Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eduk wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 4:35 am You are using the normative definition of perfection. As in really good. If we say god is really good then some of the god claims tend to fall away.

Well, really good is hardly the defition. REally good could be improved. But once you are talking about the perfection of a cake it would have to be normative. By what criteria were you going to evaluate a cake to demonstrate it was not perfect? The non-normative ones, that is.

Eduk wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 4:35 am You are using the normative definition of perfection. As in really good. If we say god is really good then some of the god claims tend to fall away.

And then to the second part:
this can be positive for the theist. The theist is less cornered by the problem of evil when the theist is not saying God must be mathematically and omni perfect. Many of the problems related to the various omnis become more manageable and also the paradoxes that get thrown at theists. In fact the theist need not weigh in on just how amazing, good, powerful, knowledgeable, just that these qualities are well beyond humans.

By what criteria were you going to evaluate a cake to demonstrate it was not perfect?

I can't define perfection in the strictest sense, so logically I know that you can't either and therefore I know you can't bake a perfect cake. Like infinity defining something by what it isn't (in this case something which can't be improved) tends to raise issues.
Even under the normative definition I imagine it would be trivial to take any cake and find some idea to improve it (no matter how impractical).

In fact the theist need not weigh in on just how amazing, good, powerful, knowledgeable, just that these qualities are well beyond humans.

Sure but that is a weak claim. For example under that definition God is as Clarke said

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

I mean sure I can't poke holes in that concept of God but a weak concept of God is likely as unappealing to the average theist as the average atheist. So now you have two groups which don't believe.

Ironically, the proposition “God cannot exist” is in accord with classical theism.

Eduk wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 12:21 pm

In fact the theist need not weigh in on just how amazing, good, powerful, knowledgeable, just that these qualities are well beyond humans.

Sure but that is a weak claim. For example under that definition God is as Clarke said

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

I mean sure I can't poke holes in that concept of God but a weak concept of God is likely as unappealing to the average theist as the average atheist. So now you have two groups which don't believe.

The attempt to codify the Infinite is always “weak” when viewed univocally.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:20 pm The one theology book all atheists really should read

Patronising, predictable, apologist ********.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:46 pm PS "*******" = Male Bovine Excrement.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:44 pm

Dark Matter wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:20 pm The one theology book all atheists really should read

Patronising, predictable, apologist ********.

So predictable!

SirBruce wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 10:29 am

Dark Matter wrote: ↑August 26th, 2018, 2:01 pm Talk about perfection being impossible makes my head hurt. What kind of moron can even suggest such a thing?

Maybe your head hurts after trying to rationally explain something irrational. It’s ok, you’re only human. The problem most humans have while rationalizing about such such complex theories is the simple fact that they deal in absolutes. Wich again has being proven to be wrong throughout history. The world does not revolve around absolutes so why should humans try to reason with such concept? Maybe less headaches would occur to fellows such as yourself?!

... Only threw imagination can someone come up with such concept as “absolute perfection” or even “absolute imperfection” maybe?!?. Imagining a 12 headed beast with human traits in the mind doesn’t make it any real or possible. But it can in one’s mind.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:20 pm The one theology book all atheists really should read

What book? This is an article as far as I can see?

Burning ghost wrote: ↑August 28th, 2018, 2:05 am

Dark Matter wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 5:20 pm The one theology book all atheists really should read

What book? This is an article as far as I can see?

My modest New Year's wish for 2014, then, is that atheists who care about honest argument – and about maybe actually getting somewhere in these otherwise mind-numbingly circular debates – might consider reading just one book by a theologian, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God,

SirBruce wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 9:17 pm

SirBruce wrote: ↑August 27th, 2018, 10:29 am

Maybe your head hurts after trying to rationally explain something irrational. It’s ok, you’re only human. The problem most humans have while rationalizing about such such complex theories is the simple fact that they deal in absolutes. Wich again has being proven to be wrong throughout history. The world does not revolve around absolutes so why should humans try to reason with such concept? Maybe less headaches would occur to fellows such as yourself?!

... Only threw imagination can someone come up with such concept as “absolute perfection” or even “absolute imperfection” maybe?!?. Imagining a 12 headed beast with human traits in the mind doesn’t make it any real or possible. But it can in one’s mind.

Spectrum and fans have an affinity for redundancy — so much so I might have got caught up in their enthusiasm.

I'll add that to the list, along with one book from
Acupuncture
Homeopathy
Pro organic farming
The merits of Trump
Spiritual healing
Exorcism
True ghost stories
The real JFK assassin
Why the world is flat
Hinduism
Judaism
Why vacinnes cause autism
Scientology
Creationism
And so on and so forth. I'm not sure I'll get to the end of the pile anytime soon.

Dark Matter -

You’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to read or listen if they don’t want to. It is, as stated in the article, easier to attack the extreme views rather than consider the middle ground - I’ve made attempts here and there with small successes.

There is a dogmatic mindset at both extremes.

Forgive me for saying that I doubt I’d get much from reading that book and that is because I am not teh target audience.

“God” is a concept that is more often talked around rather than defined and expressed.