God exists and its perfectly evident

[St.TikTokcel]

god is real

god isreal

coincidence?

 

[Cali Yuga]

Your opinion is wrong, Kuhn's work is more of a direct admission of the fact that we should treat science as a method instead of the method. We cannot wholly know the truth but we can get have a better measure of our ignorance. To treat science as falsification is to deny science altogether.

science cant justify itself or generate knowledge beyond contingent probabilistic associations

it cant even establish certain causation between physical phenomena without assuming a bunch of things that arent experimentally verifiable or falsifiable

without regularity, external world, metaphysical transcendentals like logic and numbers which cannot be experimentally observed, etc. you cant even use it

it is insufficient basis for a coherent worldview

problem is majority of reddit i love science faggots dont understand this and literally think you can be a dogmatic materialist and not collapse into nihilism because muh science will figure everything out and well all eventually put ont he fedora and be euphoric in our own enlightenment and live in star trek world and wear pastel jumpsuits and fuck aliens

without god science is impossible

 

[mogger123]

Your opinion is wrong, Kuhn's work is more of a direct admission of the fact that we should treat science as a method instead of the method

let me ask you this: what are the rules/methods for scientists during the extraordinary research stage of a paradigm shift?

We cannot wholly know the truth but we can get have a better measure of our ignorance. To treat science as falsification is to deny science altogether.

falsification never claims to discover truth, merely eliminating incorrect ideas. theories that are easy to falsify empirically and have been tested many many times are preferred because they are useful

 

[St.TikTokcel]

science cant justify itself or generate knowledge beyond contingent probabilistic associations

it cant even establish certain causation between physical phenomena without assuming a bunch of things that arent experimentally verifiable or falsifiable

without regularity, external world, metaphysical transcendentals like logic and numbers which cannot be experimentally observed, etc. you cant even use it

it is insufficient basis for a coherent worldview

problem is majority of reddit i love science faggots dont understand this and literally think you can be a dogmatic materialist and not collapse into nihilism because muh science will figure everything out and well all eventually put ont he fedora and be euphoric in our own enlightenment and live in star trek world and wear pastel jumpsuits and fuck aliens

without god science is impossible

Deus ex

 

[mogger123]

science cant justify itself or generate knowledge beyond contingent probabilistic associations

it cant even establish certain causation between physical phenomena without assuming a bunch of things that arent experimentally verifiable or falsifiable

without regularity, external world, metaphysical transcendentals like logic and numbers which cannot be experimentally observed, etc. you cant even use it

it is insufficient basis for a coherent worldview

problem is majority of reddit i love science faggots dont understand this and literally think you can be a dogmatic materialist and not collapse into nihilism because muh science will figure everything out and well all eventually put ont he fedora and be euphoric in our own enlightenment and live in star trek world and wear pastel jumpsuits and fuck aliens

without god science is impossible

retard

 

[Cali Yuga]

retard

this is beyond you greycel

you must lern

 

[Cali Yuga]

Deus ex

yeah but there is one tho

 

[St.TikTokcel]

yeah but there is one tho

IKR?

 

[tulasdanslos]

I believe gods exist, yes plural, but I am agnostic theist because my ancestry is complicated and I won't find out who they are until I bite the dust. If they aren't complete pricks they will understand my extremely complicated, Jewish plotted conundrum.

 

[mogger123]

this is beyond you greycel

you must lern

your last line a) does not make any sense and b) is completely unrelated and doesn't follow on from anything else you wrote

im guessing you either just assume no one here is birght enought to see thorugh your sophistry or have managed to dupe yourself with your own mental gymnastics that it makes logical sense

 

[stickyblickyhuh]

I agree God is real. If u see the world nowadays everything is straying away from God, and yet people are becoming less happy. That itself alone should be an indicator that there was a reason God planned things. Now there are bunch of fags and weirdos roaming around

 

[Deleted member 17872]

let me ask you this: what are the rules/methods for scientists during the extraordinary research stage of a paradigm shift?

falsification never claims to discover truth, merely eliminating incorrect ideas. theories that are easy to falsify empirically and have been tested many many times are preferred because they are useful

Except science doesn't work by the way of falsification. A theory even if falsified would be accepted by the scientific community and will b used using band-aid methods until a new theory replace it's place. Just look at string theory or renormalization.

 

[Tom Jones]

I agree God is real. If u see the world nowadays everything is straying away from God, and yet people are becoming less happy. That itself alone should be an indicator that there was a reason God planned things. Now there are bunch of fags and weirdos roaming around

More and more people straying from god is probably because more people learn to read

 

[mogger123]

Except science doesn't work by the way of falsification. A theory even if falsified would be accepted by the scientific community and will b used using band-aid methods until a new theory replace it's place. Just look at string theory or renormalization.

I never said it did, but I do think it's the best method that isn't just giving up and accepting anything goes

 

[tulasdanslos]

@David Rothschild r you laughing at the last sentence or the first sentence?

 

[longjohnmong]

Anyone who suggests Deductive Reasoning for God is not valid is low iq by definition.

And it’s rational to believe in a Supremely Perfect Necessary Being. The greatest thinkers arrived to this conclusion via deductive reasoning a-prior (logic alone) or a posteriori (from observation around us) in fact.

lmao, no

 

[Tom Jones]

What caused God? Or is he just absolved of your reasoning

 

[hypernormie]

Most philosophers believed in God because it was instilled in them by society during early childhood and then they employed mental gymnastics to defend the position when they were older. That is how beliefs typically work

Regarding the cosmological argument, cause and effect were debunked a while ago so it is easy enough to dismiss entirely

In what ways are cause and effect debunked?

 

[Tusseleif]

The world is shit and there’s lots of pain which makes people lose faith in God, and it makes me doubt the existence of a loving God, or a God who cares about his creation. But I choose to believe sinning is real and that most souls of humans will be cast to Hell or purgatory. But the existence of the universe and the laws of nature and the universe makes no fucking sense whether or not you believe in God. One could make the argument that whatever caused the Big Bang is God, but it depends how one views God. The theory was after all invented by a catholic priest.

 

[risque_dew]

The big bang theory is two particles colliding and creating the whole universe (without explaining how those two particles were even created), it's also just a theory too. Just as valid as some supernatural being magically creating the universe.

 

[Tom Jones]

The big bang theory is two particles colliding and creating the whole universe (without explaining how those two particles were even created), it's also just a theory too. Just as valid as some supernatural being magically creating the universe.

It’s not as simple as that. Also some theoretical physicists believe that the universe somehow behave in an oscillating fashion. Expanding and then condense or collapse.
Certainly not as valid as something supernatural

 

[vanillaicecream]

i see people calling god a fairy tale and an irrational idea but the irony is that most of the famous philosphers were theists/deists...
why did they believed in a god?ill try to answer in this thread

This is not a popularity contest. The truth of a proposition needs to be demonstrated, how many people believe it and entertain it is irrelevant. Either way your statement isn't entirely correct, most philosophers were theists 600 years ago when we had little to no scientific knowledge of the world. The majority of current philosophers do not subscribe to theism.

Deductive Proof of god:
first we need to define god
GOD=from which everything originated ie The first cause/the uncaused cause

"We need to define god"? So you're defining things into existence now? God's definition should be self evident under the assumption that he does exist and interacts with the universe, instead what you're doing is going with your own interpretation of his nature and seeing how you can make it fit with reality. That is a fallacious method, first you look at evidence, then you come to conclusions. What precedent and prior observation are you going off of when "defining god"? I'd like to know how you determined that God is defined as whatever you say it is.

by using simple logic we can be sure god exists
premise no 1: i have a cause
premise no2:my cause also has a cause and that cause has a cause too and so on
premis no 3: since this caual chain can go on for infinity hence there must exist a first cause from which everything originated

Does this menthod works?
democrites used the same kind of reasoning to predict that Atomos/Atom exist thousands of years ago

he asked a simple question to himself :what will happen if i cut a melon in two pieces and take one of the two pieces and cut it again and repeat the process?he concluded that since this process cant go on for infinity hence there must exist a particle which cant be further divided..he called this the Atomos/atom ie the elemantry particle

Zeno used his paradoxes having same reasoning to hint that plank length exist

so why did most of the famous philosopher believed in god?because its simple logic
denying god is denying simple logic (atleast if u define god the way i did)

"By using simple logic we can be sure that God exists"

I very much disagree. An argument can be both logically valid and factually false. This is taught in introductory college logic classes. You cannot rationalize and argue the existence of something. Our ability to reason and figure things out in our heads is severely limited by various things such as our symbolic language, the limitation of our abstractions to correspond to external reality, and the acceptance of certain assumptions underlying whatever logical argument we are applying. Arguments based on pure reason in the absence of empirical proof are therefore extremely prone to errors, unrecognized biases, and hidden flaws in logic. Arguments based on pure reason must be dismissed as nothing more than thought experiments and naval observation. Reason applied to actual evidence has a much better track record, and even then conclusions can be tentative.

Anyways, your whole argument seems to be built around the idea that things have a cause, but you didn't provide a tiny shred of evidence or a reason to think that "God" is the cause of the universe. How did you determine that God, a very specific explanation, is that first cause? How did you rule out other hypotheses? Multiverse, the universe creating pixies, aliens? When you allow magic as an explanation, anything goes... your point proves absolutely nothing and god is absolutely not perfectly evident, that's why we are discussing it to this day because God is in fact not self demonstrable and evident, instead what we have is people doing mental gymnastics and engaging in word games to try and smuggle a god into existence.

 

[risque_dew]

It’s not as simple as that. Also some theoretical physicists believe that the universe somehow behave in an oscillating fashion. Expanding and then condense or collapse.
Certainly not as valid as something supernatural

I already know about that. A religious person could argue that god designed the universe to expand and collapse and was behind the initial root cause/creation of the universe still.

Within science, the best explanations for the creation of the universe are all theories.

 

[Kylo]

lmao, no

What?

 

[Kylo]

What caused God? Or is he just absolved of your reasoning

Theists have always held God to be uncaused.

It’s literally impossible to cause a perfect being whatever could cause a perfect being would have to have more Perfect Will than the Perfect Will of a perfect being. So it would have to be more perfect than perfect but that’s impossible. A contradiction. Therefore nothing could cause a perfect being. God is a perfect being. Therefore nothing could cause God.

 

[Tom Jones]

Theists have always held God to be uncaused.

It’s literally impossible to cause a perfect being whatever could cause a perfect being would have to have more Perfect Will than the Perfect Will of a perfect being. So it would have to be more perfect than perfect but that’s impossible. A contradiction. Therefore nothing could cause a perfect being. God is a perfect being. Therefore nothing could cause God.

Yeah but when the premises of the OPs post is all about cause, you would except a better answer than the uncaused cause

 

[vanillaicecream]

Theists have always held God to be uncaused.

It’s literally impossible to cause a perfect being whatever could cause a perfect being would have to have more Perfect Will than the Perfect Will of a perfect being. So it would have to be more perfect than perfect but that’s impossible. A contradiction. Therefore nothing could cause a perfect being. God is a perfect being. Therefore nothing could cause God.

Why is God "perfect"? How can "perfect" be a thing? What causes his perfection? What is that based on? If he is maximally everything then is he also maximally stupid? If he is perfect then why would he create us when that denotes a lack of something which is in direct contradiction with perfection? A god that is perfect is self sustainable and doesn't need anything, much less a bunch of sentient primates acknowledging his existence and praising him. Any change towards a new state implies that the prior state wasn't perfect.

 

[Tom Jones]

Why is God "perfect"? How can "perfect" be a thing? What causes his perfection? What is that based on? If he is maximally everything then is he also maximally stupid? If he is perfect then why would he create us when that denotes a lack of something which is in direct contradiction with perfection? A god that is perfect is self sustainable and doesn't need anything, much less a bunch of sentient primates acknowledging his existence and praising him. Any change towards a new state implies that the prior state wasn't perfect.

God must just be a sadist.

Creates us with sin. Living a life of suffering and pain.

Also I think of the massive sacrifices he made after raping and impregnating a woman, whose son is fully human and fully god. So he sacrificed himself for our sins, which he created. Only to say jk I ain’t dead

 

[Kylo]

Yeah but when the premises of the OPs post is all about cause, you would except a better answer than the uncaused cause

I agree it doesn’t tell us it’s God… quite I don’t believe most of the logical arguments for God get you to God so defined (a perfect being)… the only argument that gets you directly to a perfect being is the ontological argument.

Which goes from looking into the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being, or a greatest possible being and deducing a being that’s defined like that would have to exist.

 

[Kylo]

Why is God "perfect"? How can "perfect" be a thing? What causes his perfection? What is that based on? If he is maximally everything then is he also maximally stupid? If he is perfect then why would he create us when that denotes a lack of something which is in direct contradiction with perfection? A god that is perfect is self sustainable and doesn't need anything, much less a bunch of sentient primates acknowledging his existence and praising him. Any change towards a new state implies that the prior state wasn't perfect.

You can see God is perfect on inspection into his absolute perfection and seeing that’s a purely positive thing.

It’s impossible to cause his perfection. Perfection entails ultimacy which in turn entails uncausability.

Think about it what would be more ultimate a thing which by what it is could not possibly have had a cause or a thing which could have possibly has a cause?

No he wouldn’t also be maximally stupid that doesn’t follow. God has all and only purely positives properties. Purely positive properties could not entails a Negative or purely negative properties.

1. No Purely positive property entails a negative property

2. The Property of entailing a negative property is negative

3. Therefore, any property that entails a negative property cannot be purely positive

4. Therefore, no property can be purely positive and entail a negative property at the same time.

A God that is perfect would be motivated to bring about good things. The universe containing freely creatures is a good. Therefore a God would be motivated to create a universe containing freely creatures but that doesn’t he needs to create afterall God is self-sufficient he’s in need of no thing.

 

[Tom Jones]

I agree it doesn’t tell us it’s God… quite I don’t believe most of the logical arguments for God get you to God so defined (a perfect being)… the only argument that gets you directly to a perfect being is the ontological argument.

Which goes from looking into the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being, or a greatest possible being and deducing a being that’s defined like that would have to exist.

You still have to make a lot of assumptions to reach that perfect being hypothesis.

Why couldn’t we just attribute our existence to the universe, which is far from understood I grant.
I’d rather live in uncertainty than a God who felt it necessary to tell some dessert dwelling goat herders in the Middle East, that you shouldn’t boil infants in their mothers breast milk

 

[Tom Jones]

You can see God is perfect on inspection into his absolute perfection and seeing that’s a purely positive thing.

It’s impossible to cause his perfection. Perfection entails ultimacy which in turn entails uncausability.

Think about it what would be more ultimate a thing which by what it is could possibly have had a cause or a thing which could have possibly has a cause?

No he wouldn’t also be maximally stupid that doesn’t follow. God has all and only purely positives properties. Purely positive properties could not entails a Negative or purely negative properties.

1. No Purely positive property entails a negative property

2. The Property of entailing a negative property is negative

3. Therefore, any property that entails a negative property cannot be purely positive

4. Therefore, no property can be purely positive and entail a negative property at the same time.

A God that is perfect would be motivated to bring about good things. The universe containing freely creatures is a good. Therefore a God would be motivated to create a universe containing freely creatures but that doesn’t he needs to create afterall God is self-sufficient he’s in need of no thing.

If god existed I think perverted is a more accurate description than perfect

 

[Kylo]

You still have to make a lot of assumptions to reach that perfect being hypothesis.

Why couldn’t we just attribute our existence to the universe, which is far from understood I grant.
I’d rather live in uncertainty than a God who felt it necessary to tell some dessert dwelling goat herders in the Middle East, that you shouldn’t boil infants in their mothers breast milk

One way of going about trying to show it could not be the universe is to go about and argue that the universe just is the collection of contingents things… a contingent being a thing that could fail to exists it could be absent from reality and show that therefore the whole universe too would be contingent.

If every part of a thing can fail to exists than the whole thing can fail to exist but if the whole thing can fail to exist than it satisfies being contingent.

To illustrate consider a completely whole puzzle… every puzzle piece of that puzzle can fail to exists if so the whole puzzle can fail to exist.

This is not a fallacy it seems evident.. why should we privilege the universe?

It would be akin to arguing every part of a white board is white therefore the whole white board is also white.

Contingency is like color. The theist would argue

 

[vanillaicecream]

You can see God is perfect on inspection into his absolute perfection and seeing that’s a purely positive thing.

Circular reasoning.

It’s impossible to cause his perfection. Perfection entails ultimacy which in turn entails uncausability.

What is the standard for ultimate perfection? We have our own subjective standards for what "perfect" means in certain contexts based on our own constructs, but how is ultimate objective perfection achieved and how and why is it uncaused? What is the mechanism upon which it works and who or what is the arbitrator of his perfection? As far as I know no god has ever come forward to speak in behalf of his attributes, so are you defining that he is perfect based on the cognitive functions of the human brain? And you accept an ultimately perfect being that is uncaused but you don't accept an uncaused universe? Why?

No he wouldn’t also be maximally stupid that doesn’t follow. God has all and only purely positives properties. Purely positive properties could not entails a Negative or purely negative properties.

"God has only positive properties" Why? Positive to whom? Again, who or what is the arbitrator and how did you find out what his properties are?

Not sure what your point is with that armchair tautology syllogism...

 

[Tom Jones]

One way of going about trying to show it could not be the universe is to go about and argue that the universe just is the collection of contingents things… a contingent being a thing that could fail to exists it could be absent from reality and show that therefore the whole universe too would be contingent.

If every part of a thing can fail to exists than the whole thing can fail to exist but if the whole thing can fail to exist than it satisfies being contingent.

To illustrate consider a completely whole puzzle… every puzzle piece of that puzzle can fail to exists if so the whole puzzle can fail to exist.

This is not a fallacy it seems evident.. why should we privilege the universe?

It would be akin to arguing every part of a white board is white therefore the whole white board is also white.

Contingency is like color. The theist would argue

Everyone on either side must make assumptions I agree.
But the part most atheists are not partial to is the abundance of “Gods” and their ideas for humanity.

The universe is something we can observe and try to understand. We are far from the truth but it’s the best way to figure it out instead of just giving something outside nature the credit

 

[hypernormie]

I agree God is real. If u see the world nowadays everything is straying away from God, and yet people are becoming less happy. That itself alone should be an indicator that there was a reason God planned things. Now there are bunch of fags and weirdos roaming around

People are straying away from biology which is making them less happy

And biologic necessity which is merely physical necessity is only evidence of structure not god

 

[Kylo]

Circular reasoning.

Not circular.. it’s foundationism we need foundation from which all our belief springs forth otherwise turtling all the way down. Aristotle’s talked about this .

What is the standard for ultimate perfection?

Well let’s start by unpacking what perfection is… Perfection by definition is the state or quality of being free from any flaws or defects. Ultimate perfection would be an absolute, flawless state with no faults or errors. Again Perfection is a primitive concept.

how is ultimate objective perfection achieved and how and why is it uncaused?

Goodness dude I just demonstrated by discursive logical reasoning why it would have to be… It’s like u have ur fingers in ears and shouting la la la

And you accept an ultimately perfect being that is uncaused but you don't accept an uncaused universe? Why?

My argument from contingency is perfectly compatible with things being eternal.. even if you had a eternal sun that was shining from eternity the rays of that sun would be contingent on the sun from eternity.. I’ve got no problem with the universe being eternal my argument still goes through.

gain, who or what is the arbitrator and how did you find out what his properties are?

Facepalm… Perfection entails necessity. Whatever is necessary is necessarily necessary.

Not sure what your point is with that armchair tautology syllogism...

The point was to show that instant you accept this idea of purely positive properties. On pain of being contradiction/irrationality you cannot but accept that it cannot entail a negative property (which being also maximally stupid is)

 

[Kylo]

Everyone on either side must make assumptions I agree.
But the part most atheists are not partial to is the abundance of “Gods” and their ideas for humanity.

The universe is something we can observe and try to understand. We are far from the truth but it’s the best way to figure it out instead of just giving something outside nature the credit

Everyone makes assumption… the mathematicians makes assumption his axioms from which proves theorems are true..

The scientist assumes the scientific method is a good method and that the universe is intelligible to investiagate…

 

[vanillaicecream]

Not circular.. it’s foundationism we need foundation from which all our belief springs forth otherwise turtling all the way down. Aristotle’s talked about this .

No sir, that is precisely and exactly circular reasoning, I asked how you know god is perfect and you said "we know God is perfect in inspect into his perfection" which is no different than "we know God is because God is perfect". You don't get to say this isn't circular reasoning because you used the word "foundationalism", you need a precedent and prior observation to justify your claim, so either you fix your reasoning and give me a real argument as to why god is "perfect" and why you can know that or we're just running in circles.

Well let’s start by unpacking what perfection is… Perfection by definition is the state or quality of being free from any flaws or defects. Ultimate perfection would be an absolute, flawless state with no faults or errors. Again Perfection is a primitive concept.

"Free of errors and flaws". Now please define flaws and errors and to whom would those things be flawed. Abstract ideas contingent on a mind to be considered such and such cannot have objectivety attached to them and as a result a subjective arbitrator is the only one who can use that label. Even if we assume God is "perfect", flawless and free of errors, it would follow that the things that derive from him are also that way. Would you say this is flawless and free of errors?:

I would like to know in what possible world and under what kind of circumstances could these be the product of a perfect god that has no flaws and errors, please. The rest of what you typed is irrelevant word games that prove nothing.

 

[Ryan]

This is not a popularity contest. The truth of a proposition needs to be demonstrated, how many people believe it and entertain it is irrelevant. Either way your statement isn't entirely correct, most philosophers were theists 600 years ago when we had little to no scientific knowledge of the world. The majority of current philosophers do not subscribe to theism.

View attachment 2052869

u need to read my statement correctly..i didnt said most of the philosophers were theist i said most of the "famous/influential" were theist
i was talking about quality not quantity

"We need to define god"? So you're defining things into existence now? God's definition should be self evident under the assumption that he does exist and interacts with the universe, instead what you're doing is going with your own interpretation of his nature and seeing how you can make it fit with reality. That is a fallacious method, first you look at evidence, then you come to conclusions. What precedent and prior observation are you going off of when "defining god"? I'd like to know how you determined that God is defined as whatever you say it is.

while doing philosophy first u need to define things and the defination i used is not something new many philosophers in history has defined god as such for example aristotle/voltaire/aquains etc
u can dictinary the defination of god in deism

"By using simple logic we can be sure that God exists"

I very much disagree. An argument can be both logically valid and factually false. This is taught in introductory college logic classes. You cannot rationalize and argue the existence of something. Our ability to reason and figure things out in our heads is severely limited by various things such as our symbolic language, the limitation of our abstractions to correspond to external reality, and the acceptance of certain assumptions underlying whatever logical argument we are applying. Arguments based on pure reason in the absence of empirical proof are therefore extremely prone to errors, unrecognized biases, and hidden flaws in logic. Arguments based on pure reason must be dismissed as nothing more than thought experiments and naval observation. Reason applied to actual evidence has a much better track record, and even then conclusions can be tentative.

Anyways, your whole argument seems to be built around the idea that things have a cause, but you didn't provide a tiny shred of evidence or a reason to think that "God" is the cause of the universe. How did you determine that God, a very specific explanation, is that first cause? How did you rule out other hypotheses? Multiverse, the universe creating pixies, aliens? When you allow magic as an explanation, anything goes... your point proves absolutely nothing and god is absolutely not perfectly evident, that's why we are discussing it to this day because God is in fact not self demonstrable and evident, instead what we have is people doing mental gymnastics and engaging in word games to try and smuggle a god into existence.

i didnt first proved the first cause and then said its god i first defined god as the first cause(can be anything alien/unicorn etc) and then proved it exists ie the first cause..there is a difference

quoting aquinas:
after proving the ground reality/first cause aquinas wrote:-
"this is which all men call God"

 

[Ryan]

Very nice, a fellow Islamic philosopher.

Can u give me permission to edit this thread?

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Can u give me permission to edit this thread?

Sadly, I can't. I only moderate Ratings.

 

[vanillaicecream]

u need to read my statement correctly..i didnt said most of the philosophers were theist i said most of the "famous/influential" were theist
i was talking about quality not quantity

It doesn't matter, the point still remains that the truth of a proposition isn't supported by the merit of whoever defends it but by demonstrations of objective reality. Either you demonstrate it or you have nothing, appealing to authorities doesn't prove anything.

while doing philosophy first u need to define things and the defination i used is not something new many philosophers in history has defined god as such for example aristotle/voltaire/aquainus etc
u can dictinary the defination of god in deism

You need a precedent as a reference to justify the definition, you can't just define it for the sake of defining and going from there because you defined that's how it works based on absolutely nothing.

i didnt first proved the first cause and then said its god i first defined god as the first cause(can be anything alien/unicorn etc) and then proved it exists ie the first cause..there is a difference

Yeah, it's called presuppositionalism and it's a dishonest tactic. You can't use arguments that are purposely set out with the intention of getting to "God" and leading the rest of your script down that pathway irrespective of whether your premises justify that conclusion. Theists should be embarrassed of their inability to provide a scrap of real evidence for their god and stop playing around with "philosophical arguments" that attempt to dishonestly define a god into existence.

 

[Kylo]

No sir, that is precisely and exactly circular reasoning, I asked how you know god is perfect and you said "we know God is perfect in inspect into his perfection" which is no different than "we know God is because God is perfect". You don't get to say this isn't circular reasoning because you used the word "foundationalism", you need a precedent and prior observation to justify your claim, so either you fix your reasoning and give me a real argument as to why god is "perfect" and why you can know that or we're just running in circles.

Okay here’s one way: We know God is perfect by looking at imperfect things and then concluding God would be the total opposite of that. Thus entailing by the opposite of an imperfect thing is perfect thing

It is no different than mathematicians know what the infinite (i.e not finite) is from the finite.

Finite space would be a definite point from point A to B…

So infinite space would be indefinite/endless…

Even if we assume God is "perfect", flawless and free of errors, it would follow that the things that derive from him are also that way. Would you say this is flawless and free of errors?:

Not it does not follow that those things are also perfect. It just doesn’t. There is a hidden assumption in here

‘A perfect being cannot create anything less than perfect’ Suppose that’s true, then it would follow that whatever flows from this thing is not anything less than perfect (it is perfect)…. ONLY THEN WILL THAT FOLLOW.

We don’t need that assumption.

 

[vanillaicecream]

Okay here’s one way: We know God is perfect by looking at imperfect things and then concluding God would be the total opposite of that.

And this conclusion is based on what? Another empty unfounded assertion. You're still running in circles, except the time you changed the circle around which you're running. Infinite is opposite from finite because it's logical. God being the opposite of imperfect is not a logical conclusion because god has no clear definition and if you just say god is the opposite of imperfection because god is perfect you're back at the origin of the problem. Your logic is fallacious and flawed from top to bottom, this is what happens when "god" is NOT self-evident and people desperately try to fit him into reality because they want him to exist.

Not it does not follow that those things are also perfect. It just doesn’t. There is a hidden assumption in here

‘A perfect being cannot create anything less than perfect’ Suppose that’s true, then it would follow that whatever flows from this thing is not anything less than perfect (it is perfect)…. ONLY THEN WILL THAT FOLLOW.

We don’t need that assumption.

Then how exactly would you know he's perfect in a reality where we can only observe things that derive from him? What is his perfection good for? If he's just perfect in and of himself then how does that impact the universe and how can you detect his perfection? And it absolutely does follow that an "ultimately perfect" being that has no flaws and errors would only create things that are the same way. You cannot assume a flawless being would ever bring forth anything less than something that meets that standard when he's using his own nature, which includes perfection and thus the inability to be imperfect, to bring that forth. It's only logical, don't run from logic because it's not convenient to you.

 

[Kylo]

Infinite is opposite from finite because it's logical. God being the opposite of imperfect is not a logical conclusion because god has no clear definition and if you just say god is the opposite of imperfection because god is perfect you're back at the origin of the problem.

Lmao… this dude’s pride is unbelievable…infinite is the opposite finite because it’s logical by contraposition… similarly the opposite of imperfect cannot but be perfect by contraposition. This is logic.

You cannot assume a flawless being would ever bring forth anything less than something that meets that standard when he's using his own nature, which includes perfection and thus the inability to be imperfect, to bring that forth.

Why not because you said so? It’s precisely because only God could be the kind of perfect, there is no superseding perfection or matching perfection without contradiction..

Give me an argument for the assumption that it is necessary God couldn’t create anything less than perfect… Derive a contradiction without begging the question against me that A Perfect Being could not create anything less than perfect

 

[Deleted member 17872]

I never said it did, but I do think it's the best method that isn't just giving up and accepting anything goes

How is it better than Kuhn's perspectivism? Faslifying doesn't even reflect how science is done much less reflecting scientific reality

 

[mogger123]

How is it better than Kuhn's perspectivism? Faslifying doesn't even reflect how science is done much less reflecting scientific reality

Because Kuhn is approaching the issue as a historian and describing what he has seen happen in science, not what ought to be happening in science. He is avoiding the question, so to me it is a cop out.

Whereas, Popper has a respectable go at it. Is it perfect? No, but it's a model we can work with.

Then feyerabend refines Kuhn's ideas and uses it to address the question. What should scientists be doing? Whatever the fuck they want

That's how I see it

 

[vanillaicecream]

Lmao… this dude’s pride is unbelievable…infinite is the opposite finite because it’s logical by contraposition… similarly the opposite of imperfect cannot but be perfect by contraposition. This is logic.


Why not because you said so? It’s precisely because only God could be the kind of perfect, there is no superseding perfection or matching perfection without contradiction..

Give me an argument for the assumption that it is necessary God couldn’t create anything less than perfect… Derive a contradiction without begging the question against me that A Perfect Being could not create anything less than perfect

Oh boy...I didn't say perfect cannot be the contraposition of imperfect I said it isn't necessarily logical that a god would be the opposite of that because you're just baldly asserting it as the definition of perfect for your own convenience, perfection isn't an intrinsic quality of a conscious agent and just saying so doesn't make it so. Your whole argument is centered around "because I said so" and you're accusing me of that, you still haven't provided a single argument or reason as to why or how "god" is perfect that isn't a logical fallacy or a presupposed bald assertion. "An argument as to why a God that is perfect couldn't create anything less than perfect" because if he's ultimate perfection it follows that whatever he does is also perfect since his actions are dependent upon his perfection as a mechanism, he uses his nature to create things therefore his creation cannot be imperfect. An intelligent creative writer writes intelligent creative novels, a stupid person does stupid things... those are mechanisms of an agent upon which their actions are dependent and are the result of. I asked you, if God is only perfect in and of himself and we can only observe his creation then how does his perfection interact with the universe and how can you detect it? If you keep trying to defend things that aren't supported by logic and reality you'll keep making bad arguments and committing fallacies of all kinds, either you humble yourself and admit god is not self evident and cannot be argued into existence or you'll continue down this path of denial and flawed biased reasoning.

 

[Kylo]

Your whole argument is centered around "because I said so" and you're accusing me of that, you still haven't provided a single argument or reason as to why or how "god" is perfect that isn't a logical fallacy or a presupposed bald assertion.

Me: I’m using the imperfect as a measure to see into the perfect afterall,

X is not imperfect -> X is perfect

You: Nuh-uh PROVE HOW GOD IS PERFECT

Me: Let’s look into the imperfect… negate it and let that be what’s perfect… Not knowing everything is an imperfection so its contrapostive ‘Knowing everything’ must be a perfection

because if he's ultimate perfection it follows that whatever he does is also perfect

This is VERY THING in dispute…

Why can a perfect being not create anything less than perfect?

‘It follows from his perfection whatever he does is also perfect’ or equivalently Because He cannot create anything less than perfect

He cannot create anything less than perfect because he cannot create anything less than perfect

Since you couldn’t give a non question begging circular argument… i’ll make the argument anything a perfect being creates must be inperfect in comparison to a PFB

1. A Perfect Being is necessarily Perfect

2.Perfection cannot be exceded nor matched (definition)

3. Therefore, no other being can be Perfect like a Perfect Being

4. A Perfect Being created (Theist premise)

5. Therefore, anything a Perfect Being creates must be imperfect in comparison to the Perfect Being.

Reading your previous comments… I assume you’ve taken logic classes… my argument is objectively deductively valid.. it’s impossible for all the premises to be true and its conclusion false.

Which premise of my argument is false?