RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
January 1, 2019 at 10:39 am
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2019 at 10:50 am by Angrboda.)
(December 31, 2018 at 5:39 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: As far as perfection, I would suggest positive qualities both inward and outward. What makes a circle perfect? Both it's form and function. We know all points on its outer edges are equidistant from it's center point. As such, the form makes it highly efficient. I'm sure we could get more technical about it, but I think so far it's a fair statement.
In what way would a circle be efficient? A thing is only efficient in as much as it accomplishes its goal or purpose in a certain way. Circles don't accomplish things. They just are. If you are saying that function is a part of perfection, then that is saying that a thing that is perfect is accomplishing a specific goal or purpose. But God, ostensibly, does not have an externally defined purpose or goal. Theists suggest that the only goals or purposes God has are his own. That would suggest that God is only perfect with respect to his own definition of perfection. It's easy to meet that standard, and no specific attributes of God follow from such a thing. I've pointed this out to other theists, and their response has been to back away from such a definition. I suspect if you didn't have me on ignore, we would likely find you doing the same. A circle is only perfect inasmuch as it meets a specific definition. What definition does God meet that makes him 'perfect' as opposed to just an arbitrarily existing thing. Like function, it comes down to a definition being attributed to the thing. If God simply meets his own definition of what perfection is in some perfect way, then that's a rather pointless and insignificant fact. If we are talking about men's definitions of omniscience and omnipotence, it's not clear why these things are necessarily desirable for a thing to have. Objectively, no thing is preferable to another thing. The universe does not value one thing over another. So these preferences are coming from a subjective agent, necessarily. And then the conclusion becomes that perfection simply consists in possessing those qualities that some person or other considers desirable to have. Perfection becomes subjective, arbitrary, and essentially without any objective basis. So your definition ultimately fails as a definition for God.
And you could be reading all about it and learning about it if you didn't have me on ignore. That's why you have me on ignore. You prefer to wallow in ignorance. Anybody who challenges you and your beliefs is crudely shunned.
For more on this, see the following thread: Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?
Oh, and just a side note on your analogy, if you go out looking for a girl who is 'perfect' in every way, like God is, you're going to be coming home alone. Much like you do with God in the real world.