Argument from perfection against the existence of god

[steve_bank]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The benefit of an anonymous forum like this is you can stretch without any penalty.

 

[bilby]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

Ipse dixit

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

But speaks to a hypothetical reality that exists "outside" the universe. It is indeed indeterminate as a result. Inside the universe, there is yet a single thing that exists that supports the existence of a deity. However, the origin of the universe, and potentially whatever the universe itself exists as part of is wildly outside our realm of observation and therefore impossible for us to even entertain conclusions regarding origins. There certainly is no evidence for deity, and a deity only pushes back the origin questions, instead of eliminating it.

Effectively, there is no "God", that much seems certain (or at least one that doesn't give a darn about our planet), but there could be a "god(s)" or "creator(s)", but one that exists outside of field of observation.

 

[Jarhyn]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

But speaks to a hypothetical reality that exists "outside" the universe. It is indeed indeterminate as a result. Inside the universe, there is yet a single thing that exists that supports the existence of a deity. However, the origin of the universe, and potentially whatever the universe itself exists as part of is wildly outside our realm of observation and therefore impossible for us to even entertain conclusions regarding origins. There certainly is no evidence for deity, and a deity only pushes back the origin questions, instead of eliminating it.

Effectively, there is no "God", that much seems certain (or at least one that doesn't give a darn about our planet), but there could be a "god(s)" or "creator(s)", but one that exists outside of field of observation.

And so the response to such claims as this is "either bring it into a frame of observation or quit claiming that it is there and has observable qualities beyond necessary adherence to logical consistency."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

Don't bother. Using logic is a fool's errand when trying to prove or disprove the metaphysical. Theists desperate enough to try to do so, have to use tricks of language to try and create an illusion of necessity. Logic for metaphysics is nothing but grammatical tricks trying to put up a tent of illusion as to having any viable empirical value... but they are just words... words usually being stretched beyond any sensical meaning.

 

[bilby]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

But speaks to a hypothetical reality that exists "outside" the universe. It is indeed indeterminate as a result. Inside the universe, there is yet a single thing that exists that supports the existence of a deity. However, the origin of the universe, and potentially whatever the universe itself exists as part of is wildly outside our realm of observation and therefore impossible for us to even entertain conclusions regarding origins. There certainly is no evidence for deity, and a deity only pushes back the origin questions, instead of eliminating it.

Effectively, there is no "God", that much seems certain (or at least one that doesn't give a darn about our planet), but there could be a "god(s)" or "creator(s)", but one that exists outside of field of observation.

"Universe" means "everything that exists", so "outside the universe" is synonymous with "nonexistent".

"Observable reality" is a subset of the universe, but we have no basis for assuming that the rest of the universe is significantly different from the observable parts; Parsimony demands that we assume that it's just more of the same, unless and until we have evidence that cannot be explained if we make that assumption.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And so the response to such claims as this is "either bring it into a frame of observation or quit claiming that it is there and has observable qualities beyond necessary adherence to logical consistency."

But this is the beauty of Abrahamic religions. They both claim their god is unknowable... but they know their god exists. You can't ask God for tricks (however, you can pray for them), but he'll be pissed if you don't believe in him because of something he told somebody 1300 to 4000 years ago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

But speaks to a hypothetical reality that exists "outside" the universe. It is indeed indeterminate as a result. Inside the universe, there is yet a single thing that exists that supports the existence of a deity. However, the origin of the universe, and potentially whatever the universe itself exists as part of is wildly outside our realm of observation and therefore impossible for us to even entertain conclusions regarding origins. There certainly is no evidence for deity, and a deity only pushes back the origin questions, instead of eliminating it.

Effectively, there is no "God", that much seems certain (or at least one that doesn't give a darn about our planet), but there could be a "god(s)" or "creator(s)", but one that exists outside of field of observation.

"Universe" means "everything that exists", so "outside the universe" is synonymous with "nonexistent".

Universe implies that big thing we are in. If there is a Multi-verse, this is just a fraction of that thing.

"Observable reality" is a subset of the universe, but we have no basis for assuming that the rest of the universe is significantly different from the observable parts; Parsimony demands that we assume that it's just more of the same, unless and until we have evidence that cannot be explained if we make that assumption.

Sure. That doesn't make the question (Wha 'bout da originz?) determinate though.

 

[ADFGVX]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

But speaks to a hypothetical reality that exists "outside" the universe. It is indeed indeterminate as a result. Inside the universe, there is yet a single thing that exists that supports the existence of a deity. However, the origin of the universe, and potentially whatever the universe itself exists as part of is wildly outside our realm of observation and therefore impossible for us to even entertain conclusions regarding origins. There certainly is no evidence for deity, and a deity only pushes back the origin questions, instead of eliminating it.

Effectively, there is no "God", that much seems certain (or at least one that doesn't give a darn about our planet), but there could be a "god(s)" or "creator(s)", but one that exists outside of field of observation.

And so the response to such claims as this is "either bring it into a frame of observation or quit claiming that it is there and has observable qualities beyond necessary adherence to logical consistency."

Thanks Jarhyn for pointing that out, it always bugs me a lot if theists commit this kind of special pleading, and then refuse to rationalize it in any way

 

[Jarhyn]

"Universe" means "everything that exists", so "outside the universe" is synonymous with "nonexistent".

We lack in common language the ability to reference a mathematical system in isolation for which there is a hard horizon of relevance, but which is not actually "literally everything".

Instead, it is better to transition to the idea of A universe, so that one can discuss the concept of such isolated mathematical systems, for which there is an "everything that exists of that system and it's state progression".

Then, one may sensible talk to not only about "The Universe" but "universes in general".

Our inability to access certain numbers or information does not actually mean that such does not exist, merely that it is not accessible or relevant to us.

As such it cannot ever be said that "god does not exist" any more than it may be said without direct observations that such does exist.

At best, even with such language, I can point to A universe, a tiny little trivial mathematical system operating in isolation, and say "that universe has a god and it is me".

I can ascertain my purposes. They aren't mysterious, and are entirely human... Or at least as human as any intensely autistic person's motivation ever is.

"Outside the universe" is only synonymous with "non-existence" because you kneecapped both concepts.

As it is we can observe that being "outside of a universe" does not necessitate non-existence. It just necessitates momentary irrelevance.

As such, again, the absence of evidence recommends an absence of belief, but an absence of belief and evidence does not necessitate an absence of existence.

 

[Wiploc]

First off ,thanks

I just noticed that you identify as "strong atheist".

Could you explain why you are convinced that nothing like God can possibly exist?

[/QUOTE]

- Theists believe that gods do exist.
- Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

You may be thinking of gnostic atheists. They have (or at least think they have) knowledge that no gods exist.

(I note that ADFGVX has responded with a different definition of strong atheism [different from both your definition and mine]).

​

Strong atheism seems as irrational as devout religion. Both seem like hubris.

[/QUOTE]
You have no opinion about the flying spaghetti monster? That would be prideful?

Humans claiming to understand the unknowable.

Could you explain this?
Tom

You don't have to "know the unknowable" to have a working bullshit detector.

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

P1:God exists and is perfect

I'll stop you right there. I reject this premise. Not only will I reject it, I will disprove it. When I am done, at best this will prove that Gods cannot be "Perfect" because perfect here is not a sensible concept in this usage.

To service this, I will use a minimal definition of god (wrt 'universe'): creator of a universe.

Note I use an "A" rather than a "THE" when linking the creator to the universe.

The disproof here is that I am, quite literally, a god over a universe and I am 100% human, bound by all the rules and requirements of QM.

I am not, in fact, the god of this universe, at least to the best of my knowledge.

But I am God to a different universe instantiated within this one: I turned it's lights on and ostensibly have omniscience and omnipotence with respect to it.

And as mentioned, I am human.

There is no specialness about our universe that liberates it from being creatable by things which are, functionally, just as fucked up and "imperfect" as us.

In fact a universe like this, wherein things come to be intelligent and capable of solving problems, cannot exist without problems.

The very idea of "perfect" is itself a contradiction here.

The Abrahamic God of Bible and Quran is defined as perfect. Thus is a definition that leads to perfect being theology such as Anselm's formulation. God is so great, nothing greater than God can be imagined. But the state of the Universe, for example horrendous evil and suffering demonstrates God does not use his perfect goodness and omnipotence in a manner one would expect a maximal God to do. So we get some rather obviously wrong rationalizations from the theists. The perfect being God then collapses when examined. The revelations theology takes as true are not true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Enter observation and evidence. Now it looks pretty dopey to worship and revere a potato chip. Nevertheless some of us will continue to do just that. So in an attempt to make sense of such behavior maybe theists aren't really worshiping the potato chip but instead worshipping this sense that no matter what we can know and observe there is always infinitely more knowledge to be had. Of course I agree that there is always infinitely more knowledge to be had.

But whereas I think there is sufficient knowledge to conclude that I needn't worship a potato chip, someone else will disagree and kneel before the great son of spud not because it is a god but because they think anything is possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Abrahamic God of Bible and Quran is defined as perfect. Thus is a definition that leads to perfect being theology such as Anselm's formulation. God is so great, nothing greater than God can be imagined

My point here is that these are all manufactured claims; fabricarions; unnecessary axiomizarions.

I didn't have to be that great to say "let there be dwarves".

Note this is not theoretical or hypothetical. This is an immediately observable fact of reality. I can hold it up and say "no I'm not 'like a God', I am not 'playing at being a God', I am literally, actually, right now in this moment, a god. Not OF the universe but IN the universe. Rather, of a different universe.

Moreover, I am not the only god of that exact universe. That universe has a potentially infinite number of equally valid creator gods, and also manages to exist logically without a god. Even as the god of a universe I am not a logically necessary being to it. This is born out by the fact that others have created this exact same universe (mathematical system in isolation) too.

 

[Wiploc]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

What's not to follow? The god is mysterious and therefore could be anything.

 

[Wiploc]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

What's not to follow? The god is mysterious and therefore could be anything.

How do you propose we get from if gods exist they may be mysterious to atheism is irrational?

By your logic--if I understand your logic--we ought to believe all propositions. Thus:

Me: "I have a magic stopwatch."

You: "We've searched you. You have no such stopwatch."

Me: "But it's a mysterious watch. It might be anything. So, logically, you must believe in it. You cannot doubt."

 

[blastula]

I think the OP is a good argument if not taken deductively, but as an evidential argument, like for the problem of evil. Theists can always devise some "yeah but what if" to any single problematic doubt, but they have to keep threading so many fine needles of doubts, making their position ultimately untenable.

 

[Jarhyn]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

What's not to follow? The god is mysterious and therefore could be anything.

How do you propose we get from if gods exist they may be mysterious to atheism is irrational?

By your logic--if I understand your logic--we ought to believe all propositions. Thus:

Me: "I have a magic stopwatch."

You: "We've searched you. You have no such stopwatch."

Me: "But it's a mysterious watch. It might be anything. So, logically, you must believe in it. You cannot doubt."

Caution: unlike most of what I post this is all silliness, rather than something real presented in a silly way.

"The problem is that the world in which you have a magical stopwatch exists in superposition with all the world's in which you don't, and the principle of least action indicates that the world in which you have that magical stopwatch is not going to in any way impact me, so why should I care about it?

Either precipitate that 'anything' into a thing that is clearly a stopwatch, a device which counts and displays the count thereof at some fraction of one second per second with mechanical precision and reliability, for me or face the equally effective action of my magical magical stopwatch destroying machine. It could be anything, and I have already destroyed your stopwatch with it.

Go ahead, magically sue me. You can serve the suit on magical paper, and we can have our dispute with a magical arbitrator, and I can pay you magical money for your magical loss. I'll precipitate my magical money for you as soon as you precipitate that magical broken stopwatch.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I may not understand much about evolution, but I know that humans are not descended from potato chips.

It's about probabilities vs possibilities. In the world of possibilities that potato chip could be a god. Therefore any form of atheism is irrational because theism becomes the only rational choice in a reality defined by possibilities.

Sorry, I don't follow that.

What's not to follow? The god is mysterious and therefore could be anything.

How do you propose we get from if gods exist they may be mysterious to atheism is irrational?

By your logic--if I understand your logic--we ought to believe all propositions. Thus:

Me: "I have a magic stopwatch."

You: "We've searched you. You have no such stopwatch."

Me: "But it's a mysterious watch. It might be anything. So, logically, you must believe in it. You cannot doubt."

Caution: unlike most of what I post this is all silliness, rather than something real presented in a silly way.

"The problem is that the world in which you have a magical stopwatch exists in superposition with all the world's in which you don't, and the principle of least action indicates that the world in which you have that magical stopwatch is not going to in any way impact me, so why should I care about it?

Either precipitate that 'anything' into a thing that is clearly a stopwatch, a device which counts and displays the count thereof at some fraction of one second per second with mechanical precision and reliability, for me or face the equally effective action of my magical magical stopwatch destroying machine. It could be anything, and I have already destroyed your stopwatch with it.

Go ahead, magically sue me. You can serve the suit on magical paper, and we can have our dispute with a magical arbitrator, and I can pay you magical money for your magical loss. I'll precipitate my magical money for you as soon as you precipitate that magical broken stopwatch.

You get it. In the 'Anything I can imagine to be real can be real' sense. Problem is that doesn't work in the rational world of evidence and observation. A god exists in the imaginary world where anything is possible. The god comes from this world. If I have a worldview like this then atheism is irrational.

But if we live in a world of evidence, observation and probabilities then gods don't work.