(August 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: That reality doesn't make everything more perfect does not demonstrate that reality doesn't many anything more perfect. It might be that reality is a necessary property of complete perfection, but that there are certain things which are worse if made real.
If perfection can be imagined without the object being real, then it follows that reality is not a necessary property of complete perfection.
(August 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: This doesn't make sense. If "God is perfect" implies "God is flawlessly 'good'", then if "God is perfect" is true, then "God is flawlessly 'good'" is true, and hence if "God is perfect" can be logically proved, then "God is flawlessly 'good'" can be logically proved.
But "God is perfect" is tautological if "God" is defined to be "that which possesses all perfections".
Not unless "goodness" is proven to be a necessary part of perfection.
(August 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: No, it's not saying "God exists and is perfect; therefore, God exists." It's saying, "God is perfect; therefore, God exists."
To paraphrase Alvin Plantinga, once a logical argument is understood, the premise can be seen as tantamount to the conclusion. If I can show that "x is divisible by 4" implies "x is divisible by 2", you might object "But assuming that x is divisible by 4 assumes that x is divisible by 2!" And, once you've seen the proof that 4|x -> 2|x, you'd agree. But this isn't a circular argument; it's valid deduction.
What the argument truly shows--if the argument works--is that perfection entails existence.
No, it doesn't. The argument doesn't even attempt to prove that existence is a part of perfection. It simply states it.
