There cannot be more than one perfect God.

[monkeymind]

No-one's mentioned the false dichotomy here, either.  Reducing this 'debate' to only one god vs no gods is fallicious.  Even if there cannot be more than one perfect god for some bullshit reason that Dominic trawls out, there could be squillions of imperfect gods.  

An imperfect God is hardly more than someone calling their sporting hero a God.

Atheists sometimes claim that God is not properly defined by theists.  I don't think it's unreasonable for the definition of God to include 'perfection'.

Obviously definitions do not prove anything - but definitions are important for improving clarity in discussions.

Good, define perfect then.

[Omen]

Atheists sometimes claim that God is not properly defined by theists.

There are all kinds of definitions, but nothing is predicated on 'knowledge' and many are necessarily prone to fallacy and thus are logically negated as defined.  Outside of definition, 'god' is nothing and represents nothing that can be assumed to be self evident.

 I don't think it's unreasonable for the definition of God to include 'perfection'.

Except for that whole 'perfect' being an absurd tautological distinction that you can't justify and as based on the make believe of definition as 'god'.

ie.  A perfect god is singular vs A perfect god is plural.

Perfect does nothing, because 'perfect' is the qualification that is being pleaded into the circular nature of the claim.  God is perfectly singular, Gods are perfectly plural, Smurfs are perfectly plural, Leprechaun is perfectly singular.

I can make shit up all day dominic, accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Obviously definitions do not prove anything - but definitions are important for improving clarity in discussions.

Which nothing you're doing here is offering clarity, you are instead trying to force a discussion into a blindly narrow minded subset of conditions that you are only willing to accept.  So you do not acknowledge the posts that necessarily point out that you do not have the capability to define what is or is not perfect and respond to those that you can easily answer the tautology of 'perfection'.  Which is the complete opposite of 'clarity', it is obfuscation.

[Dominic]

There is, and can be no universal understanding of "perfect". Each person views "perfect" differently. I, for one, want the vase not to be there whenever I need it, but to be there only when I take the trouble to find it (i.e) I should make that extra bit of effort to get the vase's reward. The vase should be in front of my eyes only when I do a small amount of work to see it. That's how I[/b] see a perfect vase. It shouldn't be omnipresent. I think a normal vase is perfect as it is, as is everything else in the universe.

Perfect varies from person to person, so this argument is done.

Also, why should perfection imply singularity?

Fine, we'll add that the perfect vase adapts it's findability to the individual :-)  That's what perfect means.  

I dealt with the necessary singularity of a perfect vase in Reply 10.

[Banksie]

An imperfect God is hardly more than someone calling their sporting hero a God.

Wait, what?!  This makes no sense at all...please expand on it.

[Anfauglir]

Fine, you've added another quality of perfection.  Perfectly unobtrusive.

Perfectly available at every location yet perfectly unobtrusive

And regarding subjectivity, the vase must perfectly meet each person's needs.

...

Fine, we'll add that the perfect vase adapts it's findability to the individual :-)  That's what perfect means.  

So...the vase is something different to everyone who sees or uses it.  But if some people regard a perfect quality of that vase to be that it is NOT infinitely mutable, then the vase is no longer perfect, as to be the perfect vase for you would make it an imperfect vase for me.

To look at "findability"....if the perfect vase for me is one that can be found easily, and the perfect vase you you is one that takes effort, then one vase can NOT fulfill both requirements.  One could very easily argue that a multitude of vases are in fact necessary in order that each person's requirements can be fulfilled.  Your argument seems to prove multiple gods rather than one.....

The alternative of course is to assert that your god - sorry, your vase - is all things to all people, an infinitely mutable vase that changes itself in order to be whatever that person wants it to be.  Sounds like SPAV to me, I have to say.

[gonegolfing]

The purpose of this thread is to dismiss the possibility of multiple Gods.  The question of no God vs one God is not being addressed here.

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. 

Any two things which are perfect must be the same thing.  They must each have all the necessary qualities of perfection.  These qualities do not even need to be precisely defined but what we do know is that both perfect beings must have those qualities.

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

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

Dude come on ! This argument isn't even sophistry, it's silly.

Once again, here we have a theist assigning essence before proving existence. You gotta stop that !

Did I miss the post where you provided links to some current, clear, reliable, unambiguous, and definitive evidence for a perfect gods existence ? If so, please steer me to the thread.

First, prove to us that a god exists(since said god won't do it for itself) and then we can debate whether this god is perfect and what that would mean overall.

It's easy for us to doubt the possibility of multiple gods or all gods. What's hard for you however, is to dismiss the entire god hypothesis itself even though you have zero tangible evidence to back up your belief.

You used the term "in my view"(not really yours) above, and that's exactly and all that it is..a viewpoint. It's not a known truth, it's not a known fact, it's simply your belief . As with all theists, you have no idea whatsoever that your beliefs are true. You feel that they are true, but you do not know they are true. I don't give a rip that hundreds of millions of humans hold this same belief. That doesn't exempt the idea from critical examination and most certainly does not mean that the hypothesis is automatically true(argumentum ad populum). Actually, it's not even your own view point, yours is the viewpoint of an ancient tribe of Hebrews who lived in a time of overwhelming ignorance of the world around them. Is that a smart thing to do ?

As I said, your above statements aren't even clever and they border on being drivel. Something must exist first before it can have an essence. Something must be first, before it can be perfect . Can you understand that ? If you have no proof for something that you claim, then it is deceitful and oft times fraudulent to let on to others that you do and that your claim is true. Can you understand that ? Your poor usage of your own philosophical thoughts on this idea is not and cannot be the valid evidence that is required to provide proof for such a claim. You are indeed making baseless assertions and claims without valid evidence, and so what are we to do but call you out on these ?

To assume in your mind that a perfect god exists is one thing, but to claim that that god exists in reality and outside of the mind is quite another, and moves that hypothesis into a different arena that is fully open to and deserving of scrutiny. Can you understand that ?

I not only want proof that a god could be perfect(which of course opens up another whole can of worms), I first want proof that any god exists at all !

I'm wide eyed and waiting. Got any ?  

Cheers  

[Dominic]

gg,

I said in the first 2 sentences of the OP that this thread was not to debate one God vs no Gods.

It is only to dismiss the possibility of multiple or various perfect Gods.

In other words if there is a perfect God then there can only be one such God - not any number to choose from.

Arguments for or against the one God are for other threads.

[Dominic]

An imperfect God is hardly more than someone calling their sporting hero a God.

Wait, what?!  This makes no sense at all...please expand on it.

The term God can be used very loosely.  Eg The greek family of Gods who are like a warring family and sometimes kill each other.

And a bloke named Wally Lewis was known to some of his supporters here as a God of Australian Rugby League

The word God can be allowed for these conversations but to get clarity in atheist/theist discussions we need a clear and widely accepted definition.

If we can't agree on a definition for God (for use in all debates) then this thread is only for the discussion of a God concept which includes 'perfection' as one essential quality.

Again this thread is not about proving God, it is only to dismiss the possibility of more than one perfect God.

[Dominic]

What debate are we supposed to be having, though?  I just need to clarify what we're talking about.

The claim in this thread (which opens a potential debate) is that there cannot be more than one perfect God.

The larger debate of WWGHA (not in this thread) is, as you know, whether any God exists.

[Dominic]

No-one's mentioned the false dichotomy here, either.  Reducing this 'debate' to only one god vs no gods is fallicious.  Even if there cannot be more than one perfect god for some bullshit reason that Dominic trawls out, there could be squillions of imperfect gods.  

An imperfect God is hardly more than someone calling their sporting hero a God.

Atheists sometimes claim that God is not properly defined by theists.  I don't think it's unreasonable for the definition of God to include 'perfection'.

Obviously definitions do not prove anything - but definitions are important for improving clarity in discussions.

Good, define perfect then.

'Having every good or beneficial quality'.

[penkie]

Good, define perfect then.

'Having every good or beneficial quality'.

But, 'good' is a human qualification. Not everyone will agree on all moral issues what 'good' is. Moreover what is good for someone, could at the same time be bad for someone else. So how can we judge the perfectness of this 'perfect'?

If I come up with a moral choice in which all available options are not good, do I then proof that 'perfect' good does not exists?

[Omen]

gg,

I said in the first 2 sentences of the OP that this thread was not to debate one God vs no Gods.

Irrelevant.

Your claim is predicated on the ability to define what a god is.

You define god using a tautology, trying to qualify each follow up statement with the tautology being claimed.

You then insist that:

The debate then simply becomes no God vs one God.

Which is not only contradictory to stating this is not a debate between no god vs one god, but considering that you have to use such absurd logical fallacies in your claims thus far.. highly arrogant.

You simply don't want to respond to GG's finer issues, anymore then you want to respond to mine, Anfauglir, monkeymind, or blazes ( and anyone else that has necessarily pointed out that your use of 'perfection' is a fallacy ).  It is often easier to obfuscate in return, to pretend like your addressing an issue that you really are not doing in order to be dismissive through omission to the rest of the post.

It is only to dismiss the possibility of multiple or various perfect Gods.

In other words if there is a perfect God then there can only be one such God - not any number to choose from.

Arguments for or against the one God are for other threads.

Yes yes.. omit all of GG's post and mindlessly repeat exactly the problem that's being pointed out:

Did I miss the post where you provided links to some current, clear, reliable, unambiguous, and definitive evidence for a perfect  gods existence ?

Notice the emphasis on 'perfect', do you think that was a mistake?

I not only want proof that a god could be perfect(which of course opens up another whole can of worms),

There it is again, strange.. its almost as if there is an underlying problem in the assumption of what 'perfect' is.

I wonder if anyone else noticed:

So you are saying that the one perfect God is confined to fit within your logic?

I Love Agememnon's the most, not really coming out there and directly pointing out the fallacy but asking a question that requires acknowledgment of the internal consistency of the claim you're making.  Hint: Dominic ignored him.

You have defined the term God as something as perfect, but you have no reason to backup that is the correct definition other that your bias. You have also defined that anything that does not fit this view as incorrect, once again only have your bias as a backup for this assumption. You are attempting to conform reality to your views.

Boom! Second post in the thread and if you had acknowledged him, the rest of the thread wouldn't exist.  We are not even 2 posts into the thread and we already have a direct identification of the problem in the claim you are making.  Hint: Dominic ignored him

You seem to be assuming that uniqueness is a quality of perfection - why?

Another one and OH you responded, but oh no.. you didn't answer the question and you simply reasserted the same claim without an answer.

In that case can you define "Perfection" and I do mean for you to seriously think about what it is to be perfect, and compare that to actuality. Thank you.

Bert Dead on.. oh and Dominic did NOT respond to this.

"Perfection" is HIGHLY subjective.

And agga was drawing you done a wonderful line of questioning until you blankly ignored the questions, Agga finally just points out that 'perfection' is subjective.  Which you do not even acknowledge in return and simply use the tautology you established earlier.  Agga also had to point out that his earlier questions were not answered.

And perfect is?

There is mine of course, but I'm pretty sure you're just going to ignore mine as a norm.  No one likes to be called on their bullshit, why acknowledge it?  Hint: Dominic ignores it

If it's subjective then it can't be perfect because the perfect state is dependant on those who perceive it.

What's perfect to me won't be perfect to another, thus the perfect vase cannot exist.  Learning anything about your argument for the christian god yet?

Agga, reemphasized his earlier point regarding subjectivity and perfection.  Agga also pointed out for the second time his ignored questioning.

There is, and can be no universal understanding of "perfect".

Blaze, right there with ya!  Dominic replied.. but he did not reply to anything in the Blaze's post.. he simply referenced dismissively post # 10 without much explanation.

Good, define perfect then.

Lots of people keep repeating something along the same lines, I wonder if there is something dominic isn't answering and is a fundamental flaw in his claims.

[gonegolfing]

gg,

I said in the first 2 sentences of the OP that this thread was not to debate one God vs no Gods.

It is only to dismiss the possibility of multiple or various perfect Gods.

In other words if there is a perfect God then there can only be one such God - not any number to choose from.

Arguments for or against the one God are for other threads.

Yes, yes, and I did the dismissing. Also, I never said that there were "no gods". Please don't put words in my mouth.

Trying to get us to debate with you and whittle it down to one perfect god, in agreement with your position, may work for some but not myself. I won't go along with your assumption.

I was merely asking for the evidence for any gods, before I could possibly debate that your hypothesis of only one perfect god could be considered valid........ How can you disprove many when you haven't even proved one ?

You do realize that this debate should go no further until you provide evidence for your one perfect god hypothesis..don't you ?

The cart is certainly before the horse with this one  

[Dominic]

Good, define perfect then.

'Having every good or beneficial quality'.

But, 'good' is a human qualification. Not everyone will agree on all moral issues what 'good' is. Moreover what is good for someone, could at the same time be bad for someone else. So how can we judge the perfectness of this 'perfect'?

If I come up with a moral choice in which all available options are not good, do I then proof that 'perfect' good does not exists?

What would you like to do - offer your own definition of perfect, or stop all usage of the word ?

[RaymondKHessel]

I had a dog once that had both 3 legs, and 4 legs.

Gawd, what a perfect dog he was.

[Omen]

What would you like to do - offer your own definition of perfect, or stop all usage of the word ?

Since when is it necessary that because a word is subjective, that it can no longer be used?

The only thing you can't do dominic is make an assertion of a subjective appeal as if it were true or absolute.

Two gods are perfect

One god is perfect.

A smurf god is perfect.

See, I can do exactly what you do and then assert that it is all 'logical'.

[ParkingPlaces]

I don't see what the argument here is. If you want your god to be perfect Dominic, that's just fine. He (or it or whatever) might as well be perfect, since you're making him up. No need to hold back on perfection any more than there is a need to hold back on size or strength or prayabilityization.

Since I don't believe in any god, perfect or otherwise, I have no need to assign the non-existent dude any specific traits. Since you apparently must have a god, you can give him all the super-powers and extra-human capabilities you want.

Note that this site has us arguing with numerous believers, not just you. The others don't seem to be clamoring for a perfect god, which may lower your opinion of them, but doesn't change our opinion of them one bit. They're wrong too, albeit with a less stringently imagined superior being.

So okay Dominic, your god is absolutely perfect. There can be only one. Etc. How that is supposed to affect you ability to argue for his existence is beyond me. You're allowed to imagine anything you want. Just don't expect that additional layer of complexity (being absolutely perfect) to make said non-existent being to be more believable.

 

[Agga]

Dominic,

Don't be a knob and throw good money after bad.  Just be a man, admit that this argument had failed before it began and rethink your debate strategy.

I've done it before today, most of us have, it really isn't that painful to admit when we've made a mistake.  We'll all respect you a little more if you do.  If we want to we can learn a lot from our mistakes and improve for next time.

[Banksie]

If we can't agree on a definition for God (for use in all debates) then this thread is only for the discussion of a God concept which includes 'perfection' as one essential quality.

Again this thread is not about proving God, it is only to dismiss the possibility of more than one perfect God.

You're the one bringing up "perfection" as a prerequisite quality that a god should possess and you admitted in your opening post that it's just your opinion.  It's clear from the responses you've received so far that not all people agree with perfection being a necessary quality of a god.  You've so far not managed to support that opinion, yet you've skipped onto arguments that are further down the line already.   This is a summary of what you're arguing:

1) All gods must be perfect. (assertion based on your own opinion which is baseless)
2) If something is perfect there can only be one of it. (another baseless assertion)
3) Therefore there is either one god or no gods. (an assertion based on the above 2 baseless assertions and a false dichotomy)

You've asserted something in the first instance (1), ignored it and started prattling on about how there can only be one perfect god (2).  Even if you somehow achieve your goal of demonstrating that there can only be one perfect being, you've left point number 1 open which is the base of your claim.  You need to sort out that first before making any other assertions based on it.

[voodoo child]

since every religious head case has a perfect idea of what god is, there must be billion's of gods out there.

chances of getting it right, billions to one. hmm god is fuzzy dice hanging from a mirror.

[Omen]

Dominic, if you want to discuss your argument then you will have to do so publicly do not try to engage in private messages.  The entire problem here is that you consistently avoid the most glaring problems in your claims, not even concerned that you make them and willfully work to avoid acknowledging any post that points them out ( regardless of who it comes from ).

Either be responsible, or be called on it each time you're not.

[Whateverman]

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

This doesn't follow at all...

EDIT: what is illogical about perfect twins?

[ParkingPlaces]

Too, why would a perfect god need to be worshipped. Does perfection include insecurity, vanity and egotistical properties? I think not.

[Grogan]

Huge fail.  There are no Christians who accept the trinity that would state that their god and jesus Christ are not both omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and using dominic's logic no two percent THINGS can be identical.

There also is no reason whatsoever to assume a god needs to be perfect.

[Woland]

Hello Dominic,

In your opinion, is the creation, then the cruel wiping out (flood, other Biblical genocides), then eternal torture of a bunch of (purposefully designed to be) ridiculously flawed (unintelligent, easily killed by a bunch of God-designed things, unknowledgeable, irrational and easily influenced by their surroundings) sentient beings a criterion for perfection?

To save time, I don't care if you believe in the Biblically described Hell or not - just deduct it from my question if you don't believe in it. It changes nothing at all. Is the creation of massively inferior creatures (and we know he can do better than humans) for the purpose of being worshipped an attribute of a perfect being?

This should be interesting.

Woland

[Operator_011]

Dominic,

A reminder:

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against them.

Please do not waste the other member’s time and efforts.



Eleven.

[Dominic]

Huge fail.  There are no Christians who accept the trinity that would state that their god and jesus Christ are not both omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and using dominic's logic no two percent THINGS can be identical.

Any two perfect things must be one thing.  No two perfect things can be different things.

Hence the three perfect aspects of the Trinity are in fact One (God).

[Whateverman]

Any two perfect things must be one thing.  No two perfect things can be different things.

I still don't understand why you assert this.  Why are perfect twins not a logical option?

[One Above All]

There can be two things which are EXACTLY alike. For example: DNA is the same in all your cells