?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

02/15/2011 06:33:32 PM · #1201

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're either perfect or you're imperfect.

That's perfectly incoherent. It makes absolutely no sense in theory or practice. There can be no perfect rock unless some rocks are less flawed than others, and then you're making a comparison. Unless you think humans are perfect, you also face the premise that a being without fault made something faulty.

02/15/2011 06:45:42 PM · #1202

Originally posted by jonnyphoto:

So who's wrong? The Canadian (Louis) or the Canadian school (University of Ottawa)?

Neither. You are still playing a game of semantics. "Perfect" is a linguistic construct dependent on comparison with other entities, and is meaningless without adjoining comparisons (even in the religious sense). Your google-suck merely trapped the rigid grammatical definition of its use in common language. You score no points.

Furthermore, you are now showing how disingenuous you are by changing your analogy. You claimed perfect and dead were comparable because both were "states" in a formal way. I called bullshit. Now you're saying that the conditions of one of those very states is indicative of the other. Wtf? Anyway, it's easily shown to be both a poor analogy and complete bs by making the simple observation that the moose could be "perfectly dead".

02/15/2011 06:50:17 PM · #1203

oh man, the grammar bitch was zinged himself! :D

But this is ridiculous. Are we really arguing whether we can use a word and how to properly use it?

If I talk about "the perfect inch" as an abstract concept, what am I comparing the inch to? Nothing. I am talking about the ultimate inch. The Greeks would call it the "form", right?

And if we get hung up on inches. How about the "pefect two"?

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 18:54:36.

02/15/2011 07:03:10 PM · #1204

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I talk about "the perfect inch" as an abstract concept, what am I comparing the inch to? Nothing. I am talking about the ultimate inch. The Greeks would call it the "form", right?

And if we get hung up on inches. How about the "pefect two"?

Both examples require a universally accepted standard for comparison. A bar of platinum would work better than the length of a thumb, but the standard must be accepted by all parties to be valid. Same goes for two in any situation where you might reasonably use the term (like scoring an ice skating routine): we both have to accept the same concept of the standard in order to determine whether it matches perfectly. No such universal standard exists for God.

02/15/2011 07:10:51 PM · #1205

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But this is ridiculous. Are we really arguing whether we can use a word and how to properly use it?

Absolutely. Especially in this conversation, and the howlingly loose way that language is being used. Far from being ridiculous, a precise definition of terms is essential if there is going to be any kind of argument. Otherwise, one side merely gets to preach while the other side just has to take it.

02/15/2011 07:14:31 PM · #1206

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I talk about "the perfect inch" as an abstract concept, what am I comparing the inch to? Nothing. I am talking about the ultimate inch. The Greeks would call it the "form", right?

And if we get hung up on inches. How about the "pefect two"?

Both examples require a universally accepted standard for comparison. A bar of platinum would work better than the length of a thumb, but the standard must be accepted by all parties to be valid. Same goes for two in any situation where you might reasonably use the term (like scoring an ice skating routine): we both have to accept the same concept of the standard in order to determine whether it matches perfectly. No such universal standard exists for God.

But if you have your platinum bar that is the universally accepted inch and someone asks, "how do we know this is perfect?" The answer is...by definition. Right? So something is, in fact, perfect by definition? We aren't comparing that platinum inch to some other inch?

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 19:14:56.

02/15/2011 07:25:17 PM · #1207

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by jonnyphoto:
So who's wrong? The Canadian (Louis) or the Canadian school (University of Ottawa)?

Neither. You are still playing a game of semantics. "Perfect" is a linguistic construct dependent on comparison with other entities, and is meaningless without adjoining comparisons (even in the religious sense). Your google-suck merely trapped the rigid grammatical definition of its use in common language. You score no points.

I am playing no such games. You're the one playing games here. I'm not talking about reality (comparing one entity to another entity) I'm talking about linguistics (comparing the function of an absolute adjective to the function of a comparative adjective). You're trying to change the argument.

I agreed with you (hence my analogy of the dead moose). You can examine a dead moose (the entity in this case) and determine that it is dead. You can also examine God (an entity) as portrayed in the Bible and determine that he is perfect in comparison with humanity (another entity). My original argument was that you cannot use "perfect" in the same way that you use "good." You can say that "God is good" and that "God is perfect." You can also say that "God is better than humanity." However, you cannot say (at least not in a way that has real meaning) that "God is more perfect than humanity."

Originally posted by Louis:

Furthermore, you are now showing how disingenuous you are by changing your analogy. You claimed perfect and dead were comparable because both were "states" in a formal way. I called bullshit. Now you're saying that the conditions of one of those very states is indicative of the other. Wtf?

I would only be disingenuous if I were employing different analogies to support the same argument. I was making a secondary point, and made use of a second analogy to do so. The point of my moose analogy was not to express that a "dead" moose is indicative of a "perfect" moose, but that you can determine whether or not something is "dead" just as easily as you can determine whether or not something is "perfect." I apologize if my analogy was confusing.

Originally posted by Louis:

Anyway, it's easily shown to be both a poor analogy and complete bs by making the simple observation that the moose could be "perfectly dead."

You're observation is "complete bs" because "perfectly" is an adverb. I'm not talking about adverbs, I'm talking about adjectives. You're observation proves nothing. An adverbial form of "dead" exists (i.e., "deadly") but this does not prove that the adjective "dead" is comparative. Just because you can say that something is "perfectly dead" does not prove that you can also say that something is "more perfect." In the same way, you can say that something is "deadly accurate," but that does not prove that you can also say that something is "more dead."

02/15/2011 07:31:18 PM · #1208

Oh bullocks. What a roundabout way to deny the charge that you cannot arbitrarily ascribe definitions to entities of language in order to then attach them to unquantifiable supernatural concepts.

02/15/2011 07:44:55 PM · #1209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But if you have your platinum bar that is the universally accepted inch and someone asks, "how do we know this is perfect?" The answer is...by definition. Right?

The bar doesn't declare itself to be perfect. WE declare it so after agreeing on a global standard and then compare it to that ideal (in this case itself). This is only possible for empirical standards like physical measurements, though. People aren't going to agree on a perfect flavor, color or morality.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not talking about reality

Amen.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You can also examine God (an entity) as portrayed in the Bible and determine that he is perfect in comparison with humanity... However, you cannot say (at least not in a way that has real meaning) that "God is more perfect than humanity."

You're contradicting yourself AND you can find God exhibiting just about every vice of man somewhere in the Bible. Murder, jealousy, spite, incompetence... in some cases worse atrocities than any human.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Just because you can say that something is "perfectly dead" does not prove that you can also say that something is "more perfect."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 19:54:14.

02/15/2011 08:00:14 PM · #1210

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you have your platinum bar that is the universally accepted inch and someone asks, "how do we know this is perfect?" The answer is...by definition. Right?

The bar doesn't declare itself to be perfect. WE declare it so after agreeing on a global standard and then compare it to that ideal (in this case itself). This is only possible for empirical standards like physical measurements, though. People aren't going to agree on a perfect flavor, color or morality.

That's fine. If you want to think of the word like that, then just consider the Christian position is to declare God to be "perfect" in the standards that make sense. In other words, he is the accepted "inch" when it comes to the quality at hand.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/15/2011 08:59:10 PM · #1211

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

just consider the Christian position is to declare God to be "perfect" in the standards that make sense.

What standards make sense? The ones that provoke Catholics and Protestants to fight and kill each other over the differences? The flawless being that created both flawed humans (allegedly in his own image) and satan? The pinnacle of morality that orders the slaughter of women and unborn children? The embodiment of perfection that requires creating a universe to complete some unfulfilled purpose? A creator that makes flowering plants before there's any sunlight or pollinators to support them? A destroyer that cannot cleanse the earth of sin without wiping out bunnies and infants? A judge that absolves faithful mass murderers but condemns virtuous disbelievers? Or maybe the perfect myth, designed to avoid any rational grounds for belief or disproof and reduce otherwise intelligent people to spouting incomprehensible nonsense to support the very same baseless and contradictory concepts they dismiss as fantasy in competing religions?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2011 10:01:02 PM · #1212

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you have your platinum bar that is the universally accepted inch and someone asks, "how do we know this is perfect?" The answer is...by definition. Right?

The bar doesn't declare itself to be perfect. WE declare it so after agreeing on a global standard and then compare it to that ideal (in this case itself). This is only possible for empirical standards like physical measurements, though. People aren't going to agree on a perfect flavor, color or morality.

That's fine. If you want to think of the word like that, then just consider the Christian position is to declare God to be "perfect" in the standards that make sense. In other words, he is the accepted "inch" when it comes to the quality at hand.

The only problem with that argument is that there truly does not exist any one standard in this regard... is there?

Ray

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/16/2011 12:05:29 AM · #1213

Originally posted by Louis:

Not even the god who made him.

Erm...nothing create God. God created the universe. God is outside time and space. He has no beginning and no end. Isn't that known by everyone?

02/16/2011 12:34:14 AM · #1214

Only the credulous.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/16/2011 02:18:31 AM · #1215

I think Louis has used" credulous" like three times in the last dozen posts...

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/16/2011 09:51:29 AM · #1216

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by jonnyphoto:
So who's wrong? The Canadian (Louis) or the Canadian school (University of Ottawa)?

Neither. You are still playing a game of semantics. "Perfect" is a linguistic construct dependent on comparison with other entities, and is meaningless without adjoining comparisons (even in the religious sense). Your google-suck merely trapped the rigid grammatical definition of its use in common language. You score no points.

I am playing no such games. You're the one playing games here. I'm not talking about reality (comparing one entity to another entity) I'm talking about linguistics (comparing the function of an absolute adjective to the function of a comparative adjective). You're trying to change the argument.

Johnny, you are deep in the weeds on this one. You are attempting to argue that because - linguistically - the word perfect does not logically accept a modifier (more perfect, most perfect, less perfect) that the state of perfection cannot be a point of comparison. That is simply absurd. Ask yourself, if "perfect" is not subject to comparison, how can one state that something is "less than" or "closer to" "perfect" than some other thing? Note that if you can't make these statements, you have no ground for declaring God perfect since you would not be able to describe how the state of something other than God was is "less perfect" than the purported perfect state of God.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But if you have your platinum bar that is the universally accepted inch and someone asks, "how do we know this is perfect?" The answer is...by definition. Right?

The bar doesn't declare itself to be perfect. WE declare it so after agreeing on a global standard and then compare it to that ideal (in this case itself). This is only possible for empirical standards like physical measurements, though. People aren't going to agree on a perfect flavor, color or morality.

That's fine. If you want to think of the word like that, then just consider the Christian position is to declare God to be "perfect" in the standards that make sense. In other words, he is the accepted "inch" when it comes to the quality at hand.

So God isn't perfect, he/she/it is just the "most perfect" that is possible? But would not that inherently mean that he/she/it is actually "perfect," not just definitionally, but practically?

I'm sorry, either God is perfect - in exactly the true sense of that word - or not. Which is it?

02/16/2011 10:17:56 AM · #1217

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can also examine God (an entity) as portrayed in the Bible and determine that he is perfect in comparison with humanity... However, you cannot say (at least not in a way that has real meaning) that "God is more perfect than humanity."

You're contradicting yourself AND you can find God exhibiting just about every vice of man somewhere in the Bible. Murder, jealousy, spite, incompetence... in some cases worse atrocities than any human.

It only seems like a contradiction to you because you fail to realize that the second statement has no meaning. You might be able to perceive in your mind that one thing can be "more perfect" than other, but the actual expression itself (i.e., "more perfect") is a meaningless statement. People (apparently including some here) have been wrongly convinced that "more perfect" is a meaningful statement because that expression is used in common language. Sure, you can communicate an idea by saying that, but you can also communicate an idea by saying "axe" instead of "ask" or "runned" instead of "ran." Just because you can communicate an idea that way doesn't mean you should.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Just because you can say that something is "perfectly dead" does not prove that you can also say that something is "more perfect."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

Are you trying to argue that if it's in the Constitution then it must be true? That sounds a lot like the argument that "if it's in the Bible then it must be true."

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/16/2011 10:45:42 AM · #1218

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I agreed with you (hence my analogy of the dead moose). You can examine a dead moose (the entity in this case) and determine that it is dead. You can also examine God (an entity) as portrayed in the Bible and determine that he is perfect in comparison with humanity (another entity).

You can, in fact, compare two entities and come to the conclusion that one is perfect. In such a scenario, would you call the second entity "less perfect?" No. You would simply call it "imperfect." Think about it. Am I really arguing that you cannot compare the states of two entities? No! I'm simply arguing that absolute states do not have different degrees.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

That is simply absurd. Ask yourself, if "perfect" is not subject to comparison, how can one state that something is "less than" or "closer to" "perfect" than some other thing?

This is my whole point. One can't state such a thing. There are no degrees of perfection.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Note that if you can't make these statements, you have no ground for declaring God perfect since you would not be able to describe how the state of something other than God was is "less perfect" than the purported perfect state of God.

Wrong. You cannot make the statement that one moose is "more dead" or "less dead" than another moose, but you can still compare a dead moose to a living moose and determine that one is "living" and the other is "dead." In the same way, you can compare God to humanity and determine that humanity is "imperfect" and God is "perfect." However, it would be wrong to say that humanity is "less perfect" than God or that God is "more perfect" than humanity.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/16/2011 12:15:34 PM · #1219

Here's another question. If God didn't exist, wouldn't humans be driven to invent him?

What I'm getting at, is that god is incredibly useful as a conceit within human society. The concept of god can be used by leaders to influence followers towards goals that they might not choose for themselves (donating cash, accepting lot in life). The same concept can be used to explain mysteries (earthquakes, creation) and provide comfort (afterlife).

Indeed, I presume that Christians would acknowledge that this invention of gods has happened many thousands of times in many thousands of cultures throughout history for these very reasons (up until the birth of Christ and the discovery of the single instance where they would have us believe it was actually true). Would that be agreed?

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/16/2011 02:14:41 PM · #1220

Johnny, you were right, this argument is a rabbit trail. You are quibbling about the technical use of certain words and failing to address the subject of the critique in regard to the claimed nature of God. You say you can compare humans and God and see that God is perfect and humans are not, but you also have argued that humans cannot apply their own value judgments to make that determination. You can't have it both ways. Either there is an objective standard of perfection, which God may embody, but that still exists independently of any particular embodiment, or perfection has no practical meaning.

You (and Doc) appear to be arguing: God is perfect because perfect is what God is.
Such a statement is logically incoherent unless "perfect" has no independent, objective meaning - it would allow God to be changeable over time (a concept which I know that the vast majority of Christians reject), since whatever God changed to be would then be "perfect" just as whatever God has previously been would also have been "perfect."

Doc has still not given me an answer on this:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The important point is that it doesn't make any sense to compared God to an independent standard because there is no such thing.

How do you know? On what basis can you make such a claim?

And while we are on the subject, no one has provided an answer to this either:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

[E]ven if you were to buy the "perfect but unfulfilled" malarky, does it not give you even the slightest pause that under your view in order to be "fulfilled" God apparently had to create a universe where the vast majority of his preeminent creation, humankind, would be condemned to some sort of hell for not identifying and/or sufficiently adhering to the "correct" set of ambiguous prescriptions for the unquestioning worship of himself?

Message edited by author 2011-02-16 14:17:20.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/16/2011 02:32:09 PM · #1221

And since I am scolding folks for neglecting to respond to questions:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The claimed nature of God.

I'm still not tracking with you. Are you saying that "the core of religious belief" is the claim that God has a nature, or is it the characteristics of God's nature?

Well, I wouldn't think it would be necessary to argue that believers think that God has a "nature" . . . but . . . ?

What I am talking about is the logical incoherence of the claimed characteristics of God.

We have started with the claimed nature of God as a "perfect being/entity without beginning or end." I argue that when one closely examines this claim it begins to fall apart as it carries certain unresolveable logical paradoxes.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/16/2011 11:03:17 PM · #1222

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If we hold that God is perfect and that God always existed, then at some point prior to the creation the "universe" consisted solely of God, and, therefore, was itself perfect. Why would God desire to despoil this perfection by bringing something into the universe (consisting entirely of God's perfect self) that was less than perfect?

I will attempt to answer this question, but first I would like to comment on DrAchoo's response.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The person who claims to know the answer to that SP, claims to know the mind of God, so take this all with that in mind. The most common answer I have seen is that God is relational. (One may see evidence for this in the triune nature of God.) So, just as a perfect camera in a universe without light is perfect but unfulfilled of its purpose until there is light, so one could get a feel for a relational God being perfect but an unfufilled perfection without relationship. I'm sure there are cracks in that as presented, but it gives you a taste of the potential answer.

As DrAchoo admits, there are "cracks" in this answer. The most significant "crack" is that God is (and was) relational apart from creation. The three persons of the Trinity have a perfect relationship. St. Augustine emphasized this so strongly that he described the Holy Spirit as the "bond of love" which unites the three persons of the Trinity into the Godhead. Thus, this argument is a weak one because while God is relational, God does not need anything outside of himself to be relational. If God did need something outside of himself in order to be relational then he would not be the perfect, self-sustaining God that he is.

Now I'll return to shutterpuppy's question.

First of all, God did not "desire to despoil" his perfect creation. If God did have a desire to despoil perfection, then he would not be perfect or good. God's creation was, at the time he created it, perfect, just as he intended it to be. A common response is, "but creation became imperfect, which means that God created it with the potential to become imperfect, which must mean that God is not good or that God is not perfect." This is a valid question but there is also a valid response to this question. If God is perfect, then everything he does (or creates) must also be perfect. This creates a dilemma. Creation must be perfect, but it was created with the potential to become imperfect. How can this dilemma be solved? The simplest answer is that this potential was necessary in order for creation to fulfill its purpose and, therefore, be considered perfect. The only logical conclusion is that if creation was not made with the potential to become imperfect then it would be incapable of fulfilling its purpose (which I believe is to glorify God) and without the ability to fulfill its purpose, creation would be an imperfect creation. If one understands this "potential" as "free will" then this solution makes a lot of sense. Creation was made with the potential to become imperfect because humanity (part of creation) was made with free will, which is required for humanity to fulfill its purpose of glorifying God.

Thus, a humanity that does not have free will and, as a result, a creation that does not have the potential to become imperfect, cannot be a perfect creation because it lacks the ability to fulfill its purpose for which it was created.

Edited to clarify a few things.

Message edited by author 2011-02-17 01:28:07.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/17/2011 05:32:40 AM · #1223

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... The only logical conclusion is that if creation was not made with the potential to become imperfect then it would be incapable of fulfilling its purpose (which I believe is to glorify God) and without the ability to fulfill its purpose, creation would be an imperfect creation. If one understands this "potential" as "free will" then this solution makes a lot of sense. Creation was made with the potential to become imperfect because humanity (part of creation) was made with free will, which is required for humanity to fulfill its purpose of glorifying God.

Surely an all knowing god would already know the end results and as such "Potential" translates into a sure thing. Similarly, if you place hazards out there knowing full well that humanity will trip over them, how does one translate that into free will.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-02-17 05:35:26.