Perfection!

[tackattack]

---

Should I assume by your omission you're conceeding the point or merely being rude? Void has internet access issues what's your excuse?

Rude to you I cannot be. You merely have to wait your turn. No matter how eager you are to have my reply, I'll be the one that chooses to reply on what and when. I don't believe I have neglected your responses so far.

---

1- the inability to apply logic? come on no need to slash at tires. You could have just as easily said those with the ability to not use logic (which indeed does include you). Dodge through personal attacks much? You can choose to attempt an unbiased approach (or at least try both sides of an arguement), but you are obviously "inable" to.. I guess the true test would be to build a sufficient AI (can only apply logic) and see if it comes up with a concept for God on it's own. Nevertheless everyone does have the potential to peer review the same aspects of God. You can even apply logic and reasoning to it, if you have the ability.

Where is the argument you're making, if you're making any?

2- The minute time of man is all anyone has to go off of for historical presuposition. The only reason you know the sun comes up is because it has for as long as man has recorded it. Anything before Man was around is assumed based of trends and statistics. Since God/ Gods have been around the time for the same time as the sun has in recorded histroy, how is it illogical to suppose it didn't exist before man? As far as ideology, as reason and science grow we are able to better make sense of our surroundings, which leads to a better grasp of the influences in our lives. The names of it have changed, the attributes of it have changed, the quantity of it has even changed, but "it" still is? savvy?
3- I think I've lost where you and Fr0d0 are so I think I'll continue to not get in the way.

The sun does not come up in a real sense. We're deluded into that idea because we're on a rotating sphere. And we have found out about it through empirical evidence and hard thinking. Not through sharing anecdotes of ancient tribes. Ancient tribes indeed professed the idea that the sun really 'comes up'.

So myths are debunked by evidence, whatever anecdotes people keep telling each other. Gods have only been around in fairy tales and myths not in evidence of any kind. And this fact alone shows that we should be critical in assuming knowledge from tribal authority. Because that is the fallacy you are making that god exists on tribal authority. So throw some bones and get to know your future.

---

sorry I was on a caffine bender and now I'm home about to go to bed.

1- That your assertion of "Everyone who has the inability to apply logic has the ability you're speaking of" is just another way of saying everyone has the ability with improper qualifiers.

2- Obviously the sun doesn't come up, it's a phrase. I'll throw some bones and devine that when I wake up I'll greet my family and have some lunch and go out to eat. See how accurate that was! However it was derived from logic not in a misinterpretation of tangible objects to explain the intangible.

I'm not making a fallacy that god exists on tribal authority, I'm making the assertion that God most likely does exist based off of the relevant historical to current fixations mankind has had for a god/s throughout known histroy. I'm drawing a metaphor to the sun because I also assert that for all of mankings known history the sun has been there with us rotating around it, giving the appearance of the sun rising.

[Purple Rabbit]

1- That your assertion of "Everyone who has the inability to apply logic has the ability you're speaking of" is just another way of saying everyone has the ability with improper qualifiers.

2- Obviously the sun doesn't come up, it's a phrase. I'll throw some bones and devine that when I wake up I'll greet my family and have some lunch and go out to eat. See how accurate that was! However it was derived from logic not in a misinterpretation of tangible objects to explain the intangible.

Now throw again for the winning lottery numbers of next month, and publish 'm here. Then I'll let you know how accurate you are.

That the earth rotates wasn't derived from logic if that is what you mean. It was derived from empirical EVIDENCE.

I'm not making a fallacy that god exists on tribal authority, I'm making the assertion that God most likely does exist based off of the relevant historical to current fixations mankind has had for a god/s throughout known histroy. I'm drawing a metaphor to the sun because I also assert that for all of mankings known history the sun has been there with us rotating around it, giving the appearance of the sun rising.

Current fixations of mankind?? Congrats, you have shown that you can rephrase non-evidenced anecdotal account. You wanna be relevant? Start predicting and describing reality for a change. If you can do that from ancient tribal ancedotes I will be all ears. And by mankind are you also referring to the following non-theists or are they excluded from your "logic"?

[tackattack]

2- But the only truth you can claim to know about your pervieved reality is personal truth, obtained though subjective observation. Why would I make predictions for things outside my control? At any moment what I knew to be true (apples fall down) could change (apples fall up), the only think that's relevant is observations based on my own reality. It just so happens the earth's path around the sun is something our realities share. We can also share in the holy spirit, with observation or experiment, if you allow it to manifest. Logic ins't exclusive, it applies to all, however you need the tools necessary to gather the evidence on your own.

[A Theist]

I was at work the other day, talking with a work companion about perfection, when I came up with an interesting idea. Probably most certainly has been thought of before, but here it is. I will pose it as some questions.

Is a thought perfect?

Can a thought be perfect?

As long as there's opinions, there'll never be a perfect thought. One example; in a political contest there's opposing parties. Each of the parties have different agendas. Both parties promise a new direction, but both have different thoughts on what that direction may be, or where it might lead. One group of supporters will contend that one candidate has the perfect idea, while the opposing supporters will contend that their opponents just suck.

[Violet]

As long as there's opinions, there'll never be a perfect thought. One example; in a political contest there's opposing parties. Each of the parties have different agendas. Both parties promise a new direction, but both have different thoughts on what that direction may be, or where it might lead. One group of supporters will contend that one candidate has the perfect idea, while the opposing supporters will contend that their opponents just suck.

Depends on what you mean by "perfect"... I'm going to first assume that by 'perfect', you mean 'without faults'... which would make "perfect" a really strange word to ever need to say.

If A is perfect... it is only necessarily perfect in the sense of its being A (For then it would, without any possibility of fault, be A). If there is a flaw that prevents A from being perfect, then it is not A to begin with.

One might use 'perfect; in reference to a number of things. Take "a perfect test score"... while this is to be understood that the evaluated individual has correctly answered every question/performed every operation to the test specifications... all that it necessarily means is that the test score was a test score. So long as there was no difference between what A is and what A defines: a thing is perfect.

And as a second definition... even if "perfect" means "As good as it is possible to be"... how can you be a better circle than a circle? A better test score than a test score? If one can be a better jumper than a jumper by being able to jump higher... then how could perfection even be possible? One could infinitely become more "perfect" as their jumps carried them further... but perfection under such a concept would be impossible. So essentially there are two options I have thought of in regards to 'perfection'... either that it is impossible... or that it is only in reference to the law of identity.

I am of course open to more understandings of the word Assuming that perfection is not impossible... I don't see why differing perfect arguments/thoughts can't be both perfect... could they be improved upon? Perhaps. Is one a sounder argument than the other? Perhaps. But does that apply as to them both being perfect arguments or/and perfect thoughts? Not at all.

[A Theist]

As long as there's opinions, there'll never be a perfect thought. One example; in a political contest there's opposing parties. Each of the parties have different agendas. Both parties promise a new direction, but both have different thoughts on what that direction may be, or where it might lead. One group of supporters will contend that one candidate has the perfect idea, while the opposing supporters will contend that their opponents just suck.

Depends on what you mean by "perfect"... I'm going to first assume that by 'perfect', you mean 'without faults'... which would make "perfect" a really strange word to ever need to say.

If A is perfect... it is only necessarily perfect in the sense of its being A (For then it would, without any possibility of fault, be A). If there is a flaw that prevents A from being perfect, then it is not A to begin with.

One might use 'perfect; in reference to a number of things. Take "a perfect test score"... while this is to be understood that the evaluated individual has correctly answered every question/performed every operation to the test specifications... all that it necessarily means is that the test score was a test score. So long as there was no difference between what A is and what A defines: a thing is perfect.

And as a second definition... even if "perfect" means "As good as it is possible to be"... how can you be a better circle than a circle? A better test score than a test score? If one can be a better jumper than a jumper by being able to jump higher... then how could perfection even be possible? One could infinitely become more "perfect" as their jumps carried them further... but perfection under such a concept would be impossible. So essentially there are two options I have thought of in regards to 'perfection'... either that it is impossible... or that it is only in reference to the law of identity.

Ouch! I didn't see that one coming. I was too focused on the philosophical debate. I only thought I had the perfect argument