Why does god have to be perfect?

[McBell]

I will leave you and you misunderstandings alone.

I have waited two years for a decent argument from you.

So far I have been severely disappointed.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Let me break this down step by step, cot. Lets start off neutral, as agnostics haha.

1. We both don't know whether God (as defined in the argument) exists
2. Despite our ignorance, we understand that either God exists, or God doesn't exist
3. We realize that if God does exist, it would be impossible for God to not exist
4. We realize that if God doesn't exist, it would be impossible for God to exist
5. We acknowledge that despite our ignorance, God's existence is at least possible

3 and 4 are only true if we are talking concurrently - i.e. that god cannot both currently exist and current not exist - however it would be possible for god to exist at one stage and yet not exist at another; likewise it is possible that god does not currently exist yet it is possible for god to have existed in the past or to come into existence in the future. Given your assertion of necessity I assume you do hold these claims to be effectively concurrent, which would mean given your assertion this would hold true.

Now look at #5, If we agree that God's existence is possible, we are saying "It is possible that a being exist, a being which cannot fail to exist."

Now, pay close attention, because this is where I might lose you. This being cannot fail to exist, right (if it existed)? That means it exists necessarily, right?

Not technically as I noted earlier (due to the possibility that its existence might be temporally limited) but lets assume that it is a necessary component of existence for a moment.

So if it is possible for such a being to exist necessarily, then the mere option of it NOT existing at all is nonsensical, because if it were possible for it to not exist at all, it wouldn't be possible for it to be necessary!!!

Only according to the assertion you just made: assuming that god is necessary to existence, then its non existence is impossible (given the universe exists) however there is NOTHING to support the assertion the existence of the universe is contingent on the existence of a 'god'.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you've been waiting, then why did you excuse yourself from the conversation and not make any subsequent replies or posts? A pretty curious way of waiting.

Huh? I find it utterly amazing that you made the above quote after me and you had a lengthy back and forth on the subject.

In any case, I'd be more than willing to continue to educate you about the MOA, the SOA, or any other argument for the existence of God you care to discuss (since they are all, without exception, invalid or question-begging).

You've been owned enough on the MOA, no need to carry your beatings over to other arguments

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have waited two years for a decent argument from you.

So far I have been severely disappointed.

Haha nice!! :clap

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

3 and 4 are only true if we are talking concurrently - i.e. that god cannot both currently exist and current not exist - however it would be possible for god to exist at one stage and yet not exist at another; likewise it is possible that god does not currently exist yet it is possible for god to have existed in the past or to come into existence in the future. Given your assertion of necessity I assume you do hold these claims to be effectively concurrent, which would mean given your assertion this would hold true.

Not technically as I noted earlier (due to the possibility that its existence might be temporally limited) but lets assume that it is a necessary component of existence for a moment.

Only according to the assertion you just made: assuming that god is necessary to existence, then its non existence is impossible (given the universe exists) however there is NOTHING to support the assertion the existence of the universe is contingent on the existence of a 'god'.

Based on everything you said it doesn't seem you understand the concept of necessity.

 

[idav]

Necessary existence is not something that you can have one minute and not have the next. So if it is possible for God to exist necessarily, then God must actually exist, because if it is possible, yet false, it couldn't have been possible in the first place, because if it were possible, it would be true, because it can't be possibly true but actually false. Now that may work for contingency, but not with necessity.

Based on everything you said it doesn't seem you understand the concept of necessity.

It seems your still having trouble with the concept of 'possible'. Any time you say something is possible it doesn't necessarily mean it will actualize. It is possible there is a god just like it is possible there is not a god. Now probable is a whole other story, so when I say a maximal god is possible I don't necessarily think it's probable.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Huh? I find it utterly amazing that you made the above quote after me and you had a lengthy back and forth on the subject.

Given that you tucked your tail and ran when you got backed into a corner, and have refused to engage any further on the matter, preferring to blow hot air like this-

You've been owned enough on the MOA, no need to carry your beatings over to other arguments

it should come as no surprise at all. But as I said, if you need further education regarding natural theology, just let me know; clearly you've got a long ways to go yet.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It seems your still having trouble with the concept of 'possible'. Any time you say something is possible it doesn't necessarily mean it will actualize.

It also seems as if you are still having trouble with distinguishing the difference between contingent truths and necessary truth. Of course when dealing with contingent truths just because something is possible it doesn't mean it is actual. But when you are talking NECESSARY truths, if something is possible, it IS actual.

It is possible there is a god just like it is possible there is not a god.

You still just don't get it. If something is possibly necessarily true, then there is no possibility that it could be possibly necessarily false, because if that were the case, it wouldn't be possibly necessarily true in the first place!! So once again, you are failing to note the difference between contingent truths and necessary truths.

Now probable is a whole other story, so when I say a maximal god is possible I don't necessarily think it's probable.

Makes no sense.

 

[nazz]

I am not looking of a debate but an understanding of why people need to believe in a perfect God. Why do you feel god must be omni-anything.

From a few conversations I don't know if anyone can explain so I will also take your view on why you think people need a perfect god.

I don't claim God to be omni-anything. But I question if "perfect" is an omni quality?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Given that you tucked your tail and ran when you got backed into a corner, and have refused to engage any further on the matter, preferring to blow hot air like this-

Smh. Whatever rattles your chain, i guess.

it should come as no surprise at all. But as I said, if you need further education regarding natural theology, just let me know; clearly you've got a long ways to go yet.

Smh.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, you can't leave objections on the table, excuse yourself from the conversation, then stamp your foot and insist that your argument still stands. If you'd like to formulate a reply to my (many) objections to the MOA, and your bizarre formulation of it (unless you've come to your senses enough to give up on that, at least), perhaps after having acquainted yourself with the rudiments of logic and modal logic in particular so that you're at least able to comprehend the counter-arguments, I'm all ears.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, you can't leave objections on the table, excuse yourself from the conversation, then stamp your foot and insist that your argument still stands. If you'd like to formulate a reply to my (many) objections to the MOA, and your bizarre formulation of it (unless you've come to your senses enough to give up on that, at least), perhaps after having acquainted yourself with the rudiments of logic and modal logic in particular so that you're at least able to comprehend the counter-arguments, I'm all ears.

Lets take this to messenger (yahoo). If you don't want to take it there, im not interested.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Based on everything you said it doesn't seem you understand the concept of necessity.

If something is a necessity, then it is a required aspect - non negotiable, fundamentally necessary. I pointed out several times in my post, where, if your assertion of necessity is correct then the point would hold - however as I indicated you have merely asserted this characteristic to a particular concept (god), not demonstrated that it must be so (or that it is likely to be so, or even that it can be so).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lets take this to messenger (yahoo). If you don't want to take it there, im not interested.

I don't know what that means, but I don't see why a discussion forum wouldn't be a perfectly reasonable place to carry on... you know, a discussion.

 

[EtuMalku]

Because it says so in the Christian bible . . .
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he

God has omniscience -He knows all-things Psalm 147:4-5
God has omnipotence -He is all-powerfull Matthew 19:26
God has omnipresence - He is present everywhere Matthew 28:20

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Because it says so in the Christian bible . . .
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he

To be precise, neither of those quotes say that God is perfect; the first says that his way is perfect, and the word of the Lord is flawless, whereas the second says his works are perfect and his ways just. This makes more sense than describing God as perfect, since perfection implies teleology- ways and works can be perfect, because they are for something, and perfection implies some goal or end that a given X is perfect for. There is no perfection "in itself", so describing a being, such as God, as "perfect" is close to unintelligible, since beings aren't for any particular end or goal.

 

[Vivid]

God is Perfect because of everything he created. The planets, the animals, nature, weather etc. God is perfect because He doesn't eat nor sleep, He is Ever-Living, Powerful. Everything came into existence because of God. I can go on further but I'll stop here.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I am not looking of a debate but an understanding of why people need to believe in a perfect God. Why do you feel god must be omni-anything.

From a few conversations I don't know if anyone can explain so I will also take your view on why you think people need a perfect god.

Being perfect also includes all imperfections. If it did not, it wouldn't be perfect.

I believe in a 'perfect' God, because anything less than 'perfect' wouldn't be God.

It's like coming second in a race...you still didn't come first, you still did not win, even though you came close to winning, but 'near enough isn't good enough'.

It also depends on what your expectations are and what you mean by 'perfect'.

 

[cottage]

First off, what do you mean by "actualized". Maybe we have a different definition.

I mean actual as existing in reality and not just as a concept in a proposition.

Is it possible for a MGB to exist in the actual world? Yes or no? No matter what answer you give, you are still in deep waters.

The answer must be a resounding No! And for two reasons: Straight off no contradiction is implied in denying the concept and as the object doesn’t exist in this world, which being actual is also a possible world, then, according to the argument, it is demonstrably impossible for it to exist at all. The argument is therefore mute.

When dealing with necessity, it can!! "1+1 = possibly 2". That is a proposition, right? Either the statement is true or false. If it is possible for 1+1 = 2, then it must be true, right? It can't be possible for 1+1 = 2, but 1+1= actually 43. Do you see?

But that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. The argument insists that we accept the concept (which, actually, we are not obliged to do as I explain further down the page) but it cannot anywhere demonstrate the object’s existence, which it must according to the argument if it is necessary existent in all possible worlds.
And on the question of necessary truths, 2 + 2 = 4 is a necessarily true example and we cannot know it or understand it to be anything but true; but if, as you say, “we don’t know whether God exists” then “God exists” cannot be on a level with 2 + 2 = 4, a demonstrable necessary truth that we don’t discover by beginning from the notion of possibility, but is presented intuitively and indisputably as absolute and certain. The Maximally Great Being is thus inferior compared with the 2 + 2 = 4 example of a necessary truth, which means it is contradictory and therefore an impossible concept.

Let me break this down step by step, cot. Lets start off neutral, as agnostics haha.

1. We both don't know whether God (as defined in the argument) exists
2. Despite our ignorance, we understand that either God exists, or God doesn't exist
3. We realize that if God does exist, it would be impossible for God to not exist
4. We realize that if God doesn't exist, it would be impossible for God to exist
5. We acknowledge that despite our ignorance, God's existence is at least possible

Now look at #5, If we agree that God's existence is possible, we are saying "It is possible that a being exist, a being which cannot fail to exist."

1. There is no logical or factual reason to believe God exists, therefore:
2. The concept can be denied without contradiction
3. If God doesn’t exist (2) then his existence is impossible

Now, pay close attention, because this is where I might lose you.

<cringe> Please, not so condescending! I

This being cannot fail to exist, right (if it existed)? That means it exists necessarily, right? So if it is possible for such a being to exist necessarily, then the mere option of it NOT existing at all is nonsensical, because if it were possible for it to not exist at all, it wouldn't be possible for it to be necessary!!!

Wrong! The Being does fail to exist! For we don’t accept the opening premise and the concept can therefore be denied at the starting gate.

Necessary existence is not something that you can have one minute and not have the next. So if it is possible for God to exist necessarily, then God must actually exist, because if it is possible, yet false, it couldn't have been possible in the first place, because if it were possible, it would be true, because it can't be possibly true but actually false. Now that may work for contingency, but not with necessity.

What I’m saying is the certainty necessarily implied in the premises of the argument together with its conclusion is neither true in experience nor true in an ontologically necessary or literal sense. The matter is settled by what the argument purports to present but is unable to deliver, which is that we can’t think what is unable to be thought. Plantinga’s purely logical argument is based on the premise that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same way at the same time, i.e. where if it is possible that a thing is necessarily the case then the thing in question necessarily is the case. I’m saying there is no such possibility, for while we cannot conceive of a married bachelor for example, or a two-sided triangle, there is not the least difficulty in conceiving the non-existence of a Maximally Great Being. A necessary truth can be denied with the lips but not with the mind, and try as we might we cannot conceive of the concept, 2 + 2, as being the equal of anything but 4;but there is no such difficulty when we think of ‘God’, for every object that is distinctly conceivable can also be conceived to be non-existent, and implies no contradiction. That is the logical litmus test in this case!

 

[EtuMalku]

To be precise, neither of those quotes say that God is perfect; the first says that his way is perfect, and the word of the Lord is flawless, whereas the second says his works are perfect and his ways just. This makes more sense than describing God as perfect, since perfection implies teleology- ways and works can be perfect, because they are for something, and perfection implies some goal or end that a given X is perfect for. There is no perfection "in itself", so describing a being, such as God, as "perfect" is close to unintelligible, since beings aren't for any particular end or goal.

Apologetics are boring . . . I know it is just a ploy to make read your book :angel2:

Matthew 5:48
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.