(August 9, 2012 at 7:26 pm)genkaus Wrote: Why the hell would I define perfect like that? The word already has a definition - "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type".
An amount of beauty that provokes suffering is hardly "ideal", to my thinking.
(August 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: It defined "perfect" and it defines "beauty". Joining the two isn't a big leap.
True, but that doesn't make for a great definition all the time.
Consider what is meant by "perfect victory" in a fighting game. Would a "perfect victory" have to include taking no damage? Or would it include taking the maximum amount of damage and still winning? Would it include winning using every move available? Or winning using only one move?
(August 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I thought we were going with Leibniz. So how does he define perfection.
You're the one criticizing the argument. I'd go to the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy, they'll probably have something useful.
(August 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: You should know better than that. I cannot prove that "no philosopher postulating an ontological argument has never put forward a definition of what he means by perfect" - that would be proving a negative.
...and? If I say, "No atheist has ever loved their mother", I wouldn't have to prove it because it's a negative?
(August 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: That's the argument? Really? But we've already established by example that it is impossible for an entity to posses two contradictory perfections and therefore it'd be impossible for it to posses all perfections. Therefore, the conjunction of every possible perfection does entail a contradiction.
"Two contradictory perfections"...how do you know that there are any contradictory perfections?
(August 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Actually, that would be an invalid inference. If perfection cannot be analyzed and contradiction cannot be proven, it does not mean that no contradiction entails, it simply means that one cannot be proven.
You're going to need more support than that. How do you know that there can be unprovable contradictions (i.e., not all contradictions are provable) in this context?
Quote:Besides, there is no justification for the statement "perfections cannot be analyzed".
Uh, right, because you didn't look at the actual argument, you looked at the two-sentence summation of Leibniz's view.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
