Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Perfect, Maximally Great yada yada yada

SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?

It's an elaborate, but ultimately fallacious argument, for the existence of "God". People use it because it's creative and they need to create reasonable arguments for "Go" as rational people don't accept books of scriptures being shoved down out throats, and there isn't any verifiable evidence.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?

To the bolded part: Sure some could say that. They would also be wrong haha.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:47:18 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?

It's an elaborate, but ultimately fallacious argument, for the existence of "God". People use it because it's creative and they need to create reasonable arguments for "Go" as rational people don't accept books of scriptures being shoved down out throats, and there isn't any verifiable evidence.

Not going to go and say there are no good arguments out there, and I've far from seen them all, but yeah, this one doesn't sound very convincing.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:51:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:48:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?

To the bolded part: Sure some could say that. They would also be wrong haha.

Not really the point of the post...
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:41:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 7:48:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/20/2013 7:40:44 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Easily one of the things that pisses me of the most is the usage of terms such as "perfect" or "maximally great", and making conclusions based on their definitions. They aren't really set in stone, and everyone's concept of perfect is probably different. So why are they so eagerly used in arguments?

One of the arguments I've seen on this site is either that God cannot think of humans or create them, because he is perfect... but how does that even follow? What trait in the word perfect prohibits God from thinking/creating us? If we go for an official definition, say "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."

I see no indication of anything that makes creating us impossible, even moreso since the definition contains more not clearly defined words, "required" or "desirable". What is desirable in this instance? To make someone who is perfect unable to think of us? I guess, if you want to, but someone else won't.

Then there's maximally great, which is pretty much the same as perfect, some would say. How do you decide which trait is great, so that a being that is maximally great has it to the largest extent? Why is trans-worldness a great trait? Or any other, for that case? Isn't it all relative, depends on the person? Surely someone evil would think being evil is a good trait? Some of the traits may just seem good to us, but how do we make the jump from "looks good" to "is good"?

Anyway, my point is, why are so loosely defined terms used so often in arguments for/against God? How would you justify their use?

To the bolded part: Sure some could say that. They would also be wrong haha.

What is greater about being benevolent, than malevolent, from a deity point of view? I've argued that simplicity and efficiency is greater than complexity and inefficiency, so there shouldn't be a deity, so someone sad to me that the deity doesn't need the utility of simplicity or efficiency. So where is he greatness in benevolence, compared to malevolence?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:39:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
good, I'm not alone, "Maximally Great" as a definition for Perfect being has the same effect on me!

Here I give you a real definition for perfect that you can use for anything, even on apples!

Let's assume 'X' is an entity that can support attributes A,B,C,D,E. With A,B good attributes for 'X' . C,D Evil attributes for 'X' . E a neutral attribute ( not specifically good or evil)

Now the definition of perfect:

'X' is perfect is equivalent to say that 'X' attributes A and B are Maximal, C and D are Null , E is optimal.

Huh tell me what you think..
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 7:35:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:39:07 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
good, I'm not alone, "Maximally Great" as a definition for Perfect being has the same effect on me!

Here I give you a real definition for perfect that you can use for anything, even on apples!

Let's assume 'X' is an entity that can support attributes A,B,C,D,E. With A,B good attributes for 'X' . C,D Evil attributes for 'X' . E a neutral attribute ( not specifically good or evil)

Now the definition of perfect:

'X' is perfect is equivalent to say that 'X' attributes A and B are Maximal, C and D are Null , E is optimal.

Huh tell me what you think..

How do we know what are good traits for X and what are not?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 7:49:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It will depend on what X is:

example, X can be an apple: the attributes for and apple are: sweet, crunchy, Big, Red , fresh, scratched ..ect

well the attributes that are good for an apple or more specifically a red apple would be : Red, sweet, crunchy, fresh, Big for most tastes

I get what you mean, what is good for an apple would be what most people think is good for an apple. or the perfect apple for me isn't necessarily the perfect apple for you.

But for God, we can assume what is said to be a good attribute for him in authentic scriptures,then it is good (exp: Justice, arrogance) , and what is a bad attribute for him in the scripture, then it is evil ( exp : oppression)
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 8:01:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 7:49:43 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
It will depend on what X is:

example, X can be an apple: the attributes for and apple are: sweet, crunchy, Big, Red , fresh, scratched ..ect

well the attributes that are good for an apple or more specifically a red apple would be : Red, sweet, crunchy, fresh, Big for most tastes

I get what you mean, what is good for an apple would be what most people think is good for an apple. or the perfect apple for me isn't necessarily the perfect apple for you.

But for God, we can assume what is said to be a good attribute for him in authentic scriptures,then it is good (exp: Justice, arrogance) , and what is a bad attribute for him in the scripture, then it is evil ( exp : oppression)

Well, I understand that, but there are still some traits that are left unambiguous, and what one person sees as a perfect deity will be different for everyone, so I still ddon't believe we can use arguments including these traits.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 8:12:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 8:01:33 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 5/22/2013 7:49:43 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
It will depend on what X is:

example, X can be an apple: the attributes for and apple are: sweet, crunchy, Big, Red , fresh, scratched ..ect

well the attributes that are good for an apple or more specifically a red apple would be : Red, sweet, crunchy, fresh, Big for most tastes

I get what you mean, what is good for an apple would be what most people think is good for an apple. or the perfect apple for me isn't necessarily the perfect apple for you.

But for God, we can assume what is said to be a good attribute for him in authentic scriptures,then it is good (exp: Justice, arrogance) , and what is a bad attribute for him in the scripture, then it is evil ( exp : oppression)

Well, I understand that, but there are still some traits that are left unambiguous, and what one person sees as a perfect deity will be different for everyone, so I still ddon't believe we can use arguments including these traits.

I believe it's ridiculous that one defines God without revelation, and moreover judges on what is good for God or what is evil, so basically I say that God is perfect as he is, after all there is Just one creator, so we can't compare him to someone(of the same nature) else to see which is more perfect !!!

But you do make a point by saying that those who try to define God perfection then Go from there to say He can't exist (considering their reasoning is good on the way) , well they aren't really disproving God the creator, but disproving their definition of God.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 8:12:54 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/22/2013 8:01:33 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 5/22/2013 7:49:43 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
It will depend on what X is:

example, X can be an apple: the attributes for and apple are: sweet, crunchy, Big, Red , fresh, scratched ..ect

well the attributes that are good for an apple or more specifically a red apple would be : Red, sweet, crunchy, fresh, Big for most tastes

I get what you mean, what is good for an apple would be what most people think is good for an apple. or the perfect apple for me isn't necessarily the perfect apple for you.

But for God, we can assume what is said to be a good attribute for him in authentic scriptures,then it is good (exp: Justice, arrogance) , and what is a bad attribute for him in the scripture, then it is evil ( exp : oppression)

Well, I understand that, but there are still some traits that are left unambiguous, and what one person sees as a perfect deity will be different for everyone, so I still ddon't believe we can use arguments including these traits.

I believe it's ridiculous that one defines God without revelation, and moreover judges on what is good for God or what is evil, so basically I say that God is perfect as he is, after all there is Just one creator, so we can't compare him to someone(of the same nature) else to see which is more perfect !!!

But you do make a point by saying that those who try to define God perfection then Go from there to say He can't exist (considering their reasoning is good on the way) , well they aren't really disproving God the creator, but disproving their definition of God.

Indeed, whether you try to prove or disprove God using as specific definition of "perfection", or "maximally great", you are just proving or disproving your version of God. (If your reason is correct on the way, of course)
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac