Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The "LIKE from LIKE" principle.

ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:48:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

That is God according to you. What do you contend is a perfect creation?
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:14:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:48:03 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

That is God according to you. What do you contend is a perfect creation?

If there is a "god", by definition it would be perfect.
(I hold really high standards for the definition of a god)
A being that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced
What is perfect, cannot (and would not) create anything less than perfect.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:13:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:14:17 AM, ATHOS wrote:


If there is a "god", by definition it would be perfect.
(I hold really high standards for the definition of a god)
A being that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced
What is perfect, cannot (and would not) create anything less than perfect.

Okay, let's open it up a little bit more.

A being that cannot be destroyed: If I am getting it right, you are professing that a perfect being would be the one who won't die. Death is something that gives value to life. If we were to never die, life wouldn't be as beautiful and valuable.

Secondly, Going along this path, a being who would not die and continue to reproduce would eat up all the resources and generally would be a nuisance to the planet. Death is the most important final touch that's sustain the beauty of life.

A being that can't be changed/ influenced: Why is change not good? I'd say it gives purpose to your life. It is what brings perfection in our lives. You haven't answered the question still, what is perfection? Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term. The fact that we ourselves think and ascertain our perfection, and then strive to achieve it is what is perfection in our eyes.
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:48:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:13:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:14:17 AM, ATHOS wrote:


If there is a "god", by definition it would be perfect.
(I hold really high standards for the definition of a god)
A being that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced
What is perfect, cannot (and would not) create anything less than perfect.

Okay, let's open it up a little bit more.

A being that cannot be destroyed: If I am getting it right, you are professing that a perfect being would be the one who won't die. Death is something that gives value to life. If we were to never die, life wouldn't be as beautiful and valuable.


Secondly, Going along this path, a being who would not die and continue to reproduce would eat up all the resources and generally would be a nuisance to the planet. Death is the most important final touch that's sustain the beauty of life.

A being that can't be changed/ influenced: Why is change not good? I'd say it gives purpose to your life. It is what brings perfection in our lives. You haven't answered the question still, what is perfection? Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term. The fact that we ourselves think and ascertain our perfection, and then strive to achieve it is what is perfection in our eyes.

'Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term.'
You have your idea of what "perfect" is, and I have mine. Isn't that what subjective means?

Why is change not good?
There nothing wrong with change. Humans experience change to adapt to situations to improve life or sometimes change makes life more challenging.

But you asked me: 'What do you claim is perfect?'
Obviously the subject was about a god, so I gave my opinion.
What is perfect cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.
If a being is perfect it would have no reason to change.

Why would it change when it's already perfect?

'Perfect is subjective, dude.'
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:50:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:48:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 7:13:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:14:17 AM, ATHOS wrote:


If there is a "god", by definition it would be perfect.
(I hold really high standards for the definition of a god)
A being that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced
What is perfect, cannot (and would not) create anything less than perfect.

Okay, let's open it up a little bit more.

A being that cannot be destroyed: If I am getting it right, you are professing that a perfect being would be the one who won't die. Death is something that gives value to life. If we were to never die, life wouldn't be as beautiful and valuable.





Secondly, Going along this path, a being who would not die and continue to reproduce would eat up all the resources and generally would be a nuisance to the planet. Death is the most important final touch that's sustain the beauty of life.

A being that can't be changed/ influenced: Why is change not good? I'd say it gives purpose to your life. It is what brings perfection in our lives. You haven't answered the question still, what is perfection? Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term. The fact that we ourselves think and ascertain our perfection, and then strive to achieve it is what is perfection in our eyes.

'Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term.'
You have your idea of what "perfect" is, and I have mine. Isn't that what subjective means?

Why is change not good?
There nothing wrong with change. Humans experience change to adapt to situations to improve life or sometimes change makes life more challenging.

But you asked me: 'What do you claim is perfect?'
Obviously the subject was about a god, so I gave my opinion.
What is perfect cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.
If a being is perfect it would have no reason to change.

Why would it change when it's already perfect?

'Perfect is subjective, dude.'

People experience change because we're less than perfect.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:02:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Perfect is not just subjective, There is a objective and subjective sense of perfect.

Objective sense:" that is a perfect copy"

Subjective sense: "that is exactly what I like"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:16:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

If that is "perfect" to you, then how does the creation of something imperfect violate that definition?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:29:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:16:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

If that is "perfect" to you, then how does the creation of something imperfect violate that definition?

To me, my opinion is, impeferfect and perfect is a contradiction. Imperfection cannot come from perfection, impossible.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:29:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:29:04 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:16:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

If that is "perfect" to you, then how does the creation of something imperfect violate that definition?

To me, my opinion is, impeferfect and perfect is a contradiction. Imperfection cannot come from perfection, impossible.

*imperfect
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:06:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:29:55 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:29:04 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:16:56 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

If that is "perfect" to you, then how does the creation of something imperfect violate that definition?

To me, my opinion is, impeferfect and perfect is a contradiction. Imperfection cannot come from perfection, impossible.

*imperfect

And if an imperfect creation was a perfect being's intention?
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:23:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:43:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:59:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal. The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

Perfect is subjective, dude. What do you claim is perfect?

Anything that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced.

I agree. But only because god doesn't exist and, therefore, can't be destroyed, changed, or influenced.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:57:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:48:29 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 7:13:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:14:17 AM, ATHOS wrote:


If there is a "god", by definition it would be perfect.
(I hold really high standards for the definition of a god)
A being that cannot be destroyed, changed or influenced
What is perfect, cannot (and would not) create anything less than perfect.

Okay, let's open it up a little bit more.

A being that cannot be destroyed: If I am getting it right, you are professing that a perfect being would be the one who won't die. Death is something that gives value to life. If we were to never die, life wouldn't be as beautiful and valuable.





Secondly, Going along this path, a being who would not die and continue to reproduce would eat up all the resources and generally would be a nuisance to the planet. Death is the most important final touch that's sustain the beauty of life.

A being that can't be changed/ influenced: Why is change not good? I'd say it gives purpose to your life. It is what brings perfection in our lives. You haven't answered the question still, what is perfection? Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term. The fact that we ourselves think and ascertain our perfection, and then strive to achieve it is what is perfection in our eyes.

'Because to me, perfection is such a subjective term.'
You have your idea of what "perfect" is, and I have mine. Isn't that what subjective means?

Why is change not good?
There nothing wrong with change. Humans experience change to adapt to situations to improve life or sometimes change makes life more challenging.

But you asked me: 'What do you claim is perfect?'
Obviously the subject was about a god, so I gave my opinion.

I was asking about your conception of a perfect creation. By the perfect God.

I thought you were explaining your idea of a perfect creation. I replied on that basis.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 10:10:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is better said God cannot create anything other than God. If God is the origin of all things, then, all things came from God. In other words, God had only God to work with.
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.
Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.
Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:27:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

You are applying precepts which are relevant to humans to god. I don't agree that this would transfer. When humans create, there are aspects of ourselves in our creation because we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if we are trying to create something withouth aspects of ourselves, any resulting product will necessarily include such aspects subconsciously. We cannot fully excise ourselves from our cognitive biases and prejudices, so they will color anything we produce.

Thus, the "what is created reflects aspects of its creator" only applies to humans, and only as a result of our imperfection. It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want. It will only reflect the aspects they want it to reflect. It will only be perfect if they want it to be perfect.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.

Why? There is nothing in the definition of perfection that anything that follows from it must also be perfect.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.

You're implying that this relationship is one of symmetry (imperfection can't create perfection, ergo perfection can't create imperfection). You haven't demonstrated that this relationship is actually the case. The alternative that I've presented is that perfection is inaccessibly from imperfection, but imperfection is accessible from perfection. It's a one-way door.

Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?

That's the contradiction.
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:10:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:27:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

You are applying precepts which are relevant to humans to god. I don't agree that this would transfer. When humans create, there are aspects of ourselves in our creation because we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if we are trying to create something withouth aspects of ourselves, any resulting product will necessarily include such aspects subconsciously. We cannot fully excise ourselves from our cognitive biases and prejudices, so they will color anything we produce.

Thus, the "what is created reflects aspects of its creator" only applies to humans, and only as a result of our imperfection. It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want. It will only reflect the aspects they want it to reflect. It will only be perfect if they want it to be perfect.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.

Why? There is nothing in the definition of perfection that anything that follows from it must also be perfect.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.

You're implying that this relationship is one of symmetry (imperfection can't create perfection, ergo perfection can't create imperfection). You haven't demonstrated that this relationship is actually the case. The alternative that I've presented is that perfection is inaccessibly from imperfection, but imperfection is accessible from perfection. It's a one-way door.

Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?

That's the contradiction.

I'm just using logic and non-contradiction on a hypothetical god.
(Of course nothing said here by you or me can be demonstrated. We're postulating.)

'It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want.'

Would it be logical for a perfect being to create anything less than perfect?

'Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?'

There are no degrees of perfection, not with the definition I provided. Humans create imperfect things because it is reflective of human imperfection. I thought I already made this clear.

'Less perfection' is implying that perfection has degrees or levels. Whereas the definition I provided is definitive.
It's either perfect or it's not.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:10:43 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:27:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

You are applying precepts which are relevant to humans to god. I don't agree that this would transfer. When humans create, there are aspects of ourselves in our creation because we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if we are trying to create something withouth aspects of ourselves, any resulting product will necessarily include such aspects subconsciously. We cannot fully excise ourselves from our cognitive biases and prejudices, so they will color anything we produce.

Thus, the "what is created reflects aspects of its creator" only applies to humans, and only as a result of our imperfection. It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want. It will only reflect the aspects they want it to reflect. It will only be perfect if they want it to be perfect.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.

Why? There is nothing in the definition of perfection that anything that follows from it must also be perfect.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.

You're implying that this relationship is one of symmetry (imperfection can't create perfection, ergo perfection can't create imperfection). You haven't demonstrated that this relationship is actually the case. The alternative that I've presented is that perfection is inaccessibly from imperfection, but imperfection is accessible from perfection. It's a one-way door.

Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?

That's the contradiction.


I'm just using logic and non-contradiction on a hypothetical god.
(Of course nothing said here by you or me can be demonstrated. We're postulating.)

'It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want.'

Would it be logical for a perfect being to create anything less than perfect?

If it wanted to.


'Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?'

There are no degrees of perfection, not with the definition I provided. Humans create imperfect things because it is reflective of human imperfection. I thought I already made this clear.

Degrees of imperfection don't contradict your definition.


'Less perfection' is implying that perfection has degrees or levels. Whereas the definition I provided is definitive.
It's either perfect or it's not.

So, you disagree that imperfection can have degrees?
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:52:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:13:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:10:43 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:27:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

You are applying precepts which are relevant to humans to god. I don't agree that this would transfer. When humans create, there are aspects of ourselves in our creation because we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if we are trying to create something withouth aspects of ourselves, any resulting product will necessarily include such aspects subconsciously. We cannot fully excise ourselves from our cognitive biases and prejudices, so they will color anything we produce.

Thus, the "what is created reflects aspects of its creator" only applies to humans, and only as a result of our imperfection. It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want. It will only reflect the aspects they want it to reflect. It will only be perfect if they want it to be perfect.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.

Why? There is nothing in the definition of perfection that anything that follows from it must also be perfect.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.

You're implying that this relationship is one of symmetry (imperfection can't create perfection, ergo perfection can't create imperfection). You haven't demonstrated that this relationship is actually the case. The alternative that I've presented is that perfection is inaccessibly from imperfection, but imperfection is accessible from perfection. It's a one-way door.

Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?

That's the contradiction.


I'm just using logic and non-contradiction on a hypothetical god.
(Of course nothing said here by you or me can be demonstrated. We're postulating.)

'It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want.'

Would it be logical for a perfect being to create anything less than perfect?

If it wanted to.


'Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?'

There are no degrees of perfection, not with the definition I provided. Humans create imperfect things because it is reflective of human imperfection. I thought I already made this clear.

Degrees of imperfection don't contradict your definition.


'Less perfection' is implying that perfection has degrees or levels. Whereas the definition I provided is definitive.
It's either perfect or it's not.

So, you disagree that imperfection can have degrees?

No. Imperfection can have degrees, because it's already within the realms of imperfection.
Example:
A car is less than perfect by the definition I provided. But when compared to other less than perfect cars there can be found degrees of imperfection, that would be defined by it's driver e.g gas milage, if it's cool or not, 4wd, on road off road ect.

You said "Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we?' not less imperfect. By saying 'less perfect' already indicates imperfection. By saying ' "Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves,..' you are implying that humans are perfect, and by the definition I provided they are clearly not.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 4:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
What is created reflects aspects of its creator.
This can be so: perhaps that's why it is said that man was created in God's image.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
If this is the definition of perfect then perfection is a stagnant thing that cannot create anything because creation REQUIRES change.

For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.
According to your definition, something perfect could never create anything at all or do anything at all. It (God) would have to be some immutable thing.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
No, but not for t reasons you have stated.

Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.

Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Yes, but not because Humans can't do it but because something changeless, indestructible, eternal isn't created! Something with those characteristics would have to have existed eternally!

Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.
So what? That's not why they cannot create perfection as you so define it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 4:57:15 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
What is created reflects aspects of its creator.
This can be so: perhaps that's why it is said that man was created in God's image.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
If this is the definition of perfect then perfection is a stagnant thing that cannot create anything because creation REQUIRES change.

For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.
According to your definition, something perfect could never create anything at all or do anything at all. It (God) would have to be some immutable thing.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
No, but not for t reasons you have stated.

Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.

Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Yes, but not because Humans can't do it but because something changeless, indestructible, eternal isn't created! Something with those characteristics would have to have existed eternally!

.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.
So what? That's not why they cannot create perfection as you so define it.

'Yes, but not because Humans can't do it but because something changeless, indestructible, eternal isn't created! Something with those characteristics would have to have existed eternally!'

Yeah I guess you're right about that, just making assumptions about a hypothetical God. If there is a God, anything anyone would say about it would be just as much of an assumption.

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

'This can be so: perhaps that's why it is said that man was created in God's image.'

Couldn't the above statement be just as much of an assumption?

Man was created in Gods image?

I think it's more probable that it's the other way around. I'm in the middle of a debate right now concerning this topic- awaiting Con's reply.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:52:45 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:13:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:10:43 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:27:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 1:19:14 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:21:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:57:19 AM, ATHOS wrote:
If a god is perfect and eternal, then by definition anything it creates would also have to be perfect and eternal.

I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows.

The logic of this is flawless. A perfect and eternal god that creates anything less than perfect and eternal is impossible.

'I disagree. I would say that, by definition, anything it creates would necessarily be exactly what it wanted to create. So, if a perfect being could create something imperfect if it wanted to. Why it would want to? Who knows'

What is created reflects aspects of its creator.

You are applying precepts which are relevant to humans to god. I don't agree that this would transfer. When humans create, there are aspects of ourselves in our creation because we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if we are trying to create something withouth aspects of ourselves, any resulting product will necessarily include such aspects subconsciously. We cannot fully excise ourselves from our cognitive biases and prejudices, so they will color anything we produce.

Thus, the "what is created reflects aspects of its creator" only applies to humans, and only as a result of our imperfection. It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want. It will only reflect the aspects they want it to reflect. It will only be perfect if they want it to be perfect.

Keeping in line with the definition: *perfect = changeless, indestructible, eternal
For a *perfect being to create something imperfect would be a self contradiction.

Why? There is nothing in the definition of perfection that anything that follows from it must also be perfect.

Humans create, right?
Look at the technological world around you.
But, could you say human creation is *perfect by definition?
No.
Because human creation reflects aspects of its creators. Which is the complete opposite of the definition of perfect I have provided.
Could humans create something changeless, indestructible, eternal?
No.
Because that would be a self contradiction.
Human aspects include change, destructible, not eternal.

You're implying that this relationship is one of symmetry (imperfection can't create perfection, ergo perfection can't create imperfection). You haven't demonstrated that this relationship is actually the case. The alternative that I've presented is that perfection is inaccessibly from imperfection, but imperfection is accessible from perfection. It's a one-way door.

Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?

That's the contradiction.


I'm just using logic and non-contradiction on a hypothetical god.
(Of course nothing said here by you or me can be demonstrated. We're postulating.)

'It doesn't necessarily apply to any perfect being. A perfect being that is able, willing, and knowledgeable, can create whatever they want.'

Would it be logical for a perfect being to create anything less than perfect?

If it wanted to.


'Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we? If we are imperfect, then we shouldn't be able to do anything a perfect being could. So why can we create things of less perfection, but a perfect being cannot?'

There are no degrees of perfection, not with the definition I provided. Humans create imperfect things because it is reflective of human imperfection. I thought I already made this clear.

Degrees of imperfection don't contradict your definition.


'Less perfection' is implying that perfection has degrees or levels. Whereas the definition I provided is definitive.
It's either perfect or it's not.

So, you disagree that imperfection can have degrees?

No. Imperfection can have degrees, because it's already within the realms of imperfection.
Example:
A car is less than perfect by the definition I provided. But when compared to other less than perfect cars there can be found degrees of imperfection, that would be defined by it's driver e.g gas milage, if it's cool or not, 4wd, on road off road ect.

You said "Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves, can't we?' not less imperfect. By saying 'less perfect' already indicates imperfection. By saying ' "Humans can certainly creat things less perfect than ourselves,..' you are implying that humans are perfect, and by the definition I provided they are clearly not.

Jesus. Fine. Humans can create things more imperfect than we are, correct?
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:14:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whose to say it isn't perfect? O.o What if the ability to choose evil is a perfect ability?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:31:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:14:07 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Whose to say it isn't perfect? O.o What if the ability to choose evil is a perfect ability?

Before a discussion on "perfection" can take place there must be an agreement on its definition.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 12:59:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 8:31:26 PM, ATHOS wrote:
At 7/9/2012 8:14:07 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Whose to say it isn't perfect? O.o What if the ability to choose evil is a perfect ability?

Before a discussion on "perfection" can take place there must be an agreement on its definition.

Which is why the argument is futile.