Ontological reverse

[Angrboda]

Just because I am here:

Nothing that you know of that exists is perfect.

Rephrasing: m elements of a set containing m+n element have property ~P'.

Either:
i) all m+n elements are ~P', God has property ~~P', therefore God is not a member
ii) there is a probability that all elements are ~P', based on the values of m, n, and m+n, and therefore if God has property ~~P', there is a certain related probability that God is not a member of the set.

I believe the latter is okay, while the former equivocates by treating a conclusion based on inductive inference as being one formed by deductive inference. The conclusion is not deductively sound. I believe that is the main matter. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(ETA: It was nice of our resident critic of philosophy, LP, to weigh in with a red herring. The fact that you must have faith to believe in it is in no way necessarily related to whether or not the proposition of His existence is itself true.)

I'm arguing that existence and perfection are mutually exclusive. Existence guarantees imperfection - as follows:

To be perfect you would have to have every particle that constitutes you be perfect. As soon as we get down to the electron level, however, we can't even know the combination of where an electron is and which way it is going. At any moment in time, therefore, our perfect entity could be short one electron and therefore not be perfect.

I'd like to thank Mythos Beers for their assistance in the making of this argument.

Answer: Beer.

[max-greece]

Exactly - hic.

[Anomalocaris]

I'm arguing that existence and perfection are mutually exclusive. Existence guarantees imperfection - as follows:

To be perfect you would have to have every particle that constitutes you be perfect. As soon as we get down to the electron level, however, we can't even know the combination of where an electron is and which way it is going. At any moment in time, therefore, our perfect entity could be short one electron and therefore not be perfect.

I'd like to thank Mythos Beers for their assistance in the making of this argument.

One could play along with the silliness by arguing imperfection come in discrete fundamental units, sort of like a Planck imperfection, governedby generalized uncertainty principle. Any notional degree of imperfection less than one planck imperfection is in principle impossible to measure and is therefore meaningless. So anything that does not possess one complete planck imperfection is perfect.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Just because I am here:

Nothing that you know of that exists is perfect.

Rephrasing: m elements of a set containing m+n element have property ~P'.

Either:
i) all m+n elements are ~P', God has property ~~P', therefore God is not a member
ii) there is a probability that all elements are ~P', based on the values of m, n, and m+n, and therefore if God has property ~~P', there is a certain related probability that God is not a member of the set.

I believe the latter is okay, while the former equivocates by treating a conclusion based on inductive inference as being one formed by deductive inference. The conclusion is not deductively sound. I believe that is the main matter. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(ETA: It was nice of our resident critic of philosophy, LP, to weigh in with a red herring. The fact that you must have faith to believe in it is in no way necessarily related to whether or not the proposition of His existence is itself true.)

I'm arguing that existence and perfection are mutually exclusive. Existence guarantees imperfection - as follows:

To be perfect you would have to have every particle that constitutes you be perfect. As soon as we get down to the electron level, however, we can't even know the combination of where an electron is and which way it is going. At any moment in time, therefore, our perfect entity could be short one electron and therefore not be perfect.

I'd like to thank Mythos Beers for their assistance in the making of this argument.

Doesn't presume that only a single state is perfect? Why would that have to be the case?

[max-greece]

Guys,

As I am sure some of you have realized already this is not really a serious argument. I am taking the piss out of the ontological argument - which is equally as bad IMO.

Whilst I am tempted to keep it going I think we all need to understand that.

Apo,

Sorry about yesterday - went to the supermarket during the day - bought a truckload of beer and overdid the sampling - my second argument was even more nonsensical than the first. I think you picked up on that.

Optmistic,

Struggling with your last line - more than one state of perfection? I am not sure there are any but if there were I would expect only one. Anything more than that?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Why does there have to only one perfect state? Why would something have to be flawed in order to be different?