I never said it held no meaning. I'm just saying you can apply the word perfect to any object...the meaning of the word "perfect" might be confusing or ill-defined in those objects, but that doesn't make the word itself meaningless.

We have very good definitions for what a "perfect circle" is, same with a "perfect square" (in mathematical terms, not geometrical terms).

I fail to see what observation has to do with it. Have we got any observable accounts of your perfect God? I don't think so...

So the only examples of perfection we can define somewhat accurately are abstract constructs? Well why would I seek to try and observe from reality anything about a perfect being ? You can use your abstract concepts like math to justify your mathmatical perfect circle, and I'll continue to use the abstract concept of religion to justify God. At lest the evidence is relatable to the proof.

(February 14, 2010 at 12:43 am)tackattack Wrote: So the only examples of perfection we can define somewhat accurately are abstract constructs? Well why would I seek to try and observe from reality anything about a perfect being ? You can use your abstract concepts like math to justify your mathmatical perfect circle, and I'll continue to use the abstract concept of religion to justify God. At lest the evidence is relatable to the proof.

Where did I say that the only examples of perfection we can define are abstract? I didn't. Just because my two examples are abstract doesn't mean all examples are. It's a non-sequitur to come to such a conclusion, even if I can't come up with any. Not being able to come up with an example in no way affects the actual examples there might be.

You could easily argue for perfection of non-abstract things like tables if you gave the criteria for perfection in terms of the attributes of a table. I'm not going to do it, I suspect it would be a monumental task, but it doesn't mean it cannot be done.

Regardless, the ability to explain the perfection of object X in no way affects the use of object X in the ontological argument. The argument states that perfect objects have to exist, otherwise they wouldn't be perfect. The modal form says that if perfect (or "maximally great") objects can possibly exist, then they must necessarily possibly exist, and then they therefore either necessarily exist or they are impossible.

I doubt 'real' perfection exists.
Except in very easy to reach goals. like giving the perfect i.e. correct answer in a gmtv phone in competition.
Perfect circles do not exist, any rendition of a circle it gets bumpy at some point even if only at molecular or sub atomic scales.
You could I imagine argue like this for most examples of perfection.

And hows this for a piece of logic.

If God was a perfect creator the world would be perfect, it isnt, therefore there is no God QED.

I was just looking for examples of perfection that would fit in the arguement. To quote you "Anything that is "perfect" by definition can be substituted and the argument holds." In my view, God's the only fit I know of. Not that another perfect thing couldn't fit, just that no other is more likely, IMO. I'm sorry I interjected in your discussion of structured arguements,, I'm out of my league there I was just a little confused by your assertion. I think I have a clearer picture now, please carry on :S

(December 26, 2009 at 9:57 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(December 26, 2009 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: I have a pic of me creating the universe.


What more proof do you need?

You mean that someone else had created a camera prior to your creation of matter? Then sir, i'm arfaid you aren't all that godly

Ever heard the argument that 'God is out of time, therefore God can take a picture before cameras are invented.' Check Mate atheist!

---

Can you change the title of your post in the 'Quick Reply'? Would be nice if not everyone's response to the thread was titled the same and I could actually find an argument I was interested in or easily discern posts that just say 'LOL' from substance posts.

I don't think there is any 'best' argument for the existence of any deity since I can't think of an argument made by a creationist that isn't an argument from ignorance (e.i. a god of the gaps argument). They hang out to the arguments based on a huge yet undefined improbability for the origins of a self replicating molecule (usually, incorrectly treating the origins of life and the origins of species as the same problem). They will probably never see the Miller Urey experiment as evidence that simple molecules may become complex molecules or they never do understand the actual chemistry (especially when they say 'inorganic matter can't become organic' clearly showing next to no knowledge of organic chemistry). I also can't forget about Sydney Fox's work on artificial phospholipid bilayers, another evidence towards the complex parts that make up a cell being created in 'natural conditions'.

prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular organisms still haven't been made from a set of inorganic molecules yet correct? Amino acids(and lots of other reproduced organic molecules) might be the building blocks of life and are reproducible, but they can be organic and not alive. I'm no expert on organic chemistry or abiogenesis, but if there are experiments that produce actually reproducing and reactive life from inorganic materials, please point me in that direction.

(March 26, 2010 at 12:30 am)tackattack Wrote: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular organisms still haven't been made from a set of inorganic molecules yet correct? Amino acids(and lots of other reproduced organic molecules) might be the building blocks of life and are reproducible, but they can be organic and not alive. I'm no expert on organic chemistry or abiogenesis, but if there are experiments that produce actually reproducing and reactive life from inorganic materials, please point me in that direction.

So where's the part where the scientists throw their hands down and say "God did it"?

(March 26, 2010 at 12:30 am)tackattack Wrote: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular organisms still haven't been made from a set of inorganic molecules yet correct? Amino acids(and lots of other reproduced organic molecules) might be the building blocks of life and are reproducible, but they can be organic and not alive. I'm no expert on organic chemistry or abiogenesis, but if there are experiments that produce actually reproducing and reactive life from inorganic materials, please point me in that direction.

in chemistry, an organic molecule is any molecule that contains carbon (you need to learn this terminology). organic chemistry is concerned with molecules containing carbon (with the exception of molecules that only contain carbon such as a diamond molecule). There are no experiments that produce self replicating molecules or life, now. Tavarish said what I feel and think too: curious minds are not stopping in their search for an answer to the origins of life and to stop and just say that some omnipotent creature did is easy but ignores actual research that points to the possibility that there are conditions in the universe that create self replicating molecules.

Nor do I expect scientist to throw up their hands and give up. I'm thankful for the quality of life improvements science has given us. All I've tried to point out since I've been here is that the atheist notion of religion can't benefit society is just as closed minded as science explains everything natural. We all understand unchanging dogma and blind anything are detrimental, as is fanaticism, but to see no value in using a conceptual moral absolute or doctrine espousing equality and loving thy fellow man is just as ludacris to me.