! I outlasted you!

Good night.

 

[Garyzenuf]

If He didn't exist, existence wouldn't.
So He couldn't pull it off.

Oh sure, now you start limiting what God is capable of.

*

 

[MaxP]

I'm familiar with Plato's theory of forms, but this is pure conjecture. It's nice to talk about, but that doesn't mean there is a basis for the belief in reality.

Which is the problem with philosophy. It does not mean philosophy is useless, however.
All philosophical ideologies require faith they generally have no empirical proof besides logical arguments; mine is no different, except that I believe it to be right(and it is right ).

 

[MaxP]

Oh sure, now you start limiting what God is capable of.

*

Nope. I am saying He could not do anything if He didn't exist.
I am not limiting His existence by saying he can't do something when He doesn't exist to do it.
If He didn't exist, nothing would.

 

[quatona]

All things that exists are either caused or uncaused.

Any Cause itself must be either caused or uncaused.

Therefore, there must be an infinite chain of causes or something uncaused causing things, which I call the uncaused cause.

Thus, we can presume the existence of either an uncaused cause or an infinite regress.

...and this means that we can presume that - if we define "god" to be this uncaused cause - god either exists or doesn´t exist. Unless, of course, we define "god" to be this infinite regress, as well.

Another question would be: Whence the conclusion that there can only be one ("an") uncaused cause? )It doesn´t seem to follow from anything - if we allow for the possibility that things can be uncaused there can be countless uncaused causes (gods).

 

[quatona]

Again, my purpose is not to convince you of my religion, but to convince that intelligent God is not a wholly illogical conclusion.

"Not wholly illogical" is a remarkably low standard for a conclusion.

 

[quatona]

God is existence.

No, god is my computer screen.

 

[pantless rationalist]

mine is no different, except that I believe it to be right(and it is right ).

You seemed surprised when you learned that some of us atheists aren't against the idea of a god. What many are against, though, is certainty when there shouldn't reasonably be any. Subscribing to an untestable idea is one thing, claiming it is the absolute truth is another thing entirely.

In all honesty, though, I commend your determination, level-headedness, and typing speed. Lesser members would have gone into crazy or exasperated rants by now.