This pissed me off.

[Satori]

joelhaldeman said:

When a computer program doesnt work perfectly or a math problem doesnt work out, do you blame math? NO. You blame the person who copied it or rewrote it.

Personally I like to blame the computer. They're vindictive wee things.

[jtoro]

Amminadab, Your thoughts are deep and riveting, but as I feel, ultimately flawed. You are quoted"If there is no God, how can you question that there is no God? Man would not understand a concept of God. Man would have never understood perfection, let alone create an illusion of it in their minds." This sounds a lot like the Ontological argument for the existence of God. You pretty much seem to be saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that if God did not exists, how did we ever get the idea of Him or even the idea of perfectionin our minds in the first place. While a seemingly brilliant effort, I will proceed to show flaws with this line reasoning; keep in mind that I am only arguing with your evidence, not with your conclusion as I strongly belive in God. If we can't have ideas in our heads without the real life existence of the objects which are the subject of these ideas, then how can I or You be thinking of a unicorn right now. How can I imagine a talking dog or even a talking bush ( oh yeah, that one is in the Bible). While your thoughts are praise-worthy and philosophical, they fell to the same debilitating objections that Anslem and Aquinas's argument did.
As to our concept of perfection as to the proof of the existence of a perfect being, isn't it possible that we don't imagine some divine concept of perfection but just the absence of what is bad (which we obviously, according to you, know a lot about)? Maybe it is not a foreign concept of perfection that we "imagine", but an absence of everything that is not good. I recommend Hume's, Locke's, Anslem's, and Aquinas's philosophy for further readings- they are captivating and hit right on the subject of our deliberation.

[bobarian]

jtoro
#1 - An absence of everything does not itself exist. I.e., a definition of tree is not everything that is not-tree. A definition of tree describes what tree is. As Descartes postulated, since we ourselves are less than perfect (and everyone recognizes this as such), then the only way we could even have an idea of perfection is if it was implanted in our minds by God (or introduced by the fact of His existence.)

#2 - The unicorn analogy is flawed. A unicorn is not perfect in every way - God is the only being that is perfect in every way. As Aquinas said, if I could conceive of a way that God could improve (or change), then He would cease to be God, and something else would have to be God (and have caused the world to exist.) Thus the ontological argument applies only and uniquely to God and still holds philosophical water.

A pleasure conversating with you.

[Shiggy]

you mean conversing.

[Shiggy]

and the unicorn analogy doesn't require that the unicorn be perfect, it only requires that it be not real, which it isn't, so the argument works fine. We are capable of creatively imagining novel things we have never encountered, and will never encounter. Thus, the concept of God isn't necessarily true simply by virtue of its being a concept. If your argument was followed to its logical conclusion, then we would also have to accept that unicorns were real, among other countless things such as fairytales, etc.

And how can you be sure that what you have in your mind really is this mystical, Godly perfection and not simply, as jtoro said, an absence of certain life events. Or, for that matter, just another fairytale?

[Satori]

bobarian said:

since we ourselves are less than perfect (and everyone recognizes this as such)

How else could it be? We can be nothing else other than what we are at this moment. There is no point saying "if we'd done this or that" because there's no reality in the past, it's just a memory. We are the only thing we can possibly be at this moment, so it's as 'perfect' as it can be.

[jtoro]

Since Shiggy clarified the misunderstanding of the 'unicorn analogy,' I will try to explain exactly why our concept of perfection doesn't have to be divinely ordained. To do this I will use another analogy. Let's say that we are on a island. This isalnd is polluted, contaminated, and littered, there are drug lords manufacturing cocaine, and people are shot daily for trying to rob the drug lord. Also, the island fell to litoral erosion due to overconstruction on the beachfront. However, on the other hand, the island is a great place with sunsets, clear water, coral reefs, and perfect weather. Now, you would concede that this island is not perfect in its present state, but what if we could remove and correct all the things that we considered deleterious? What if we could make all the negative attributes of this island dissappear? Then, wouldn't it be perfect? According to our human capacity, it would. Why? beacuse we took away everything that was bad, not becasue God added any new attribute to the island. This is analogous to our mental concept of perfection. Admittedly, we see imperfection everyday with teen pregnancy, AIDS, rape, murder, etc. And because we can, simultaneously, be enveloped by this ubiquitous imperfection and hold a concept of perfection, there must be a God providing it for us, right? Not so fast, perhaps our concept of perfection is just our own concept of what it would be like without the precense of anything we consider imperfect. Now, I am a religious person who believes in God, but I am unable to doubt thius argument while retaining credibilty as a rational person. Give it some thought, I don't think you will either (it's not blasphemous to think!).

[bobarian]

Jtoro -

The island, no matter how nice it is, still isn't perfect because its not big enough.

Shiggy - the unicorn is not perfect because it can't fly. It's also finite.

I extend my arguments by saying that the ontological argument only works for something that is non-material, because a material thing is never perfect because it is always in potentiality - i.e., it can always change. No matter how nice your island or your unicorn is, I can always imagine one that is bigger - more perfect. Only a being who is infinite, all-knowing, intelligent, and eternal could be perfect - and this is what the ontological argument concerns.

satori -

So if I'm an axe murderer presently, I'm as perfect as I can be? A disturbing view of ethics.

Shiggy -

I cannot conceive of another besides God because there is no one else who is perfect. By God I do not mean necessarily the Judeo-Christian God but rather a being who is infinite, eternal, all-knowing and intelligent. This would include the Muslim God and the other basically monotheistic religions.

[Satori]

bobarian said:

satori -

So if I'm an axe murderer presently, I'm as perfect as I can be? A disturbing view of ethics.

What else can you be? If you are an axe murderer then that's what you are - you can be nothing else.

I'm not talking about ethics or even 'personal perfection', I'm talking about the universe being perfect the way it is. It can't be anything else at this moment so 'perfect' in terms of wishing for this or that is a pointless concept. The universe is perfect because it can't be anything other than it is at this moment. Any other concept of 'perfect' is simply that - a human concept without any reality.

[jtoro]

Talk about faulty logic. Sure, my island can be perfect. What if if it got any bigger it would be less perfect; say an island is only "perfect" at a certain small size. Say, that the perfect island is small, warm, clear-watered, etc, and that any disruption of the status quo would be moving it away from perfection. Then, it would be perfect in its present state. If you changed it at all, you would lessen its perfection. A perfect island is therefore immutable, otherwise it is not going to stay perfect.

[Satori]

jtoro said:

Talk about faulty logic. Sure, my island can be perfect. What if if it got any bigger it would be less perfect; say an island is only "perfect" at a certain small size. Say, that the perfect island is small, warm, clear-watered, etc, and that any disruption of the status quo would be moving it away from perfection. Then, it would be perfect in its present state. If you changed it at all, you would lessen its perfection. A perfect island is therefore immutable, otherwise it is not going to stay perfect.

I'm not sure who you were addressing there, but if it was me I'm afraid I've read that three times and missed your point.

[jtoro]

Satori, Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't addressing you; I was addressing Bobarian who was debating with me about the ontological argument. He seems to think that physical substance can't become perfect because it could always grow, etc. I was just saying that I disagree and providing my reasons.

[Satori]

jtoro said:

Satori, Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't addressing you; I was addressing Bobarian who was debating with me about the ontological argument. He seems to think that physical substance can't become perfect because it could always grow, etc. I was just saying that I disagree and providing my reasons.

No problem. It does get confusing sometimes when there are two or more pairs of people having similar debates in the same thread!

[Electron]

bobarian said:

Jtoro -

Shiggy - the unicorn is not perfect because it can't fly. It's also finite.

I cannot conceive of another besides God because there is no one else who is perfect. By God I do not mean necessarily the Judeo-Christian God but rather a being who is infinite, eternal, all-knowing and intelligent. This would include the Muslim God and the other basically monotheistic religions.

I assume shiggy refers to the Invisible Pink Unicorn The whole point of this satire is to demonstrate the fact that anyone can conceive of a supernatural entity and ascribe any powers they like to it. And simply by keeping the definition beyond all forms of verification, may perpetuate its existence... so long as others are prepared to 'go along' with the fantasy.

What after all, about the Antichrist that popped up earlier in this debate? This is supposed to be another supernatural being. Maybe there are more? God might have a whole family he's kept quiet about (I know plenty of people that behave like this).

But in all seriousness, the concept of god is an undoubtedly logical one, just as is the concept of perfection... (something that is more likely to lead to the idea of god as opposed to the other way round). The concept of perfection would readily spring from our imagination in all manner of situations - take a man trying to draw a straight line, or a man considering the arc of a circle. Surely it is the power of our imagination to transcend the lumpy reality of the world that gives rise to such concepts.

The prediction of this is that we end up with hundreds of different religions each with thier own particular story to tell. If, on the other hand, we were seeing something other than just our imagination then we would all agree on exactly what it was. The only thing I can think of that fits this description are the laws of physics.

[bobarian]

Jtoro, I don't care how nice your island is, if its too small you can't fit as many people on it as I could on my infinite-sized island = an infinite # of people. In other words, if I have something that is good, then more of that good is more good = i.e., more perfect. The island is not the greatest good because an infinite-sized island cannot exist. Thus, I can postulate (as did Socrates) that there exists a perfect Good by which we can know all "lesser" goods.

You cannot use the ontological argument to prove anything other than God because God is mutually exclusive -- there is no one or nothing else that is perfect in every way. Anything made of matter is imperfect - at some point I can find a setback with it.

Electron -

same applies with your unicorn analysis. One unicorn just isn't enough.

It is interesting that you raise the question of imagination in conjecturing a straight line. As an empiricist, I think you would find it nearly impossible to show how through the senses we can ever come up with an idea of a straight line -- there are no straight lines in the world sensible to us. I mean no real, geometrically straight lines. How did this knowledge come to us? (Enter Cartesian proof for the existence of God.)

Thus, while I can conceive of perfection, I cannot conceive of how I thought of perfection a posteriori - from experience, because no experience is perfect. You can stilll say that I thought up perfection because I am looking for more than my experience - but then it would be impossible to define perfection because we couldn't know what it is. I.e., I'm looking for something that I have no way of knowing what it is based on my experience. Perfection can only be a priori - something I know but which is not necessarily dependent on experience.