In response to the many, as I call them, "God Blogs" that I comment on, I will set forth my main argument with the existence of a higher being as defined by, mainly, Christians. If the comments get out of hand, I will turn them off. Seriously. I'm only going to tackle perfection today. I might post other arguments later, but perfection is my greatest problem.
Many people claim that God is perfect, infallible, etc. He knows all, is all powerful, and cares for all. He is, for lack of better words, infinitely perfect. Some people coin the term "Omnimax" and toss that God's way. But I don't believe that Perfection is possible. Let's examine the fallacy of Perfection and Omnimax.
First, we need to set parameters. Without these, we'd all be confused and my message would not be understood.
Omnimax - Derived from Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all caring). Used to describe a person with all three characteristics.
Perfection - The state of being without a flaw or defect.
We are told that God is perfect and, by our parameters, omnimax. Are we in agreement so far?
Observation 1: God is perfect.
Observation 2: To be perfect is to be omnimax.
Conclusion 1: God is omnimax in addition to perfect.
Observation 3: There is suffering in the world.
Observation 4: God is omnimax and therefore omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
Conclusion 2.1: God cannot be omnibenevolent because he has the power to stop suffering yet he allows it.
Conclusion 2.2: God cannot be omnipotent because he does not have the power to stop the suffering in the world.
Already, we've reached a conclusion that defies our first observation. Either God is not perfect, or he is mean and therefore not Omnimax. We know that there is suffering. We know that it happens. Therefore, that tenant must be true. But, we do not know God to be perfect...we assume he is. Why do we assume God is Perfect....
Observation A: God is perfect because the bible says so.
Observation B: The bible was written by God, so therefore, it must be true.
Conclusion A: God exists, is perfect, and wrote the bible.
Well, if A is false and B is true, we call into a circle of logic. This breaks down the argument, therefore, we will assume that because we cannot prove that God IS perfect, he is able to be imperfect. So, we'll give him the BOTD (benefit of the doubt) and just call him non-Omnimax. This starts a new argument:
Observation 1A: God is Perfect.
Observation 2B: To be perfect is to be without fault or defect.
Conclusion 1A: God is without fault or defect.
Observation 3C: God is not necessarily Omnimax.
Observation 4D: To be perfect means that you cannot make mistakes.
Conclusion 2B: Since God is perfect, he cannot make mistakes.
Conclusion based on Assumption: If God is Omnimax, he is able to make mistakes, therefore, God cannot be all powerful if he is perfect.
Again, we've come to a conclusion that makes it seem as if God is imperfect. He either is or isn't, there's no in-between. It's an if A than not ~A kind of deal. We must only conclude that since God is perfect he cannot be all powerful because to be perfect means that he would not have the power to make a mistake. But, the bible tells us that God is all powerful AND perfect. If A then also ~A?!?
As you can see, I've pointed out two rather thought out conclusions concerning your Lord, either asserting that he is imperfect or not-omnimax. You'll have to be the judge, because, as I see it, perfect is something that no one, not even someone who is omnimax, can achieve.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Using logic to show the flaws in god's existence, seems like a good idea right? Wonder why nobody catches on.
My favorite argument againist a logical look at god is that god doesn't operate within the realm of logic that we understand. In which I respond that if god operates outside the realm of logic which we understand than what is the point of him at all. If he doesn't operate within logic then good to us could mean bad to him, killing could be amazing like sex, if nothing god does operates within logic then he is not worth believing in, b/c you know absolutley nothing.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Your definition of God is flawed. You made up the part about omnibenevolent. Christians say that God loves everyone, but that doesn't mean he necessarily does good things for them (as implied by benevolence). My parents love me, but that doesn't mean that my dad was unable to spank me when I did wrong and love me at the same time.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Although Catholics do not call for omnibenveolence of god, most protestants-and therefore americans do. They use these two pslams to support this idea of omnibenveolence.
18:31, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." It is also supported by Ps.19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Then substitute "completely good" for omnibenevolent. Either way, God cannot do evil things, therefore, he cannot be perfect. Without God, there cannot be Satan, and so we HAVE to assume that God is completely Good and Satan is completely Bad.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
But that's what I'm saying. Omnibenevolence isn't a characteristic of God. The standard definition is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
Also, the things that God "does" are morally neutral, because God is the one that sets the rules.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Based on our system of morals, which we supposedly get from god, can we not assume that God must be morally Good and therefore only do good things, and therefore be omnibenevolent?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
God says he created both good and evil, so he would have to be neutral, wouldn't he?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
No, morals are for humans. That's why in the commandments God say "thou shalt not" instead of "We shall not".
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Erm, ... you missed the mark a bit.
Your loving father THOUGHT he was doing a good thing for you when he spanked you when you did wrong. The good thing he thought he was doing was teaching you right from wrong, and if it succeeded it WAS a good thing.
The problem for Nicholas' argument that you bring up is actually the "greater good defense" to the problem of evil. Briefly put, it says that the presence of evil in the world does not rule out God's omnibenevolence since God could allow evil if by doing so he caused or preserved some greater good. Usually the greater good is purported to be man's free-will.
I have a modified argument that sidesteps this canard. I wrote about it in a blog a while back. I call it the argument from unnecessary suffering and I believe it rules out the logical possibility of an omnimax God beyond reasonable doubt. I present it formally about 1/2 way down the blog.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You seemed to have miseed my point which is that love is independent of good. Also, I outright denied that God was omnibenevolent.
Even still, you argument was flawed in that you created the idea of "unnecessary suffering." How can one quantitatively or qualitatively determine any suffering to be 'unnecessary'? Just because something is inexplicable in our limited scope, does not mean that it is 'unnecessary'.
Also, your use of that picture reminds me of those crazy anti-abortionists at my school.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Your "point" with respect to love was pointless since arguements from evil generally take love into consideration. Furthermore, your statement that "love is independent of good" is wrong. Love is not love unless it incorporates the desire for the best for the person being loved.
As for you your denial that God is omnibenvolent ... fine. The argument is strictly against an omnimax God, and you agree that God is not omnimax. Now you need to try to figure out exactly how much less than omnimax he is. Are you ready to accept that God doesn't care that Harlequin Fetal Syndrome babies suffer apparently needlessly. If you believe in God, then how do you justify that?
This is the typical theistic response. It is incredibly disingenuous and an insult to your own intelligence. If it is not obvious to you that at least some suffering out there does not lead to a higher good that could not have been achieved with less suffering then you have no reason to think that you can infer ANYTHING about ANYTHING with your "limited scope". It is that obvious.
The intent of that picture was to give an idea of the type of suffering that could be easily prevented by an omnimax God. It is frankly terrible suffering, and there is no apparent greater good that comes from it. You may not like it, but if you are going to be honest in making a defense of the God concept then that is the type of suffering you need to logically justify.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm really not sure where you guys are pulling the 'omnibenevolent' part. I'd never seen it before your two blogs. It's always been omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
You speak of God's desires and wants; however, this is a flaw in the argument (hence, I argue against 'omnibenevolence) because to suggest that a being wants or desires subsequently suggests an imperfect being (one that is not whole and thus unsatisfied). Thus you can't disprove the possibility of perfection if you don't stick to what perfection would mean.
Furthermore, the average human being lives about 70-80 years (the actual number is irrelevent). Do you realize how small of a percentage of the trillions of years of the earth's existence that is (or the 6,000 years if you're talking to a judeo-christian nutjob)? How, with such a limited scope of existence, can we objectively state any suffering to be unnecessary? I could try to come up with reasons that a deity might allow harlequin baby syndrome (population control, to contrast evil with good, to make humans appreciate life and their blessings more), but I don't think that's necessary.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Try this. If I recall correctly, for the purpose of my argument I defined God's omnibenevolence as wanting the best for his creation and the life in it.
Omnipresence is a useless term in my opinion. It adds nothing that is not inherent in omnipotent and omniscient. Being omnipotent necessarily entails being able to do anything that is logically possible to do and it logical possibilities include the entire universe. Omniscience necessarily entails knowing everything that is logically possible to be known and again logical possiblities include the entire universe.
(1) Every religious adherent I know of acknowledges that God has desires. For instance they claim that God gave us free will just so we could go against God's desires. They claim that it is God desire for every one of us to accept Jesus as his personal savior and be saved. Yet it doesn't prevent them from claiming that God is perfection.
(2) If God had no wants or desires then he would have no reason to do anything. As such then the creation itself is left purposeless, and inexplicable. A self-fulfilled God that does absolutely nothing doesn't seem like such a perfect God to me.
So it is not clear to me that simply having wants and desires not yet fulfilled necessary implies imperfection or that being fully self-fulfilled is a necessary condition for perfection.. But in any case, perfection is in Nicholas' argument not mine. I'll let him defend the notion further if he wishes. My argument was solely on the logical impossibilities of an omnimax God existing given the way the universe is.
Absolute bullshit. :-&
We can say that some suffering is unnecessary because of (1) specific examples in which there is no reasonable greater good that could not have been obtained with less suffering, and (2) based on the sheer amount of suffering that takes place such that it is unreasonable that ALL of it leads to a greater good that could not have been achieved with less suffering.
It is absolutely meaningless to compare the length of a human's life to the length of time the world/universe has been in existence. The effects of 99.999% of all suffering occurs over a time period of a human's life or less (usually much less). Given the way life is it is virtually certain that some living creature suffered and then died in such a way that no other living creature realized. What greater good could that possibly have served.
Concerning your possible greater goods for Harlequin Fetus Syndrome
(1) Population control -- Why the suffering. Why doesn't God intervene in such a way that the baby dies but without suffering? The purpose could be achieved with less suffering, therefore the extra suffering was unnecessary.
(2) Contrast evil with good -- Evil lies in the intent. Without intent it only bad luck. The only evil that could be ascribed here is the intent of God not to intervene to prevent the suffering.
(3) To make humans appreciate life and their blessings more -- If this were the case then one would expect that such an event would draw people closer together. Parents of HFS babies have a VERY HIGH rate of divorce following the birth. So in most cases that purpose is not achieved.
So none of your proposed greater goods survive even cursory scrutiny. You may not feel the need to question it but that amounts to willful ignorance.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Well done. I never believed perfection exists either. We can try to be perfect. Then again, what does it mean to be perfect? What are considered as "flaws"? In addition to God, I also have questions regarding hell and heaven. Who get to go to heaven exactly? Surely, no one can be completely good just like how no one can be perfect. How does anyone decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?
How can one define imperfection? I mean, if things happen then they could have only happened that way (only in the past tense); thus, there's nothing with which to compare it.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
First off, I'm agnostic and I appreciate logical debates revolving around the big guy.
However, I think there are a couple of possible holes in your argument. First, you assume that God has no choice to commit evil or does not have the power to make mistakes. While to some this would seem common sense, it's actually a pretty big point of contention. Perhaps God could choose right now to become the bane of our existence, doing evil, punishing the good and rewarding the bad, etcetera, but simply chooses not too. Thus, perfection is not a lack of choice, but simply an infinite string of "right" choices. This allows God to be all-powerful and perfect.
Also, your appeal to suffering and evil is too simple. A common refutation is that without evil and suffering, we would not become better people and in fact would have no sense of goodness; good would become meaningless in the absence of evil. Additionally, if you grant that God gives us free will, he needs to test our moral strength through hardship and adversity. The problem isn't suffering, because an all-good God may impose necessary suffering in order to allow humans to prove themselves and recognize what's great about being good. The problem is, what suffering is necessary? Surely, the world gets more suffering than it needs for the advancement of the human race and the development of the ideal of goodness, right?
Although, looking at how lethargic we can be in addressing issues, perhaps all of Earth's suffering IS necessary.
Here's a simple one that I like that appeals to God's omnipotence: "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?" Watch people scream in agony as they try to reason it out, before reverting to something such as "Yes, it's God's mystery and we can't understand it."
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
I'll give you something now, but this has to be short as I should already be on my way to school:
If god is perfect and omnipotent, we can only assume that he knows EVERYTHING, which removes our "choice" and "free will" because our actions have already been predetermined. Since he knows what we will do, how can we say that we have free will? How do we know God is telling the truth? Honestly, my whole argument revolves around A) God existing and B) The bible not being full of crap. If either of these are found to be incorrect (and there are lots of blogs that prove B to be rather false) my entire argument falls apart.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
The free will argument is pretty good, that's a really tricky one to try and get out of, and I like that argument. And yes, I know that's what you're basing your assertions on, and, let's be realistic, I'd give God a lot more merit without the bible.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
My take on it is that there could be (I cannot deny possibility) a higher form of life that could have created us, but I really doubt that they care much about what we're doing.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Santa is watching you! *santa* So you better be good.
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
Nick, since you were created by God you are perfect also. Not all powerful, or all knowing, but made exactly as you should be.
Observation 3 to Conclusion 2.2: You make some assumptions without expressing them.
1) Suffering is not good, or necessary to a good purpose.
2) God would stop suffering if he could.
Even the person that experiences suffering often does so voluntarily toward an objective. Child birth, exercise, long arduous study, work to name just a few. If it is that easy to see the need for our own suffering, is it not much easier to realize that a universal perspective stretching out over billions of years and galaxies might have done the right thing when creating and allowing larger ones?
---
"Why do we assume God is Perfect...."
Actually the bible gives this as part of the definition of God. If in fact God just lived on a mountain and threw thunderbolts, or was a flying pasta dish, or the Sun, moon, fire or whatever there would be no question of an optimax God. Only in monotheism is such a being the God, and if any of the other 'gods' exist they are not even close to the universe creating and controlling type thus defined, but are merely superior beings. Thus they are not God in the same meaning of the word.
I have a hard time seeing how the optimax type God can be other than the entire universe collectively and still meet the criteria. As all of reality he meets the criteria even if no volition is present.
---
"To be perfect means that you cannot make mistakes."
Why do you assume a mistake is not part of a perfect process, or a step toward perfection? It also seems to be a venture onto a thin branch to call a choice made by a perfect being 'proof' that no other choice is possible. For example if God chose to make an immovable object it could be so until he chose to make it movable. There is no such thing as a paradox if you are omnipotent. Paradoxes do not even really exist for we who are much more limited creatures except in the realm of speculation about the unknown. If paradoxes exist in reality can you name one?
---
By saying that God (creator and controller of all nature) is perfect, or 'love the lord with all your might and all your heart and all your might' or God don't make mistakes there is an introduction of an assumption of superstition especially in the Agnostic or Atheists reading the statement.
A semantic equivalent to these is: 'reality is always right' or 'the truth is always true' which are obvious to anyone. We are adding 'supernatural' to the debate ourselves by excessive theology. If you assume that the biblical authors were men talking about something they considered true, rather than robotic pensmen controlled by the supernatural, the things they said often express this exactly, and metaphorically. They were writing for a very superstitious audience.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
If I'm so perfect, why did I fall over a wall and snap my arm in half? Huh? Why don't I believe in my creator? Why is it that it isn't more clear to humanity that God is, in fact, real?
Really and truely, ChillBill, I don't care if God exists. I just don't think he's as perfect, should he exist, as everyone makes him out to be. He has to exist within the laws of physics. He has to be able to not know what's going to happen. He cannot be as powerful as we give him credit for or we'd know it. Power leads to ego in humans, why not in a God? Is God above emotions?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
"If I'm so perfect, why did I fall over a wall and snap my arm in half?"
And he was made more spaghetti like by his faith (and the impact).
---
"Why don't I believe in my creator? Why is it that it isn't more clear to humanity that God is, in fact, real?"
Reality is a process that includes all times, not just the one we perceive at any given moment. Searching has value, if everyone misakenly believed they knew it all that might hurt the progress. In fact I can't prove God exists either except with carefully selected definitions.
The perfection of reality is another story. Things being exactly as they are is the canvas and paint we are given. To call them imperfect is to embrace fantasy over reality. That is the evil that the bible speaks of when Eve eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Loving the truth because it is the one thing that gives you everything that you will ever have is the alternative. I could go on for hours about why that is the right way, but since most of it is trite plattitudes I'll spare you.
I don't think I cared if God existed, but loved arguing the subject, when this definition that God and the truth are equal and identical was suggested to me. A few years of trial, error, and experiment later I love the truth. I'll write further about it on my blog. I've already started to work the major teachings from a secular point of view. I'm Christian, but from what I can tell Islam, Buddhism, and the Tao all contain statements that lend themselves to this interpretation as well.
---
"Power leads to ego in humans, why not in a God? Is God above emotions?"
The bible gives us the idea that he does, I really don't know, but they might not follow human patterns if he does. X-(
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
"To a carnal man the things of the spirit are foolishness". It's amazing that humans believe anything they can't understand or analyze doesn't make sense. I can absolutely understand your views. However; talk is cheap; when you get to the fearful places, nobody would need to tell you there is a God and you would confess he's perfect. LOL.
No. And if I were to tell you a more indepth story concerning my views, I would get fired from my job here and banned from the site.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
That's a cop-out, and you know it.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
We all know it would end up filled with profanity and somewhere it'd also carry the phrase, "Fuck your god, your lord, your christ, your whatever."
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Meh, I've had a few blogs made mostly of curse words and I've yet to be booted from the site, so I think you'd be safe.
You've yet to see me rant.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail