There cannot be more than one perfect God.

[Agamemnon]

The Christian god is not a single entity, is it?

I thought it was "God in three persons?" It sounds polytheistic to me, but what do I know? I'm just an imperfect human.

[Whateverman]

Interesting...  This interpretation of "perfection" meaning "every possible thing imaginable, with every possible characteristic, in every combination" seems to rule out a deity who wants specific things from us.

[Omen]

Dominic do you have any answer to the many irrational and illogical contradictions of your own claims?

[jazzman]

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

You seem to have done that yourself.  Nothing about any of the several definitions of "perfect" supports your OP claim.  You've changed the word to fit your idea of what God is.  You asserted something about perfection that is simply not supportable; it's not a recognized definition of the word, and your assertion does not follow from the true definition of perfect.

It's your very weak attempt to rationalize your belief in your imaginary, perfect God.  You defined the word in a way that allows you to use it in some weak philosophical way with the hope you can sleep well tonight knowing you found one more reason to carry on with your delusion.  Good luck with that.

Jazzman

[Dominic]

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

The flood story is an allegory about sin and punishment.  The Christian Church does not recommend literal interpretation of that story.  [The fundamentalists who do literal interpretations of bible stories are part of a large branch of Christians who broke away from the Church around the time known as the Reformation.]

Re worship, I think my brief message here addresses that -
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14316.msg316606#msg316606

Re hell, I believe that hell is an experience of mental anguish which is caused by doing what you believe to be wrong [always freely chosen actions and only those actions believed to be wrong by individual conscience ie doesn't and cannot apply to beliefs as they are not actions and are not chosen].

And I think it is too harsh to say that we are "massively inferior creatures".

[Omen]

Hello Dominic,

In your opinion, is the creation, then the cruel wiping out (flood, other Biblical genocides), then eternal

The flood story is an allegory abo

The allegory doesn't read any less like an unnecessary and overly violent ends in a completely pointless scenario.  Calling it an 'allegory', then try to qualify it as about 'sin and punishment' doesn't make it any less ludicrous then if it were taken literal.  The only except occurring here is the downplaying of the literal elaboration of the story into a qualifier that doesn't simply draw 'meaning' from allegorical references.. but totally reinterprets the story in terms that the story never represent.

Plus, this doesn't answer any of the illogical and irrational absurdities you've created for yourself throughout this thread.  Do you have any answer for the multitude of responses you've ignored, constantly emphasizing the same issue?

Or.. are you going to simply continue to respond to the out of the park softball pitches that allow you to successfully obfuscate around the issue?

[screwtape]

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).

Boobs.

You lose.

[Woland]

Hello Dominic,

Your answer was not much more than a dodge.

Let me ask you again, differently:

Do you think that creating a bunch of terribly flawed, and yes, massively inferior (to God - assuming he can't create another God, he surely doesn't need to make creatures as dumb, clueless, and mortal as humans) sentient beings (many of which are doomed from birth to quickly die a painful death) is the logical action of a perfect being?

If so, please explain to me why you think this is the case.

Woland

[bertatberts]

Dominic:
Your are still yet to define what perfection is, or are you just going to ignore me again.

Post#6

A proper definition of God in my view must include 'perfect'.

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.

Thank you again.

[Dominic]

Regarding the subjective nature of perfection -

Is it impossible for a god/being/thing to meet everyone's (differing) expectations of perfection ?

Why cannot a perfect being adapt for each person to meet their subjective needs ?

I am talking possibility here, not actuality - as it seems that posters are implying the impossibility of something perfect being able to meet all person's expectations.

[Dominic]

Dominic:
Your are still yet to define what perfection is, or are you just going to ignore me again.

Post#6

A proper definition of God in my view must include 'perfect'.

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.

Thank you again.

did you see reply no.38 ?

[Agga]

Regarding the subjective nature of perfection -

Dom, do you acknowledge that your perception of perfection is subjective, just like everyone else's.

Yes or no?

[One Above All]

So what you're saying is that god is never perfect since perfection, by definition, cannot change =/
Therefore, there can be more than one "perfect" god

[Agamemnon]

Regarding the subjective nature of perfection -

Dom, do you acknowledge that your perception of perfection is subjective, just like everyone else's.

Yes or no?

did you see reply no.38 ?

Reply no.38 says "Yes --Dominic's perception of perfection is completely subjective!"

Why? Because one man's trash is another man's treasure. What is considered "good" to one person is "bad" to another. Ergo: subjective.

[Dominic]

Regarding the subjective nature of perfection -

Dom, do you acknowledge that your perception of perfection is subjective, just like everyone else's.

Yes or no?

Yes

[Agamemnon]

I am talking possibility here, not actuality - as it seems that posters are implying the impossibility of something perfect being able to meet all person's expectations.

Well, why wouldn't it? To an all-powerful, perfect being, nothing is impossible.

[Agga]

Yes

Excellent. Thanks for your honesty.

This is part of the problem that I see in your line of thinking.  If one starts from a fallacious assumption one fails to proceed with a reliable line of thought.

What you might describe as perfection, another might define as extremely good. What this means is that NOTHING you (or we) say about a perfect god can stand as anything other than a personal, subjective perception.  That isn't enough to qualify it as a fact.
God is only perfect because that's what people say god is.  That doesn't mean that god is perfect, however.
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that god is perfect other than as the inevitable outcome of rationalisation and the altering of reality to suit the assumption.

You've begun a line of thought with the assumption that god is perfect.  Before anything else is built upon that it needs to be verified.
I understand why; you're a christian and christians usually believe this assumption without question and start off their thinking with "how can god be anything but perfect?".
The next step is to fit reality around the perception of god's perfection.  That's a point of logical failure.


So where do we get the idea that god is perfect?  I would suggest that it's been implanted in us from a very young age.

[Dominic]

Yes

Excellent. Thanks for your honesty.

This is part of the problem that I see in your line of thinking.  If one starts from a fallacious assumption one fails to proceed with a reliable line of thought.

What you might describe as perfection, another might define as extremely good. What this means is that NOTHING you (or we) say about a perfect god can stand as anything other than a personal, subjective perception.  That isn't enough to qualify it as a fact.
God is only perfect because that's what people say god is.  That doesn't mean that god is perfect, however.
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that god is perfect other than as the inevitable outcome of rationalisation and the altering of reality to suit the assumption.

You've begun a line of thought with the assumption that god is perfect.  Before anything else is built upon that it needs to be verified.
I understand why; you're a christian and christians usually believe this assumption without question and start off their thinking with "how can god be anything but perfect?".
The next step is to fit reality around the perception of god's perfection.  That's a point of logical failure.


So where do we get the idea that god is perfect?  I would suggest that it's been implanted in us from a very young age.

The OP is a logic statement.  If A, then B is impossible.  Testing the veracity of A, while very interesting, is not actually relevant to the logical argument of the OP.

If -
A. There is a perfect thing (can call it God but don't need to).

then -
B. There cannot be another different perfect thing.


The only purpose of the OP is to show that there cannot be two perfect Gods (or two perfect anything). 

Whether there is (or even can be) one perfect God (or one perfect anything) is an interesting discussion but not actually relevant to the OP.

[Gimpy]

The OP is a logic statement.  If A, then B is impossible.  Testing the veracity of A, while very interesting, is not actually relevant to the logical argument of the OP.

If -
A. There is a perfect thing (can call it God but don't need to).

then -
B. There cannot be another different perfect thing.


The only purpose of the OP is to show that there cannot be two perfect Gods (or two perfect anything). 

Whether there is (or even can be) one perfect God (or one perfect anything) is an interesting discussion but not actually relevant to the OP.

What totally made up bullshit passing as logic.

One perfect anything does not mean that there can't be two perfect anythings.

All it means is that they are on par with each other. They are equal.


"Perfect" doesn't mean "singular."

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

Since when and says who?

If ONE perfect thing can exist, then TWO perfect things or even THREE prefect things can exist.

And they don't have to be the SAME to be "perfect."

 You seem to have done that yourself.  Nothing about any of the several definitions of "perfect" supports your OP claim.  You've changed the word to fit your idea of what God is.  You asserted something about perfection that is simply not supportable; it's not a recognized definition of the word, and your assertion does not follow from the true definition of perfect.

It's your very weak attempt to rationalize your belief in your imaginary, perfect God.  You defined the word in a way that allows you to use it in some weak philosophical way with the hope you can sleep well tonight knowing you found one more reason to carry on with your delusion.  Good luck with that.

Jazzman

^^^^ This.

[Anfauglir]

Regarding the subjective nature of perfection -

Is it impossible for a god/being/thing to meet everyone's (differing) expectations of perfection ?

Why cannot a perfect being adapt for each person to meet their subjective needs ?

I am talking possibility here, not actuality - as it seems that posters are implying the impossibility of something perfect being able to meet all person's expectations.

Simple disproof of the above:

My subjective expectation of perfection is a being that does NOT change to meet another person's expectation of perfection.

Hence, a being that is perfect for me cannot, by definition, be perfect to anyone who has a differing description of perfection.

Therefore, there needs to be more than one god in order to meet my needs AND the needs of others.

[Banksie]

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).

Boobs.

You lose.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner.  Lock the thread.

[ksm]

A proper definition of God in my view must include 'perfect'.

The flaw in the entire position.

[natlegend]

My subjective expectation of perfection is a being that does NOT change to meet another person's expectation of perfection.

Hence, a being that is perfect for me cannot, by definition, be perfect to anyone who has a differing description of perfection.

Therefore, there needs to be more than one god in order to meet my needs AND the needs of others.

Yep, my 'perfect vase' doesn't show itself to anyone other than me. Oops, now we're really stuffed, that doesn't logically follow at all, does it? Not only is the concept of 'perfection' subjective, it also doesn't work.




Edit: added some emphasis. For what it's worth...

[bertatberts]

Dominic


Perfection means:
To be finished, the best a thing can be, at it's zenith, in need of nothing, for want of nothing, nothing better, complete, without need of improvement, without any flaws.
Your version though much more simplified "'Having every good or beneficial quality" is not dissimilar.
However you believe your god to be this way, which is impossible, You really need to think about that hard, to discover for yourself how it is not possible.
This thread has gone on for three pages, and you've got nowhere, because you are asking for the impossible.

[monkeymind]

My idea of a perfect vase is one that I can piss in and it never gets full, or and I can drink coffee out of and it never gets empty.

[Anfauglir]

My idea of a perfect vase is one that I can piss in and it never gets full, or I can drink coffee out of and it never gets empty.

To be perfect, should you not be able to do both with the one vase?  Obviously without the one affecting the other....

[monkeymind]

^^^Yes, that was my idea. Thanx for clarifying.

[ksm]

There is certainly no such thing as perfect.

It is a philosophical concept with no expression in reality. Mention or describe anything "perfect" and someone will think of a way of making it more perfect.

[Anfauglir]

^^^Yes, that was my idea. Thanx for clarifying.

I read the "or" as differentiating between two seperate vases, rather than two functions of the same vase.

But - to Dominic now - monkey's vase is one he can piss in, and drink coffee out of.  MY perfect vase is one that has never held either piss or coffee.  Perhaps you could explain how one single vase can fulfil both those descriptions of perfection?