Nothing that exists is perfect.
God is perfect.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
I thank you.
God is perfect.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
I thank you.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Ontological reverse
|
Nothing that exists is perfect.
God is perfect. Therefore God doesn't exist. I thank you.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
TL;DR, you verbose bastard.
I thought this was about cancer at first. My eyes are failing me.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
You have to have Faith.
RE: Ontological reverse
November 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm
(This post was last modified: November 11, 2013 at 3:12 pm by max-greece.)
(November 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: TL;DR, you verbose bastard. Learnt that lesson long ago. (November 11, 2013 at 2:48 pm)ToriJ Wrote:(November 11, 2013 at 2:24 pm)max-greece Wrote: God is perfect. OK ToriJ, Just for you: Nothing that exists is perfect. Therefore if you believe God exists, he isn't perfect.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
RE: Ontological reverse
November 12, 2013 at 8:15 am
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2013 at 8:27 am by 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.)
Buzzkiller!
The idea of God being omnipotent is illogical.
If logic exists, then God couldn't exist Therefore, pancakes are tasty.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
(November 12, 2013 at 8:15 am)apophenia Wrote: 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.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
A 21st Century Ontological Argument: does it work. | JJoseph | 23 | 2705 |
January 9, 2024 at 8:10 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger |
|
Trying to Apply the Ontological Argument in Real Life | YahwehIsTheWay | 21 | 5742 |
April 13, 2017 at 5:13 pm Last Post: Lek |
|
Someone actually tried to use the ontological argument on me... | max-greece | 8 | 3029 |
October 21, 2013 at 3:21 pm Last Post: Brian37 |