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