There cannot be more than one perfect God.

[Dominic]

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.

[Agamemnon]

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

[The shadowmind]

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.

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.

[Anfauglir]

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.

Rubbish!  

Unless there is a major chunk of your argument missing, this is a ridiculous leap.  You are saying that it is imposible to create (say) two perfect vases, two perfect diamonds, two perfect cars.

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

Sorry, but like I say, you are making a huge leap of logic here!  Please explain the line I've bolded above, and explain why it must be true.

[Agga]

The purpose of this thread is to dismiss the possibility of multiple Gods. 

So what's the purpose of dismissing the possibility of multiple Gods?  Does this dismissal have some useful purpose behind it because at present it looks like you're trying to use the thread to limit the possibility to your personal god.

Sounds very much like preaching disguised as discussion to me.

[Kaine]

Funny how you talk about a god needing to be perfect. Yet you worship a god who admits to being "jealous" and "wrathful". How are either of those traits considered perfect?

[bertatberts]

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.

[Dominic]

The purpose of this thread is to dismiss the possibility of multiple Gods. 

So what's the purpose of dismissing the possibility of multiple Gods?  Does this dismissal have some useful purpose behind it because at present it looks like you're trying to use the thread to limit the possibility to your personal god.

Sounds very much like preaching disguised as discussion to me.

That's a bit overly strict.

If we can rule out multiple God's it will eradicate a proportion of debate that no longer needs to occur ie which God to choose.

The debate then simply becomes no God vs one God.

[Agga]

That's a bit overly strict.

Ok.  I call it as I see it.

If we can rule out multiple God's it will eradicate a proportion of debate that no longer needs to occur ie which God to choose.

Ok.  So you're saying that the reason for the thread is to establish ground-rules to have a discussion on.. the thread.. which is establishing ground-rules?  :shrug

The debate then simply becomes no God vs one God.

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

[Buddhi]

The purpose is to take polytheistic religions out of the equation ?

[Dominic]

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.

Rubbish! 

Unless there is a major chunk of your argument missing, this is a ridiculous leap.  You are saying that it is imposible to create (say) two perfect vases, two perfect diamonds, two perfect cars.

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

Sorry, but like I say, you are making a huge leap of logic here!  Please explain the line I've bolded above, and explain why it must be true.

You are talking about very good vases, cars, diamonds - not perfect ones.

Let's take vases as an example.

A perfect vase will be (among many other things) perfectly beautiful, perfectly available, perfectly durable, perfectly accommodating, perfectly adequate (fulfilling every need that a vase can have)...

A perfect vase will always be there when I need it.  In fact it must be available when anyone needs it.  Otherwise it is not perfect.  A perfect vase must be omnipresent.

Two perfect vases must have the same qualities otherwise at least one must be imperfect.  Two perfect things must be identical.  Two perfect things must occupy the same space otherwise one is imperfect, either 'not where it needs to be' or 'where it doesn't need to be'.  This is just one aspect of perfection.

Two perfect and therefore omnipresent vases are therefore the same vase.

[Agga]

A perfect vase will always be there when I need it.  In fact it must be available when anyone needs it.  Otherwise it is not perfect.  A perfect vase must be omnipresent.

Yeah, I hate to take the wind out of your sails here but a vase that is omnipresent is not perfect.

Examples:

- When it's in my pc case, disrupting airflow to the radiator.
- Underneath my feet.
- In between my wife's legs.


"Perfection" is HIGHLY subjective.


By the way you seem to have not seen or ignored the question at the bottom of this post.

[Dominic]

A perfect vase will always be there when I need it.  In fact it must be available when anyone needs it.  Otherwise it is not perfect.  A perfect vase must be omnipresent.

Yeah, I hate to take the wind out of your sails here but a vase that is omnipresent is not perfect.

Examples:

- When it's in my pc case, disrupting airflow to the radiator.
- Underneath my feet.
- In between my wife's legs.


"Perfection" is HIGHLY subjective.


By the way you seem to have not seen or ignored the question at the bottom of this post.

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.

[Dominic]

The purpose is to take polytheistic religions out of the equation ?

Yes, but also to take alternative Gods out of the equation - since there can only be one perfect being.

[Omen]

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.

Watch me.

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

And perfect is?

Is it predicated upon theist to constantly rationalize statements and terms along reasoning that is tautological.  What is perfect in comparison to not perfect, what is perfect that you are not simply going to define into existence without any qualification as to why it would be 'perfect'?

Sorry Dominic, you failed at the starting gate.  You can't insist that based on a tautological idea of what is 'perfect' that that thing to exist it can only be 1 as to fit a tautological idea of what is defined.  It is not considered a 'rational' argument to simply make things up on a whim, much less when even the internal logic is built up by fallacies.

[Agga]

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

&

Perfectly available at every location yet perfectly unobtrusive

Then it can't be omnipresent.  Looks like it's back to the drawing board, Dominic.

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

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?



By the way you STILL haven't answered the question at the bottom of this post so now I know you're intentionally dodging it.

[kin hell]

I'm sorry Dom but this is a silly idea to try and sell.

Especially when you have indicated it is to get rid of the other gods, and thus bring debate here to focus on one god vs no god.

My first question if the ridiculous was proved (ie. there cannot be more than one perfect god) would be

                        ............which god would that be, out of the 10,000s that monkey mind has generated?

[Omen]

If we can rule out multiple God's it will eradicate a proportion of debate that no longer needs to occur ie which God to choose.

And you're going to do this with make believe, all conforming along the lines of your own arrogant identification with your own myth making.

Aghast, who could have seen that coming?

The debate then simply becomes no God vs one God.

There is no debate of 'no god' vs 'one god', there are no such things as dichotomies of discussions that involve undefined, unknown, unproven, and that are so reduced in meaning to be nothing at all.  Either there is a context for the 'god' being claimed or there is no discussion, there is no such thing as a 'generic god', or any extension of 'god' to be anything as self evident.  You don't get to randomly and arbitrarily define what that is, based purely on your own ability to just make it up as you go along and expect that to be the normative view.

Do you not understand that you can't build a claim off of fallacies?

Can you not comprehend your own arrogant ego in that you only use those fallacies in self reinforcing myth making?

[changeling]

I like it.
That statement at least proves without a doubt that the
major screwup written about in the bible is certainly
not the one perfect god.

[Omen]

Funny how you talk about a god needing to be perfect. Yet you worship a god who admits to being "jealous" and "wrathful". How are either of those traits considered perfect?

It would simply be part of the tautology, perfectly jealous and perfectly wrathful.  It need not actually mean anything useful or serve as any rational justification in logic as tautologies are prone to do.  Dominic can always retreat to the tautology he constructs, without ever justifying the tautology.

Its horribly dishonest I know, but he doesn't care as his claim is self serving to his own myth.

Dominic will also likely avoid acknowledging any post or answering any question that doesn't first agree with the tautology or that cannot be answered with the tautology.

[Dominic]

I'm sorry Dom but this is a silly idea to try and sell.

Especially when you have indicated it is to get rid of the other gods, and thus bring debate here to focus on one god vs no god.

My first question if the ridiculous was proved (ie. there cannot be more than one perfect god) would be

                        ............which god would that be, out of the 10,000s that monkey mind has generated?

Which one ?

All the names have connotations (baggage) which may or may not be accurate.  I think that if you concentrate on perfection then all the other qualities will follow from that premise.

As for a name, certainly don't choose a name that you believe to be full of historical baggage as that will cloud any possible discussion.

An atheist would probably find it easiest to simply use the concept of perfection itself rather than use any of the historical God names with all their baggage and connotation.

[jetson]

So, there's one god, and it is perfect.  Where is it?  And how do we know it's real?  Where is the evidence?

[Omen]

An atheist

No one

would probably find it easiest to simply use the concept of perfection

What concept of perfection?  Why do you use this as if it were self evident, without being directly responsible for all the absurdities you just finished making in this entire thread?  Why use a meaningless tautology in a descriptive statement of what is or is not?

[monkeymind]

Sounds like a perfect urinal.

[Banksie]

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. 

[Omen]

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. 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14329.msg317108#msg317108

[Banksie]

^^^ Meh, kind of.  OK, I'll give you that one.  1-0 to you.

[Blaze]

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?

[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.