Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument from Change against God's Existence

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

Yeah where do you get the Judeo-Christian God changes?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:18:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:22 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

Yeah where do you get the Judeo-Christian God changes?

Nowhere. The point is that things change, therefore the Judeo-Christian God cannot have made them, as those things are imperfect, and since the Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator and he logically can't be the creator, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist. This isn't to say that a god doesn't exist, but only that that specific God doesn't exist.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:21:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:18:05 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:22 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

Yeah where do you get the Judeo-Christian God changes?

Nowhere. The point is that things change, therefore the Judeo-Christian God cannot have made them, as those things are imperfect, and since the Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator and he logically can't be the creator, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist. This isn't to say that a god doesn't exist, but only that that specific God doesn't exist.

Woe wait a minute, God exists within an eternal "spiritual" world, our world (physical) is separated from the eternal, the eternal does not decay. Our existence is inside Eternity.
obrienkr
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

In my opinion it seems to me that the entire argument hangs upon the first premise. I do not see change as necessarily being a positional move away from perfection. Sometimes change is simply change. If put on a red shirt but decide to wear a blue shirt rather than my original choice I have made a change. It does not necessarily reflect the perfection of red or blue, nor does it reflect that I have perfect color. I simply changed my mind; I made a choice based upon my preference. Its a silly example but I do not think changes are deviations from perfection. One final point, change often comes in response to a stimulus of some sort. The stimulus may be new and the resulting state may be different; this doesn't mean that the former state was imperfect.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:03:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

I have a quick question about this one part:

If wood burns, it becomes ash. It has changed. Is this imperfect? No. It simply is.

If water freezes, it becomes ice. It has changed. Is this imperfect? Once again, no, it is not imperfect. There is no "perfection" or "imperfection" in such changes.

So, how do you define perfection and imperfection? Flawlessness? But then what would be considered a flaw?

I believe that, when people refer to God being "perfect," it is more due to his moral attributes, not based on anything physical (since God is not a physical being).
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:08:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:59:55 PM, obrienkr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

In my opinion it seems to me that the entire argument hangs upon the first premise. I do not see change as necessarily being a positional move away from perfection. Sometimes change is simply change. If put on a red shirt but decide to wear a blue shirt rather than my original choice I have made a change. It does not necessarily reflect the perfection of red or blue, nor does it reflect that I have perfect color. I simply changed my mind; I made a choice based upon my preference. Its a silly example but I do not think changes are deviations from perfection. One final point, change often comes in response to a stimulus of some sort. The stimulus may be new and the resulting state may be different; this doesn't mean that the former state was imperfect.

A few questions before I move on to refute that:

So are you acknowledging that if the first premise is proven, the argument is necessarily true, thus disproving the Judeo-Christian God?

In your views, is "something is either perfect or imperfect" a false dichotomy?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:22:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. All change represents imperfection.

Clearly and demonstrably false.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Clearly and demonstrably false.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Now Broken.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Fine.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

No proof of this, especially with earlier premises broken.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Doesn't follow, even if earlier premises weren't broken.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

True

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Now broken.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Now Broken.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Now Broken
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:34:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:38:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:03:34 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

I have a quick question about this one part:

If wood burns, it becomes ash. It has changed. Is this imperfect? No. It simply is.

If water freezes, it becomes ice. It has changed. Is this imperfect? Once again, no, it is not imperfect. There is no "perfection" or "imperfection" in such changes.


Those things were clearly imperfect.

A. All things that are in a state of perfection are perfect.
B. Something that has changed is no longer in the state of perfection.
C. Something that has changed is no longer perfect.

And if you don't buy that,

All things that need to change are imperfect. If they were perfect, then logically, they could stay in the exact same state for the entirety of their existence. By changing it's state or anything about it, that necessarily implies that something about it previously was imperfect, so it is thus being improved. For example, with water, it could not deal with the low temperatures, was flawed, and therefore needed to freeze. It was therefore not perfect before.

So, how do you define perfection and imperfection? Flawlessness? But then what would be considered a flaw?

Perfection is defined not only as flawless, but also as impossible to improve. If it improves, then it was not perfect. If it is degraded, it was not perfect.

I believe that, when people refer to God being "perfect," it is more due to his moral attributes, not based on anything physical (since God is not a physical being).
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:46:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:34:40 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.

If a religious text describes a God as fundamentally being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, the creator, etc., then that means if any of those fundamental traits are proven to be false, then the God described does not exist.

The God described by the Judeo-Christian religious texts is perfect and is the creator, but with the argument above, I've shown that God to not be perfect or the creator, thus making the God described by those texts non-existent.

Like I said, this argument only disproves the existence of a God bound by that definition. This isn't necessarily an argument for atheism.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:38:36 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Those things were clearly imperfect.

A. All things that are in a state of perfection are perfect.
B. Something that has changed is no longer in the state of perfection.
C. Something that has changed is no longer perfect.

The problem is that they neither improved nor degraded -- they simply changed; thus, you cannot say they were imperfect or perfect.


All things that need to change are imperfect. If they were perfect, then logically, they could stay in the exact same state for the entirety of their existence. By changing it's state or anything about it, that necessarily implies that something about it previously was imperfect, so it is thus being improved. For example, with water, it could not deal with the low temperatures, was flawed, and therefore needed to freeze. It was therefore not perfect before.

Why is it a flaw that the water "could not deal with low temperatures?" To put it simply, this isn't a flaw at all. Perfection when concerning the physical is too subjective to define.

For example, humans can age, get sick, and die, but why are these imperfections? These changes that we undergo are subjectively defined as imperfect or perfect. In reality, we are all composed of atoms. When we die, we are still composed of atoms. The atoms may scatter and disperse, but the atoms are nevertheless still there. Should they be split and destroyed, then what of it? There is no imperfection in this; there is only a large release of energy.

Unless there is some form of an objective morality, being, or truth to base these "imperfections" off of, then these are not imperfections at all. In other words, imperfections necessitate the existence of a supreme being, because without them they aren't really imperfections at all.


So, how do you define perfection and imperfection? Flawlessness? But then what would be considered a flaw?

Perfection is defined not only as flawless, but also as impossible to improve. If it improves, then it was not perfect. If it is degraded, it was not perfect.

As discussed above, what does it mean to improve? The water turned to ice. This is not improving. Basic understanding of what happens to water when it freezes reveals that there is no improving or degradation -- there is simply a change in the orientation and energy of the molecules in the substance.


I believe that, when people refer to God being "perfect," it is more due to his moral attributes, not based on anything physical (since God is not a physical being).

This is why I put this last line here. Perfection, in regard to the physical, cannot be truly defined. Perfection, when relating to God, should be concerned with morality and virtues.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:46:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:34:40 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.

If a religious text describes a God as fundamentally being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, the creator, etc., then that means if any of those fundamental traits are proven to be false, then the God described does not exist.

So if someone described you as honest, forthright, open, etc., and any one of those characteristics turned-out to be untrue then you wouldn't exist?

The God described by the Judeo-Christian religious texts is perfect and is the creator, but with the argument above, I've shown that God to not be perfect or the creator, thus making the God described by those texts non-existent.

So again you are saying that unless people know everything about God, and no person has ever exaggerated in thousands of years, then their God can't exist?

Like I said, this argument only disproves the existence of a God bound by that definition. This isn't necessarily an argument for atheism.

No, I didn't mistake it for one. I see your point, but if this were an argument about anything other than God - the President, so to say - then it wouldn't be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. We would still accept the President as real, no matter how many things we found we were misinformed about.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:07:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:52:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:46:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:34:40 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.

If a religious text describes a God as fundamentally being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, the creator, etc., then that means if any of those fundamental traits are proven to be false, then the God described does not exist.

So if someone described you as honest, forthright, open, etc., and any one of those characteristics turned-out to be untrue then you wouldn't exist?

It means that the me described wouldn't exist. I would still exist, but the me described would be just a caricature. This is the argument drawn from this. The Judeo-Christian religious texts are essentially describing a caricature.

The God described by the Judeo-Christian religious texts is perfect and is the creator, but with the argument above, I've shown that God to not be perfect or the creator, thus making the God described by those texts non-existent.

So again you are saying that unless people know everything about God, and no person has ever exaggerated in thousands of years, then their God can't exist?

Not that the person needs to know everything about God, but if something about their understanding is fundamentally wrong, then that God doesn't exist.

Like I said, this argument only disproves the existence of a God bound by that definition. This isn't necessarily an argument for atheism.

No, I didn't mistake it for one. I see your point, but if this were an argument about anything other than God - the President, so to say - then it wouldn't be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. We would still accept the President as real, no matter how many things we found we were misinformed about.

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:21:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:07:29 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:52:43 PM, Idealist wrote:

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.

If a religious text describes a God as fundamentally being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, the creator, etc., then that means if any of those fundamental traits are proven to be false, then the God described does not exist.

So if someone described you as honest, forthright, open, etc., and any one of those characteristics turned-out to be untrue then you wouldn't exist?

It means that the me described wouldn't exist. I would still exist, but the me described would be just a caricature. This is the argument drawn from this. The Judeo-Christian religious texts are essentially describing a caricature.

More accurately it would show that someone made a mistake or told a lie about your characteristics. Since there are literally thousands of descriptions of God, would that indicate thousands of Gods, each with their own validity or lack thereof? I personally seriously doubt that we humans describe anything with complete accuracy. The scientific method should direct that we study alternative possibilities for all the inconsistencies.

The God described by the Judeo-Christian religious texts is perfect and is the creator, but with the argument above, I've shown that God to not be perfect or the creator, thus making the God described by those texts non-existent.

No, it shows that the descriptions might be faulty. Have you ever heard two young kids argue over whose father is greatest? It gets pretty carried-away.

So again you are saying that unless people know everything about God, and no person has ever exaggerated in thousands of years, then their God can't exist?

Not that the person needs to know everything about God, but if something about their understanding is fundamentally wrong, then that God doesn't exist.

No, if something about their understanding is wrong then they aren't exactly right.

Like I said, this argument only disproves the existence of a God bound by that definition. This isn't necessarily an argument for atheism.

No, I didn't mistake it for one. I see your point, but if this were an argument about anything other than God - the President, so to say - then it wouldn't be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. We would still accept the President as real, no matter how many things we found we were misinformed about.

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.

No, it would mean that the President described was described incorrectly.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:32:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:07:29 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:52:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:46:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:34:40 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

"This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god." So they can't merely be wrong about a god which they do worship? Assuming the existence of such a god as you propose, no human would ever have the mental capacity to even know God's character, let alone whether it was "perfect" in regard to our definition of the word.

If a religious text describes a God as fundamentally being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, the creator, etc., then that means if any of those fundamental traits are proven to be false, then the God described does not exist.

So if someone described you as honest, forthright, open, etc., and any one of those characteristics turned-out to be untrue then you wouldn't exist?

It means that the me described wouldn't exist. I would still exist, but the me described would be just a caricature. This is the argument drawn from this. The Judeo-Christian religious texts are essentially describing a caricature.

The God described by the Judeo-Christian religious texts is perfect and is the creator, but with the argument above, I've shown that God to not be perfect or the creator, thus making the God described by those texts non-existent.

So again you are saying that unless people know everything about God, and no person has ever exaggerated in thousands of years, then their God can't exist?

Not that the person needs to know everything about God, but if something about their understanding is fundamentally wrong, then that God doesn't exist.

Like I said, this argument only disproves the existence of a God bound by that definition. This isn't necessarily an argument for atheism.

No, I didn't mistake it for one. I see your point, but if this were an argument about anything other than God - the President, so to say - then it wouldn't be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. We would still accept the President as real, no matter how many things we found we were misinformed about.

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.

Seems to me that only the characteristic being described wouldn't exist.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:21:06 PM, Idealist wrote:

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.

No, it would mean that the President described was described incorrectly.

Aren't both of these statements correct?

After all, it's true that, by giving a false description of the president, the president that was described doesn't exist. It also is true that the president was described incorrectly.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:39:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:33:29 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:21:06 PM, Idealist wrote:

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.

No, it would mean that the President described was described incorrectly.

Aren't both of these statements correct?

After all, it's true that, by giving a false description of the president, the president that was described doesn't exist. It also is true that the president was described incorrectly.

That's exactly why this argument can still actually allow for the existence of a God (assuming it's sound)
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:42:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:33:29 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:21:06 PM, Idealist wrote:

A false description of the president would mean that the president described doesn't exist.

No, it would mean that the President described was described incorrectly.

Aren't both of these statements correct?

After all, it's true that, by giving a false description of the president, the president that was described doesn't exist. It also is true that the president was described incorrectly.

That's kinda my point. Was the President that was described non-existent because the description of him was wrong, or did he really exist, only with different characteristics? I think it probably side-tracks the subject.
obrienkr
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:33:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:08:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:59:55 PM, obrienkr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

In my opinion it seems to me that the entire argument hangs upon the first premise. I do not see change as necessarily being a positional move away from perfection. Sometimes change is simply change. If put on a red shirt but decide to wear a blue shirt rather than my original choice I have made a change. It does not necessarily reflect the perfection of red or blue, nor does it reflect that I have perfect color. I simply changed my mind; I made a choice based upon my preference. Its a silly example but I do not think changes are deviations from perfection. One final point, change often comes in response to a stimulus of some sort. The stimulus may be new and the resulting state may be different; this doesn't mean that the former state was imperfect.

A few questions before I move on to refute that:
Sure, I see your point; you do have a very interesting argument; I don't think I have seen it before.

So are you acknowledging that if the first premise is proven, the argument is necessarily true, thus disproving the Judeo-Christian God?

No, but I believe the first premise would have to be proven in order to progress through the remaining premises to reach the final conclusion. I respect your position but I see the word "all" as the primary obstacle to overcome. I simply don't see all change as being related to perfection.

In your views, is "something is either perfect or imperfect" a false dichotomy?
No, we may agree on this. If perfection is defined as free of defects/errors or absolutely conforming to a standard then anything that is not perfect is by definition imperfect. There may be degrees of imperfection, or variation from the standard, but anything that is not perfect is imperfect.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:17:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:33:23 PM, obrienkr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:08:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:59:55 PM, obrienkr wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

In my opinion it seems to me that the entire argument hangs upon the first premise. I do not see change as necessarily being a positional move away from perfection. Sometimes change is simply change. If put on a red shirt but decide to wear a blue shirt rather than my original choice I have made a change. It does not necessarily reflect the perfection of red or blue, nor does it reflect that I have perfect color. I simply changed my mind; I made a choice based upon my preference. Its a silly example but I do not think changes are deviations from perfection. One final point, change often comes in response to a stimulus of some sort. The stimulus may be new and the resulting state may be different; this doesn't mean that the former state was imperfect.

A few questions before I move on to refute that:
Sure, I see your point; you do have a very interesting argument; I don't think I have seen it before.
Thank you.
So are you acknowledging that if the first premise is proven, the argument is necessarily true, thus disproving the Judeo-Christian God?

No, but I believe the first premise would have to be proven in order to progress through the remaining premises to reach the final conclusion. I respect your position but I see the word "all" as the primary obstacle to overcome. I simply don't see all change as being related to perfection.

In your views, is "something is either perfect or imperfect" a false dichotomy?
No, we may agree on this. If perfection is defined as free of defects/errors or absolutely conforming to a standard then anything that is not perfect is by definition imperfect. There may be degrees of imperfection, or variation from the standard, but anything that is not perfect is imperfect.

Alright, so we agree that something is either perfect or imperfect, and in order to be perfect, it needs to fit an exact set of standards.

This means that if something changes, it no longer conforms to that exact set of standards, therefore, is imperfect.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:59:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

The first premise is flawed. Changes can be neutral.
If ice melts into water, can you objectively say that the water is more or less perfect than the ice?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?

Also, I agree that "All things which are imperfect are changeable (have potencies)" but I don't necessarily agree that "All things which have potencies are imperfect."

P1: All things which are imperfect are changeable
P2: God is not changeable (since he is pure actuality)
C: God is not imperfect (perfect)

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES syllogism. It's got the form..

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Zeus is not mortal
C: Zeus is not a man
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets the exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet the exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:45:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.


For physical things, yes. All physical things are changeable, I agree. But I'm talking about metaphysical entities, the kind of which God is supposed to me.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets the exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet the exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.


That's invalid reasoning.

It's like saying...

All men are mortal
Thumper is not a man
Therefore, Thumper is immortal.

You're essentially saying...

All M is P
All S is not M
Therefore, All S is not P

Which is a fallacy in the structure of your argument as I showed.

If you disagree, I challenge you to show me which categorical syllogism it is from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:55:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:45:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.


For physical things, yes. All physical things are changeable, I agree. But I'm talking about metaphysical entities, the kind of which God is supposed to me.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets its exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet its exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.


That's invalid reasoning.

It's like saying...

All men are mortal
Thumper is not a man
Therefore, Thumper is immortal.

You're essentially saying...

All M is P
All S is not M
Therefore, All S is not P

Which is a fallacy in the structure of your argument as I showed.

If you disagree, I challenge you to show me which categorical syllogism it is from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

So really, it's just that the proof of the negative needs to be included as well.

P1: Everything that meets its exact set of standards for perfection is perfect
P2: Something that remains constant and unchangeable will always meet its exact set of standards for perfection.
C: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.

So when those two arguments are taken in concert with each other, it shows that all things that change are imperfect, and all things that do not change are perfect.

So this flows through to the rest of the argument, that nothing is perfect, and God can't be the creator, since nothing created is perfect.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:59:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:55:38 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:45:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.


For physical things, yes. All physical things are changeable, I agree. But I'm talking about metaphysical entities, the kind of which God is supposed to me.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets its exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet its exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.


That's invalid reasoning.

It's like saying...

All men are mortal
Thumper is not a man
Therefore, Thumper is immortal.

You're essentially saying...

All M is P
All S is not M
Therefore, All S is not P

Which is a fallacy in the structure of your argument as I showed.

If you disagree, I challenge you to show me which categorical syllogism it is from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

So really, it's just that the proof of the negative needs to be included as well.

P1: Everything that meets its exact set of standards for perfection is perfect
P2: Something that remains constant and unchangeable will always meet its exact set of standards for perfection.
C: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.

So when those two arguments are taken in concert with each other, it shows that all things that change are imperfect, and all things that do not change are perfect.

So this flows through to the rest of the argument, that nothing is perfect, and God can't be the creator, since nothing created is perfect.


No, it doesn't. Let's take the conclusion of your syllogism now...

P1: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.
P2: X is not constant and is changeable
C: X is not perfect

This is like saying

All men are mortal
Thumper isn't a man
Thumper is immortal and will live forever

I don't even understand how this shows that "everything that exists changes". That's the premise I've disagreed with. How does this even prove that premise?

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:55:38 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:45:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.


For physical things, yes. All physical things are changeable, I agree. But I'm talking about metaphysical entities, the kind of which God is supposed to me.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets its exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet its exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.


That's invalid reasoning.

It's like saying...

All men are mortal
Thumper is not a man
Therefore, Thumper is immortal.

You're essentially saying...

All M is P
All S is not M
Therefore, All S is not P

Which is a fallacy in the structure of your argument as I showed.

If you disagree, I challenge you to show me which categorical syllogism it is from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

So really, it's just that the proof of the negative needs to be included as well.

P1: Everything that meets its exact set of standards for perfection is perfect
P2: Something that remains constant and unchangeable will always meet its exact set of standards for perfection.
C: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.

So when those two arguments are taken in concert with each other, it shows that all things that change are imperfect, and all things that do not change are perfect.

So this flows through to the rest of the argument, that nothing is perfect, and God can't be the creator, since nothing created is perfect.


So, pretty much, if everything that exists changes, and that statement exists, then that statement changes.

P1: Everything that exists changes
P2: "Everythuing that exists changes" exists
C: "Everything that exists changes" changes

So the statement "Everything that exists changes" always changes. Which means that it never remains the same. Which means that sometimes "everything that exists changes" and sometimes "some things that exist change" and sometimes "nothing that exists changes."

That's pretty much just denying the law of non-contradiction. And it's self-defeating because you have to assume the LNC to say that.

3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:59:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:55:38 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:45:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:40:04 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:02:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/1/2014 6:31:16 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Unless I just haven't seen it before, I believe I've come up with a new argument against the Judeo-Christian God's existence.

1. All change represents imperfection.

This is true based on the basic definition of perfection. Something changing either becomes less perfect, or increases in quality, thus making the original thing definitively not perfect. So if something changes, it is imperfect.

2. Everything that exists changes.

Be it through change in location, size, qualities, etc., everything that exists changes. This is shown through the expanding universe, through motion, and through the existence of time.


Just plain false. Only things which have potency can change. A potential is raised to an actual. However, it's incoherent to talk about "pure potency" since potency is always said of something actual. However, it's not necessarily incoherent to talk about pure actuality. In fact, a purely actual being is a metaphysical necessity.

Seriously, no Christian would or should ever agree to this premise. It flies in the face of all basic Christian philosophy... at least any that's remotely based on Aquinas.

For something to show absolutely no change, it would require that it is absolutely without any energy, and there is not a single thing existing in the universe that has absolutely no energy. This is just a basic fact.


For physical things, yes. All physical things are changeable, I agree. But I'm talking about metaphysical entities, the kind of which God is supposed to me.

And in regards to your other post, I propose this syllogism.

P1: Something that meets its exact set of standards for perfection established is perfect.
P2: Something that changes does not meet its exact set of standards for perfection established anymore.
C: Something that changes is not perfect.


That's invalid reasoning.

It's like saying...

All men are mortal
Thumper is not a man
Therefore, Thumper is immortal.

You're essentially saying...

All M is P
All S is not M
Therefore, All S is not P

Which is a fallacy in the structure of your argument as I showed.

If you disagree, I challenge you to show me which categorical syllogism it is from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As all things in existence have energy, all of those things change, and are therefore imperfect. So now this goes down to the rest of the argument.

So really, it's just that the proof of the negative needs to be included as well.

P1: Everything that meets its exact set of standards for perfection is perfect
P2: Something that remains constant and unchangeable will always meet its exact set of standards for perfection.
C: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.

So when those two arguments are taken in concert with each other, it shows that all things that change are imperfect, and all things that do not change are perfect.

So this flows through to the rest of the argument, that nothing is perfect, and God can't be the creator, since nothing created is perfect.


No, it doesn't. Let's take the conclusion of your syllogism now...

P1: Something that remains constant and unchangeable is perfect.
P2: X is not constant and is changeable
C: X is not perfect

This is like saying

All men are mortal
Thumper isn't a man
Thumper is immortal and will live forever

I don't even understand how this shows that "everything that exists changes". That's the premise I've disagreed with. How does this even prove that premise?

The fact that everything existing changes was already established by the basic fact that everything in existence holds energy, and everything that holds energy changes. It's also proven by the simple passage of time, as time only marks change.

I've proven that everything that exists changes.
I've proven that something changing cannot possibly be perfect.
So this means that God supposedly put into existence an imperfect universe that will forever be imperfect unless all time were to suddenly stop.


3. Everything that exists is imperfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

4. Every action by the Judeo-Christian God is perfect.

Definitionally true.

5. Nothing existing is perfect.

Follows from 1 and 2.

6. Therefore, nothing is created by the Judeo-Christian God.

Follows from 4 and 5.

7. The Judeo-Christian God is supposedly the creator of the universe.

Definitionally true.

8. The Judeo-Christian God did not create anything.

Same as 6.

9. The Judeo-Christian God did not create the universe

Follows from 7 and 8.

10. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist

Follows from the above. As portrayed by Judaism and Christianity, God and everything that God does is perfect, and God is the creator. As God cannot have been a creator, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This argument does not show that a god doesn't exist, but only that those faiths (and any other faiths that make the same claims) worship a non-existent god.

Now, I'm not sure at this point if I buy this specific argument. Its soundness seems to depend on premise 1, 2, and 4, though I see no reason currently to disbelieve those.

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder