Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument for God's Necessary Imperfection

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 6:07:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Criticism courtesy of Carneades.org:
"...if I were to object to the argument, I would focus on objecting to the equivocation on state of being between P1 and P2. If a particular being is perfect, then a greater state of that being is not possible. However in order to have a desire, one must want a greater state of being for the world. Something could itself be perfect, but live in an imperfect world and therefore take action to make that world [more] perfect."

Defense:
Desire is necessarily self-centered, even if it is genuine desire for the sake of another. One's desires reflect a discrepancy between one's personal values and the perception of the external world. In other words, desire exists because the world does not satisfy or align with all of the values held by an observer. If an observer possesses a desire for another being to recover from an illness, for example, then this demonstrates that the observer is in possession of an unfulfilled desire, despite it not pertaining to him, directly. Desire reflects personal values, and unless one holds value in the well-being of others, one cannot desire that well-being. The observer would be of a greater state of being if a desire is fulfilled, rather than unfulfilled; a being that is unsatisfied is further from perfect than a being that is satisfied.

I have not yet received a response from Carneades.org regarding this defense.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 8:04:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.
I just wondered, in what way would God be perfect? I mean, I can see perfectly knowledgeable/powerful/good, but these senses of 'perfect' would not work in the argument. So it has be something else.
If I was to object to it, I'd say ' being perfect' refers to possessing these three attributes.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)
Looove dat logic.
I'm really exited about C's new logic series.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 8:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 8:04:11 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.
I just wondered, in what way would God be perfect? I mean, I can see perfectly knowledgeable/powerful/good, but these senses of 'perfect' would not work in the argument. So it has be something else.

I don't know. "He's just perfect. That's it. Done. No explanation of what that means is needed." I wanted to capture this vagueness in the argument.

If I was to object to it, I'd say ' being perfect' refers to possessing these three attributes.

Well, then *perfectly* good is easily refutable. I just poked myself in the eye to prove it; he wouldn't allow such pain if he was *perfectly* good. But I still see that as subjective and somewhat vague.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (P3,P4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (P2,C1, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (C2, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(P1,C2.5, Modus Tollens)
Looove dat logic.

Except when I mess it up. I forgot to correct the operational references when I renumbered it...

I'm really exited about C's new logic series.

Yes. Model logics.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:18:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).

I think that it is important that you define in what way God is perfect, that way it is made more clear how he could be imperfect given this argument. It seems to be difficult to argue that he is imperfect if you haven't even defined what it means for him to be perfect.

P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.

This needs to be justified. It seems plausible that a perfect being can desire the good of an imperfect being. This desire does not make the first being any less perfect. Your response that even desires like these are inherently selfish also needs to be justified. Perhaps this is true biologically, from a human standpoint (although even that is subject to argument), but can this be applied to a spiritual being?

P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

This needs to be justified. There is nothing contradictory about the possibility of a being which has no desires that can still commit an action.

P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)
Nolite Timere
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:37:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

What desire or need is satisfied when water turns from a solid state into a liquid state or from a liquid state to a gaseous state?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.
And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 7:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)

I have two objections.

1.)
Equivocation between 'state of being' in 1 & 2. Since we are equivocating between God, and the universe. The universe is a state of being which did not exist before God created it, and God himself is (obviously) a state of being. While a greater state of being for God is impossible, overall a greater state of being is possible since the universe does not yet exist. It's just an identity equivocation.

2.)
How is P3 true? Stars explode to fulfil a desire or need? P3 is demonstrably false unless you have a very specific definition of 'action'.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 5:20:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)

I believe Plato made the same argument. Mathematically, a perfect circle cannot have any variation in central angles, a perfect square cannot have an extra side. Thus, God cannot have or need anything more than he is. The question is if perfection in the abstract is anything quite so tangible.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 11:21:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)

P3 is false. An action does not necessarily require any desire or need. For example, I may fiddle with my pen whilst sitting in a lecture, but I don't have a desire or need to fiddle with my pen - it's just an action.

P1 is also dubious. Just because I perform an action because of my desire, it doesn't mean that that action will make me a greater being. For example, I may decide to listen to music on my commute to work, but this doesn't mean that doing this will make me a greater being.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 12:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 10:18:43 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).

I think that it is important that you define in what way God is perfect, that way it is made more clear how he could be imperfect given this argument. It seems to be difficult to argue that he is imperfect if you haven't even defined what it means for him to be perfect.

Unfortunately, that is typically left undefined. If I were to define such a thing, it would be something like:

- Perfectly powerful (omnipotent)
- Perfectly knowledgeable (omniscient)
- Perfectly intelligent (application of knowledge/cannot err)
- Perfectly moral/good (which is impossible without objective morality)

P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.

This needs to be justified. It seems plausible that a perfect being can desire the good of an imperfect being. This desire does not make the first being any less perfect. Your response that even desires like these are inherently selfish also needs to be justified. Perhaps this is true biologically, from a human standpoint (although even that is subject to argument), but can this be applied to a spiritual being?

I think this is mostly addressed in my post #2. I believe expansion of that explanation is possible, but I won't get into that quite yet. Regarding the final questions, that is another vague term that never gets defined by those who use it. But, in all of the religious texts and stories that I have seen, God is driven to action by emotion and desire, most commonly by love and anger. Out of curiosity, do you know of anything in which God is described to action arbitrarily?

P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

This needs to be justified. There is nothing contradictory about the possibility of a being which has no desires that can still commit an action.

Based on other comments here, I would have to clarify this to be "willful action". I will look into this one a little more thoroughly.

Thank you for your input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 12:44:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:37:12 PM, stealspell wrote:
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

What desire or need is satisfied when water turns from a solid state into a liquid state or from a liquid state to a gaseous state?

I would have to clarify that to "willful action", then. Thank you for the input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:11:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.

His actions are described as to be driven by emotion in the Bible. This depicts desire. Are any of God's actions not born of desire; such as for the love of his children? The love God has is His desire, which He is satisfying. Can you show me otherwise?

2 Kings 17:18 (NIV)
"So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,"

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.

Even barring creation, God constantly acts to make changes to the world (the existence of the Bible, prayer, miracle, etc.). He does so out of love of and anger towards His children, as said above.

C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.

Well, perfect is a subjective concept unless it is being used in as a adjective to an objective concept, as I mentioned.

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."

Just means, "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (Oxford)

So, in Genesis 12:17-19 (KJV)
"17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

How can it be considered fair that Pharaoh (and his house) was punished because he was lied to? If this cannot be justified, then God's ways are not always just, and thus, imperfect.

And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

I am seeking and welcoming such criticism. I thank you for your input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 7:32:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
I have two objections.

1.)
Equivocation between 'state of being' in 1 & 2. Since we are equivocating between God, and the universe. The universe is a state of being which did not exist before God created it, and God himself is (obviously) a state of being. While a greater state of being for God is impossible, overall a greater state of being is possible since the universe does not yet exist. It's just an identity equivocation.

This is the objection that was raised my Carnaedes.org, to which my response was in post #2.

2.)
How is P3 true? Stars explode to fulfil a desire or need? P3 is demonstrably false unless you have a very specific definition of 'action'.

I would definitely have to clarify this to "willful action". My apologies for the ambiguity.

Thank you for your input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 11:21:55 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.
C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.

*This shouldn't be necessary, but; God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creator of the universe.

**This is a subjective concept when not used as an adjective to an objective subject (i.e. perfectly aligned, greater mass), but I am assuming coherence of its general objectivity for the sake of this argument to reflect the common theistic claim.

P1) P > ~G
P2) D > G
P3) A > D
P4) A
C1) D . . . . . . (3,4, Modus Ponens)
C2) G . . . . . . (2,5, Modus Ponens)
C2.5) ~~G . . (6, Double Negative)
C3) ~P . . . . . .(1,6.5, Modus Tollens)

P3 is false. An action does not necessarily require any desire or need. For example, I may fiddle with my pen whilst sitting in a lecture, but I don't have a desire or need to fiddle with my pen - it's just an action.

I would have to clarify this to "willful action".

P1 is also dubious. Just because I perform an action because of my desire, it doesn't mean that that action will make me a greater being. For example, I may decide to listen to music on my commute to work, but this doesn't mean that doing this will make me a greater being.

I think that being more satisfied places you in a greater state of being than if you were less satisfied. I understand the contention, and will contemplate this.

Thank you for your input!
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 2:12:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 12:44:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:37:12 PM, stealspell wrote:
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

What desire or need is satisfied when water turns from a solid state into a liquid state or from a liquid state to a gaseous state?

I would have to clarify that to "willful action", then. Thank you for the input!

I understand that what you're trying to do with this argument but I'm sorry to say it's not going to work. Here is the element I believe you are missing. Because the wording of your argument reminds me of Aristotle's potentiality and actuality, I'm going to use that terminology to better explain myself.

"P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible."

You're basically suggesting that if one possesses a desire or need than one cannot be perfect because the perfect being would not desire or need. That is, a desire must be fulfilled to be in harmony. Almost like a B that must resolve into a tonic C. However, if God is perfect then he must possess all that is potential but also actual. Then, God would possess both the need and the resolution to that need. In the natural world we desire something, perform an action, and resolve our desire. This all requires time and causes and effects. This is not going to be the case with God. So while it may be the case that God possesses a desire or need for something, if we are going to assume God is perfect, we must assume God possesses all that is potential and actual. Therefore God possesses both the desire or need for something as well as the resolution to that desire and need.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:08:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 1:11:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.

His actions are described as to be driven by emotion in the Bible. This depicts desire. Are any of God's actions not born of desire; such as for the love of his children? The love God has is His desire, which He is satisfying. Can you show me otherwise?
Wrong, his actions are interpreted by you as having human emotion because you cannot reconcile what God is if you can't equate God as a man. Its typical of these types of premises. You merely project onto God what you feel something represents. You have no proof that Gods actions are emotionally based, you merely assume it.
2 Kings 17:18 (NIV)
"So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,"
Right, someone is saying what they think represents anger, it doesn't therefore mean it is anger to God.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Once again, shows humans idea of an action as understood with limited wisdom.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.

Even barring creation, God constantly acts to make changes to the world (the existence of the Bible, prayer, miracle, etc.). He does so out of love of and anger towards His children, as said above.
Non sequitur. You cannot prove what motivates someone, especially God. Just because people relate to each other what they think is being demonstrated by God, doesn't make it true. People are merely trying to understand on their terms, not Gods.
C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.

Well, perfect is a subjective concept unless it is being used in as a adjective to an objective concept, as I mentioned.
No, perfection is something you cannot possibly grasp in regards to a God, period. No matter how you constantly want to assert it , its nothing but argumentum ad naseam
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."

Just means, "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (Oxford)

So, in Genesis 12:17-19 (KJV)
"17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

How can it be considered fair that Pharaoh (and his house) was punished because he was lied to? If this cannot be justified, then God's ways are not always just, and thus, imperfect.
You cannot claim what is or isn't a perfect act via God because you would have to possess Gods wisdom, and you don't. Same as every argument you have, God is a man according to you so you therefore justify your ideas of God as a man, typical straw man.
And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

I am seeking and welcoming such criticism. I thank you for your input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 2:12:32 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/5/2015 12:44:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:37:12 PM, stealspell wrote:
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

What desire or need is satisfied when water turns from a solid state into a liquid state or from a liquid state to a gaseous state?

I would have to clarify that to "willful action", then. Thank you for the input!

I understand that what you're trying to do with this argument but I'm sorry to say it's not going to work.

That's fine with me. I didn't post it to proclaim that I am correct. I just like to know why I'm wrong.

Here is the element I believe you are missing. Because the wording of your argument reminds me of Aristotle's potentiality and actuality, I'm going to use that terminology to better explain myself.

"P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible."

You're basically suggesting that if one possesses a desire or need than one cannot be perfect because the perfect being would not desire or need. That is, a desire must be fulfilled to be in harmony. Almost like a B that must resolve into a tonic C. However, if God is perfect then he must possess all that is potential but also actual. Then, God would possess both the need and the resolution to that need. In the natural world we desire something, perform an action, and resolve our desire. This all requires time and causes and effects. This is not going to be the case with God. So while it may be the case that God possesses a desire or need for something, if we are going to assume God is perfect, we must assume God possesses all that is potential and actual. Therefore God possesses both the desire or need for something as well as the resolution to that desire and need.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but that infers that if God possess a need then He must also possess the resolution to that need simultaneously, without the need for an action needed between them? If that is the case, that would entail that the world is in line with God's desires in its current state?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:43:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:08:29 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2015 1:11:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.

His actions are described as to be driven by emotion in the Bible. This depicts desire. Are any of God's actions not born of desire; such as for the love of his children? The love God has is His desire, which He is satisfying. Can you show me otherwise?
Wrong, his actions are interpreted by you as having human emotion because you cannot reconcile what God is if you can't equate God as a man. Its typical of these types of premises. You merely project onto God what you feel something represents. You have no proof that Gods actions are emotionally based, you merely assume it.

Alright. Is there anything that supports the assertion that what is depicted in the Bible is necessarily not equivalent to emotion?

2 Kings 17:18 (NIV)
"So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,"
Right, someone is saying what they think represents anger, it doesn't therefore mean it is anger to God.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Once again, shows humans idea of an action as understood with limited wisdom.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.

Even barring creation, God constantly acts to make changes to the world (the existence of the Bible, prayer, miracle, etc.). He does so out of love of and anger towards His children, as said above.
Non sequitur. You cannot prove what motivates someone, especially God. Just because people relate to each other what they think is being demonstrated by God, doesn't make it true. People are merely trying to understand on their terms, not Gods.

So, it's possible that God is acting without any motivation?

C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.

Well, perfect is a subjective concept unless it is being used in as a adjective to an objective concept, as I mentioned.
No, perfection is something you cannot possibly grasp in regards to a God, period. No matter how you constantly want to assert it , its nothing but argumentum ad naseam

Well, if he is perfect, then it is by His own standard in the sense of subjective traits. For instance, someone may view a perfect being as perfectly forgiving while another view him as perfectly just. But if both of these are true, then a contradiction arises: is it perfectly forgiving to forgive someone only after punishment? Or is it perfectly just to punish someone who is already forgiven? I can go along with the statement that we couldn't possibly grasp God's perfection, but then that makes the term useless to us.

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."

Just means, "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (Oxford)

So, in Genesis 12:17-19 (KJV)
"17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

How can it be considered fair that Pharaoh (and his house) was punished because he was lied to? If this cannot be justified, then God's ways are not always just, and thus, imperfect.
You cannot claim what is or isn't a perfect act via God because you would have to possess Gods wisdom, and you don't. Same as every argument you have, God is a man according to you so you therefore justify your ideas of God as a man, typical straw man.

So there is no room to call Him anything, then since we cannot know. One cannot call God good or just because we equally do not know what's going on outside our perception. When people say "do not judge God" and then turn around and call Him good, are they not casting judgment upon God?

And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

I am seeking and welcoming such criticism. I thank you for your input!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:46:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example for an action, then. What about other intentional actions, such as prayer, miracles, and the inspiration granted for holy scriptures?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 8:54:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:46:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example for an action, then. What about other intentional actions, such as prayer, miracles, and the inspiration granted for holy scriptures?

Those actions are altruistic actions, in that they are done to help others and for no gain of one's own self-interest. For example, I may organize a charity event to help the local hospital; but because this is an altruistic action, my self-interest doesn't come into it.

In other words, your premise was that actions presuppose desire or need to become greater. But that is only selfish actions and not selfless/altruistic actions. The latter doesn't presuppose the desire or need to become greater, or to remedy some personal imperfection.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 9:22:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 8:54:42 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:46:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example for an action, then. What about other intentional actions, such as prayer, miracles, and the inspiration granted for holy scriptures?

Those actions are altruistic actions, in that they are done to help others and for no gain of one's own self-interest. For example, I may organize a charity event to help the local hospital; but because this is an altruistic action, my self-interest doesn't come into it.

In other words, your premise was that actions presuppose desire or need to become greater. But that is only selfish actions and not selfless/altruistic actions. The latter doesn't presuppose the desire or need to become greater, or to remedy some personal imperfection.

Even altruistic desires stem from personal desire. Your care for others is a reflection of your desire for them to be better off. Those desires for the well-being of others are just stronger with fewer conflicting desires to impede them. For instance, if one falls on a grenade to save others, it is because his desire for the well-being of others is greater than the desire for self-preservation. You want to protect the others. If you didn't have greater value for the lives of others, you might attempt to just escape the threat, yourself.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 10:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 9:22:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 8:54:42 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:46:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example for an action, then. What about other intentional actions, such as prayer, miracles, and the inspiration granted for holy scriptures?

Those actions are altruistic actions, in that they are done to help others and for no gain of one's own self-interest. For example, I may organize a charity event to help the local hospital; but because this is an altruistic action, my self-interest doesn't come into it.

In other words, your premise was that actions presuppose desire or need to become greater. But that is only selfish actions and not selfless/altruistic actions. The latter doesn't presuppose the desire or need to become greater, or to remedy some personal imperfection.

Even altruistic desires stem from personal desire. Your care for others is a reflection of your desire for them to be better off. Those desires for the well-being of others are just stronger with fewer conflicting desires to impede them. For instance, if one falls on a grenade to save others, it is because his desire for the well-being of others is greater than the desire for self-preservation. You want to protect the others. If you didn't have greater value for the lives of others, you might attempt to just escape the threat, yourself.

I know, that was my point. Desires don't presuppose a need to remedy personal imperfection, which is what your 1st premise asserts.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 1:38:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:43:48 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:08:29 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2015 1:11:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.

His actions are described as to be driven by emotion in the Bible. This depicts desire. Are any of God's actions not born of desire; such as for the love of his children? The love God has is His desire, which He is satisfying. Can you show me otherwise?
Wrong, his actions are interpreted by you as having human emotion because you cannot reconcile what God is if you can't equate God as a man. Its typical of these types of premises. You merely project onto God what you feel something represents. You have no proof that Gods actions are emotionally based, you merely assume it.

Alright. Is there anything that supports the assertion that what is depicted in the Bible is necessarily not equivalent to emotion?

2 Kings 17:18 (NIV)
"So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,"
Right, someone is saying what they think represents anger, it doesn't therefore mean it is anger to God.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Once again, shows humans idea of an action as understood with limited wisdom.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.

Even barring creation, God constantly acts to make changes to the world (the existence of the Bible, prayer, miracle, etc.). He does so out of love of and anger towards His children, as said above.
Non sequitur. You cannot prove what motivates someone, especially God. Just because people relate to each other what they think is being demonstrated by God, doesn't make it true. People are merely trying to understand on their terms, not Gods.

So, it's possible that God is acting without any motivation?

C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.

Well, perfect is a subjective concept unless it is being used in as a adjective to an objective concept, as I mentioned.
No, perfection is something you cannot possibly grasp in regards to a God, period. No matter how you constantly want to assert it , its nothing but argumentum ad naseam

Well, if he is perfect, then it is by His own standard in the sense of subjective traits. For instance, someone may view a perfect being as perfectly forgiving while another view him as perfectly just. But if both of these are true, then a contradiction arises: is it perfectly forgiving to forgive someone only after punishment? Or is it perfectly just to punish someone who is already forgiven? I can go along with the statement that we couldn't possibly grasp God's perfection, but then that makes the term useless to us.
No. It isn't useless to us to keep considering what perfect entails within the wisdom of Gods' mind. It is a continuous learning process. So it isn't useless not to know or grasp what is perfect, it has its goal as do all spiritual lessons. Keep discussing and you keep learning or moving towards the goal.
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."

Just means, "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (Oxford)

So, in Genesis 12:17-19 (KJV)
"17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

How can it be considered fair that Pharaoh (and his house) was punished because he was lied to? If this cannot be justified, then God's ways are not always just, and thus, imperfect.
You cannot claim what is or isn't a perfect act via God because you would have to possess Gods wisdom, and you don't. Same as every argument you have, God is a man according to you so you therefore justify your ideas of God as a man, typical straw man.

So there is no room to call Him anything, then since we cannot know. One cannot call God good or just because we equally do not know what's going on outside our perception. When people say "do not judge God" and then turn around and call Him good, are they not casting judgment upon God?

And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

I am seeking and welcoming such criticism. I thank you for your input!
My response has nothing to do with whether God possesses emotion as we see it or as people interpret it, you miss my point initially. My response has been directly to make the point that you cannot contend God "desires" anything without you being God. You can't merely claim God "needed" creation and it be a viable arguing position. You have no way of knowing God is in need of anything. I'll give you an example. Worship for instance. You can claim God sees being worshipped as showing respect but you can't grasp what being worshipped is within the wisdom that God possesses. I.e. you can't claim it is a "need" , or that God needs respect from us just because it's a command or rule or whatever. As far as we know, it may merely be something that people need to do and God is merely telling us to act this way. It doesn't prove that God has a "need" for it or that it fulfills anything within God. Its the difference between the wisdom within you in regards to things and the wisdom within God.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 3:48:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:26:14 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 2:12:32 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/5/2015 12:44:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:37:12 PM, stealspell wrote:
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.

What desire or need is satisfied when water turns from a solid state into a liquid state or from a liquid state to a gaseous state?

I would have to clarify that to "willful action", then. Thank you for the input!

I understand that what you're trying to do with this argument but I'm sorry to say it's not going to work.

That's fine with me. I didn't post it to proclaim that I am correct. I just like to know why I'm wrong.

Here is the element I believe you are missing. Because the wording of your argument reminds me of Aristotle's potentiality and actuality, I'm going to use that terminology to better explain myself.

"P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible."

You're basically suggesting that if one possesses a desire or need than one cannot be perfect because the perfect being would not desire or need. That is, a desire must be fulfilled to be in harmony. Almost like a B that must resolve into a tonic C. However, if God is perfect then he must possess all that is potential but also actual. Then, God would possess both the need and the resolution to that need. In the natural world we desire something, perform an action, and resolve our desire. This all requires time and causes and effects. This is not going to be the case with God. So while it may be the case that God possesses a desire or need for something, if we are going to assume God is perfect, we must assume God possesses all that is potential and actual. Therefore God possesses both the desire or need for something as well as the resolution to that desire and need.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but that infers that if God possess a need then He must also possess the resolution to that need simultaneously, without the need for an action needed between them?

Yes, because in Aristotelian terms, things move from potentiality into actuality.
Quoting from the wikipedia entry "Actus purus":

"Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect"

"In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus."

"According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change."

If that is the case, that would entail that the world is in line with God's desires in its current state?

I'm not sure I understand why you think it entails that. Perhaps you can clarify this.

According to Aquinas, God's desire is for the world to move into actuality, that is, move back towards him. If you're implying that the act of creating the world is inherently evil, I would agree with you. God created something that must move back into actuality/perfection. And therefore God created a flawed world that is suppose to become perfect over time. Now Aristotle didn't believe God has emotions or anything like that. So if you're thinking, wow, this Aquinas guy is really stupid for taking up Aristotle and trying to apply it to the Christian God, you're right. There is no possible way God could be seen as good under those terms. This is why Voltaire and others criticized many of those philosophers by posing the problem of evil because of how absurd their thinking was.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 6:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The best argument against the perfection is God is that humans exist lol Being omnipotent he could have created a better species than us, instead of us, when he created us. We are clearly inherently flawed. After all, what is a greater being?

(i) A being who creates the greatest finite species possible
(ii) A being who creates less than the greatest finite species possible

Both (i) and (ii) cannot be true. Since the greatest and most perfect being would self-evidently be (i), and we exist.....Boom....God isn't perfect.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 12:27:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:38:29 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:43:48 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:08:29 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2015 1:11:09 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/4/2015 5:56:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/2/2015 6:05:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I put forth this argument in hopes of receiving criticism, and comments. I welcome all reasoned contentions to my premises!

P1) If a being is perfect**, then a greater** state of being is not possible (i.e., it cannot improve).
P2) The possession of desire or need indicates that a greater state of being is possible.
P3) An action is an effort to satisfy desire or need; action necessitates desire or need.
Where is the leap in assuming the need was for God and not for other beings in Gods creation. Why do you claim to know this constitutes a "NEED" for God, because that would imply you know the mind of God, you don't.

His actions are described as to be driven by emotion in the Bible. This depicts desire. Are any of God's actions not born of desire; such as for the love of his children? The love God has is His desire, which He is satisfying. Can you show me otherwise?
Wrong, his actions are interpreted by you as having human emotion because you cannot reconcile what God is if you can't equate God as a man. Its typical of these types of premises. You merely project onto God what you feel something represents. You have no proof that Gods actions are emotionally based, you merely assume it.

Alright. Is there anything that supports the assertion that what is depicted in the Bible is necessarily not equivalent to emotion?

2 Kings 17:18 (NIV)
"So the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,"
Right, someone is saying what they think represents anger, it doesn't therefore mean it is anger to God.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Once again, shows humans idea of an action as understood with limited wisdom.
P4) God* created the universe, which is an action.

C1) Therefore, desire is possessed.
Just because creation is an act, doesn't therefore mean it was desirable by God. You're assuming that creation was for Gods use, not for Gods children. Gods children might have had the need for it, doesn't mean God did.

Even barring creation, God constantly acts to make changes to the world (the existence of the Bible, prayer, miracle, etc.). He does so out of love of and anger towards His children, as said above.
Non sequitur. You cannot prove what motivates someone, especially God. Just because people relate to each other what they think is being demonstrated by God, doesn't make it true. People are merely trying to understand on their terms, not Gods.

So, it's possible that God is acting without any motivation?

C2) Therefore, a greater state of being is possible.
C3) Therefore, God is not a perfect being.
You don't know or have the wisdom necessary to assert what constitutes perfect. But this is a nice personal opinion fallacy nonetheless.

Well, perfect is a subjective concept unless it is being used in as a adjective to an objective concept, as I mentioned.
No, perfection is something you cannot possibly grasp in regards to a God, period. No matter how you constantly want to assert it , its nothing but argumentum ad naseam

Well, if he is perfect, then it is by His own standard in the sense of subjective traits. For instance, someone may view a perfect being as perfectly forgiving while another view him as perfectly just. But if both of these are true, then a contradiction arises: is it perfectly forgiving to forgive someone only after punishment? Or is it perfectly just to punish someone who is already forgiven? I can go along with the statement that we couldn't possibly grasp God's perfection, but then that makes the term useless to us.
No. It isn't useless to us to keep considering what perfect entails within the wisdom of Gods' mind. It is a continuous learning process. So it isn't useless not to know or grasp what is perfect, it has its goal as do all spiritual lessons. Keep discussing and you keep learning or moving towards the goal.

OK, gotchya.

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."

Just means, "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (Oxford)

So, in Genesis 12:17-19 (KJV)
"17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

How can it be considered fair that Pharaoh (and his house) was punished because he was lied to? If this cannot be justified, then God's ways are not always just, and thus, imperfect.
You cannot claim what is or isn't a perfect act via God because you would have to possess Gods wisdom, and you don't. Same as every argument you have, God is a man according to you so you therefore justify your ideas of God as a man, typical straw man.

So there is no room to call Him anything, then since we cannot know. One cannot call God good or just because we equally do not know what's going on outside our perception. When people say "do not judge God" and then turn around and call Him good, are they not casting judgment upon God?

And syllogism deals with agreed upon facts. Not any subject is valid for a syllogism. Which is why your argument is invalid and unsound. It violates the rules of content as put forth by Aristotelian intended uses of a syllogism. Most freshman and some sophomores in logic tend to make this mistake.

I am seeking and welcoming such criticism. I thank you for your input!
My response has nothing to do with whether God possesses emotion as we see it or as people interpret it, you miss my point initially. My response has been directly to make the point that you cannot contend God "desires" anything without you being God. You can't merely claim God "needed" creation and it be a viable arguing position. You have no way of knowing God is in need of anything. I'll give you an example. Worship for instance. You can claim God sees being worshipped as showing respect but you can't grasp what being worshipped is within the wisdom that God possesses. I.e. you can't claim it is a "need" , or that God needs respect from us just because it's a command or rule or whatever. As far as we know, it may merely be something that people need to do and God is merely telling us to act this way. It doesn't prove that God has a "need" for it or that it fulfills anything within God. Its the difference between the wisdom within you in regards to things and the wisdom within God.

I did get your point. I was just continuing to get more of an idea of what you have in mind. I thank you for the brief conversation.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 12:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:44:03 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/5/2015 9:22:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 8:54:42 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:46:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:35:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
I think this argument can be circumvented with the clarification that, God didn't create the universe per se. Perhaps a more philosophically sound proposition is that 'God is the reason why the universe exists'.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example for an action, then. What about other intentional actions, such as prayer, miracles, and the inspiration granted for holy scriptures?

Those actions are altruistic actions, in that they are done to help others and for no gain of one's own self-interest. For example, I may organize a charity event to help the local hospital; but because this is an altruistic action, my self-interest doesn't come into it.

In other words, your premise was that actions presuppose desire or need to become greater. But that is only selfish actions and not selfless/altruistic actions. The latter doesn't presuppose the desire or need to become greater, or to remedy some personal imperfection.

Even altruistic desires stem from personal desire. Your care for others is a reflection of your desire for them to be better off. Those desires for the well-being of others are just stronger with fewer conflicting desires to impede them. For instance, if one falls on a grenade to save others, it is because his desire for the well-being of others is greater than the desire for self-preservation. You want to protect the others. If you didn't have greater value for the lives of others, you might attempt to just escape the threat, yourself.

I know, that was my point. Desires don't presuppose a need to remedy personal imperfection, which is what your 1st premise asserts.

Alright, sorry. Part of this stems from the "self-satisfied" description I've heard about God. Additionally, I suppose it could be somewhat opinionative that an unsatisfied being is less perfect than a satisfied being. Thanks.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 1:12:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 3:48:47 AM, stealspell wrote:

Yes, because in Aristotelian terms, things move from potentiality into actuality.
Quoting from the wikipedia entry "Actus purus":

"Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect"

"In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus."

"According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change."

Thank you for that info.

If that is the case, that would entail that the world is in line with God's desires in its current state?

I'm not sure I understand why you think it entails that. Perhaps you can clarify this.

Sorry. If God has a need that stemmed from the world (such as worship, for example) then that would exist without any action at all. In this way, the current state of the world must correspond to any and all of God's desires that pertain to the world.

According to Aquinas, God's desire is for the world to move into actuality, that is, move back towards him. If you're implying that the act of creating the world is inherently evil, I would agree with you. God created something that must move back into actuality/perfection. And therefore God created a flawed world that is suppose to become perfect over time. Now Aristotle didn't believe God has emotions or anything like that. So if you're thinking, wow, this Aquinas guy is really stupid for taking up Aristotle and trying to apply it to the Christian God, you're right. There is no possible way God could be seen as good under those terms. This is why Voltaire and others criticized many of those philosophers by posing the problem of evil because of how absurd their thinking was.

I appreciate this.