There cannot be more than one perfect God.

[Operator_011]

Dominic,


You’ve started a thread titled:  “There cannot be more than one perfect God.”

“Perfect” is a subjective term. This has been pointed out countless times and you’ve already agreed that what you see as “perfect” isn't objective.
You can't offer supporting evidence to prove your assertion and this seems to be pushing you to stonewall those who point out the fallacious logic you're using to justify the OP claim.

It’s like this:

Dom: “For something to be perfect there can only be one of it”.

Members: “Why?”

Dom: “Because for something to be perfect there can only be one of it”.

Members: “Not true. Here’s several reasons why that’s a fallacy…”

Dom: “But there can only be one of something or it can’ be perfect so you must all be wrong”.

Members: “How can you keep saying that when we’ve shown your reasoning to be faulty?”

Dom: “Because for something to be perfect there can only be one of it so you must be wrong. Logic dictates it”.

Members: “Yeah, but, your logic is completely fallacious and makes no objective sense".

Dom: “Yes but I’m not listening to the posts that prove my logic to be  fallacious”.

And so on and so on…



Dominic, just concede the point and move on. Stonewalling and creating a circular argument isn't a dignified way to handle matters.



Eleven.

[velkyn]

But most importantly once they know the truth, most people will not want to reject or turn away, they will want to embrace it joyfully.  It is only a very willful, selfish, egotistical person who will find truth and still reject it.

Yes, because everyone that doesn't believe is an egotistical and selfish person.

That is not what I said.  If you don't believe then you don't know.
I said that if you do know (ie "find truth" or realise that something is true) and yet still reject it, then this demonstrates a wilful, egotistical, selfish person.

I generally wouldn't allow the whole thread to remain in this post but Dom, if you didn't mean what Omen thought you did, do you then acknowledge that many many people in the world do not find your beliefs true at all and have reason to reject it?  They do not "believe" because there is nothing to "know".

[kcrady]

Sorry Wman,

I forgot to respond to this.

A perfect God must be at every place and at every time simultaneously.  Otherwise that God will occasionally not be where/when needed and thus not be perfect.

Two perfect Gods at every place and every time simultaneously must in fact be the same God.

Do you give in yet ? :-)

Nope!

1) A god would not have to be at every place and at every time simultaneously, it would only need to be able to respond where/whenever it's needed.  That would require only that it be aware (regardless of temporal or spatial distance) of when someone is calling upon it, and that it be capable of instantaneous transport to the scene.  It might need the ability to be in more than one place simultaneously (if more than one being is calling for its help), but it could still be absent where it is not needed.  Arguably, being not-present where it is not needed or wanted would also be an attribute of "perfection" in a god.  So it would still be possible for more than one perfect deity to exist, so long as only the one being called for shows up when needed.  So, when someone cries, "Isis!  Help me!" Isis can come, Jesus and Krishna can stay out of the way, and yet all three can be perfect.[1]

2) You still have not explained why multiple perfect deities could not overlap in the same time and in the same place.  That's what the Trinity does, is it not?  All three are omnipresent, all three are distinct (so that the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" makes sense and is useful) all three are "perfect" (in your mind, at least), yet a perfect Jesus does not mean a perfect Holy Spirit cannot exist.  In the same way and for the same reason, a perfect Father-Son-Holy Spirit cannot rule out a perfect Goddess Isis, or any number of perfect deities overlapping one another like the sounds of musical instruments in a symphony.

3) If a "pair" of boobs can be decreed to be a single thing in order to squeeze them into your "only one thing can be perfect" ideology[2] then a pair of distinct deities (say, a God and a Goddess) could be imperfect alone but perfect together.  Three of them: a Trinity or Triad.  Or we could have a set of nine perfect deities but still arbitrarily define them as "one" thing: the Heliopolitan Ennead.  So once again, you have failed to rule out polytheism.

4) Your concept of "perfection" is still self-refuting.  Take "the perfect bicycle."  A bicycle, by definition, has two wheels.  But by your definition, there can't be two perfect wheels.  If there's a perfect wheel, it rules out the existence of any other perfect wheels.  So, using your "logic," at least one of the wheels of any bicycle must be imperfect.  But if a bicycle has an imperfect wheel, it cannot be a perfect bicycle.  The same thing applies to the links in its chain, the left and right hand-grips (only one perfect hand-grip!), the brakes, the brake levers, the gears, etc.  So, a perfect bicycle is impossible.  

Can a perfect god create a perfect bicycle?  If not, then it is not able to meet all possible needs, which you have decreed to be a necessary attribute of a perfect god.  Since a perfect bicycle is impossible, one cannot be created (if it could, then there could be two perfect wheels and your argument falls), so even a perfect god cannot create a perfect bicycle.  But a bicycle is a pretty simple thing compared to, say, an angel[3], or a Heaven,[4] so if a perfect god can't make a perfect bicycle, it follows that the creative power of a perfect god is quite limited.  So the god ceases to be perfect in short order.  Once again, your concept of "perfection" contradicts itself, and thus is not perfect.  

1.	Of course, the fact that there are no gods who are demonstrably better at answering prayers than a jug of milk (much less appearing wherever/whenever they're needed!) demonstrates that your "perfect" god does not exist.
2.	Goodness, I hope that doesn't hurt!
3.	Since there can be only one perfect wing...
4.	Only one perfect street of gold, only one perfect pearly gate, only one perfect column...

[Whateverman]

Two things with the exact same qualities (perfection) occupying the same space and time.  Surely you acknowledge that those two things must in fact be the same (ie there never were two things) ?

No, I don't - and I'm not being deliberately obstinate.

I've accepted the definitions of "God" and "perfect".  Given this. there's nothing implausible or illogical about two perfect deities existing.  At least, nothing outlined in your premise.  If one can exist, several quadrillion can exist as well...

It's only 'illogical' because the words 'two things' are first used.  I think it is called induction when you assume something (ie "two perfect things") to then see where it logically leads and if a contradiction is arrived at then the initial assumption is deemed false.

I don't think it's induction (generally).  I believe you're referring more specifically to Occam's razor; simply put, given the choice between two scenarios, the one more plausible / more simple is accepted over the other.

Except... we're faced with an infinite number of scenarios (re. 1 to an infinite number of perfect deities), and the definitions you've set up strain the limits of plausibility.  Not only that, but you've asked us to "debunk" the "only one God" argument, and surely you can't just expect that we'd be willing to accept it because it's more plausible than other scenarios.  You can't use "practicality" to logically refute an argument.

Sorry, but no.  Given your definitions, there's nothing implausible/illogical about twin perfect deities.

[wheels5894]

Isn't it time we stopped this and sorted out what 'perfect' means? Dictionary.reference.com defines quite a lot of definitions

1.
conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2.
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3.
exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4.
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5.
accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
6.
thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.
7.
pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.
8.
unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.
9.
expert; accomplished; proficient.
10.
unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.
11.
Botany.
a.
having all parts or members present.
b.
monoclinous.
12.
Grammar.
a.
noting an action or state brought to a close prior to some temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or incomplete action.
b.
designating a tense or other verb formation or construction with such meaning.
13.
Music.
a.
applied to the consonances of unison, octave, and fifth, as distinguished from those of the third and sixth, which are called imperfect.
b.
applied to the intervals, harmonic or melodic, of an octave, fifth, and fourth in their normal form, as opposed to augmented and diminished.
14.
Mathematics. (of a set) equal to its set of accumulation points.
15.
Obsolete. assured or certain.
–nounGrammar.
16.
the perfect tense.
17.
a verb form or construction in the perfect tense.Compare future perfect, pluperfect, present perfect.
–verb (used with object)
18.
to bring to completion; finish.
19.
to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.
20.
to bring nearer to perfection; improve.
21.
to make fully skilled.
22.
Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

now I would say that the first definition - "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman." might well be all we are after. However, we are unliekly to agree ona difinition of a godin any way in which such a definition is useful. It does illuminate one thought, though, that perfection does not rule out more than one perfect object. Thus a bicycle can actually have 2 perfect wheels (if you are lucky!).

now "18. to bring to completion; finish." also seems to be useful here. I would have thought we might agree that any defintion of a god would have to involve completeness and Christians usuelly argue that the Trinity represents the completeness of the godhead where all three persons are needed for completion.

Now, if we take the analogy of the Trinity and look to our friend Odin, king of the gods, sure Odin along with his worthy assitants like Thor, when taken together provide a complete godhead too. So, in all ways, the Norse Pantheon, under Odin, represents perfection and therefore we can see it as unique and ruling out the posibilty of the Trinty.... can't we?

[screwtape]

Great, It's now a boob thread.

I know!  Isn't it AWESOME?

[Azdgari]

^^ It's perfect, by my standards.

[monkeymind]

Isn't it time we stopped this and sorted out what 'perfect' means? Dictionary.reference.com defines quite a lot of definitions

I agree we should sort this out, and attempted to do that using a Greek/Hebrew lexicon.   

Sadly, if Dominic won't touch biblical definitions for the use of multiple meanings of the word perfect in the bible, I doubt the dictionary will help.

[wheels5894]

Maybe what we have is he words meaning "exactly what Dominic says they mean!" but of course that hardly helps a discussion as we could all take the same views. 

[Anfauglir]

By indiscernible I do not mean cannot tell them apart, I mean cannot even tell there is more than one (ie occupying same time and space and identical in every other way also).  No scientific test can tell them apart including same position and time.

So?   Since when did scientific tests apply to god?  The gods will know they are distinct, even if we have no way of telling how many are manifest at the same time.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

By indiscernible I do not mean cannot tell them apart, I mean cannot even tell there is more than one (ie occupying same time and space and identical in every other way also).  No scientific test can tell them apart including same position and time.

So?   Since when did scientific tests apply to god?  The gods will know they are distinct, even if we have no way of telling how many are manifest at the same time.

+1

Scientific tests are completely useless in this respect.  Quantum mechanics will not lets us measure anything that closely.  It could perhaps give us probabilities as to how much the 2 perfect things were alike but the measurement would not be . . . er . . . perfect (no pun intended).   

[Nam]

A proper definition of God in my view must include 'perfect'.  If not then we are talking about beings which may have great qualities but not 'Gods'.  Uses of the term 'Gods' which do not imply perfection are simply examples of analogy or exaggeration for effect.

"God" defines many aspects, and not just one singular thing.  "Perfect" is sometimes an attribute in some religions, and sometimes not.

Any two things which are perfect must be the same thing.

Is a perfect flower the same as a perfect kiss?

Any two things with exactly the same qualities must be the same thing.

Is a perfect mustang the same as a perfect camaro?

Now if there are two perfect Gods then those two Gods must in fact be one.  This is logically necessary.

I see no logic in your OP.

-Nam

[wheels5894]

I haven't noticed a reply to a point I made a while ago, so here it is again.

The OP would, no doubt, consider god to be perfect within the Trinity, in other words the three persons together. So how does that stop at three? Why not Thor and all his fellow gods joined together become a perfect god? I don't see how you can draw a line.

Incidentally, I fail, too, to see how one perfect thing excludes another perfect thing. Is there some logic I have missedand can I read it in the Bible?