Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because God is perfect.
I mean in whatever topic two Christians of opposing world view or denomination post.
Haha, I just HAD to get a shot in at protestants, you know us Catholics.(the 'box' being scripture only)
I can't even give you a compliment without it being opposed.
Ah, well.
Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition 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.
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.It's a different epistemology... the difference between reason based on parsimony and empiricism versus taking every word of the bible as literally true.
This assumes that we what exists is the best possibility, which is a leap.Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect.
God may not be the existence that we see; He is more the source of all existence.This assumes that we what exists is the best possibility, which is a leap.
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.
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
Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect..
Well perfect would be the best possible form of the being in question. Since God is existence, He is by definition perfect.
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'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.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.
If He didn't exist, existence wouldn't.I guess the only way your God could be even more perfect(?), is by pulling all this off, without existing at all.
*
I suppose the boiled-down argument is: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 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.
Which is the problem with philosophy. It does not mean philosophy is useless, however.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.
Nope. I am saying He could not do anything if He didn't exist.Oh sure, now you start limiting what God is capable of.
*
...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.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.
"Not wholly illogical" is a remarkably low standard for a conclusion.Again, my purpose is not to convince you of my religion, but to convince that intelligent God is not a wholly illogical conclusion.
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.mine is no different, except that I believe it to be right(and it is right).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?