God is a perfect being with a perfect will.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 222 here:

God is a perfect being with a perfect will.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[Miles]

.

You mean that baldfaced assertion doesn't do it? Usually that's all it takes when talking about god. You assert, I believe. I assert, you believe (well a little arm-twisting may be necessary, but what the heck).

.

[Purple Knight]

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

Well it's not wrong, but it's non-useful.

What do you think it means to be perfect? If I never made a mistake, but I killed a bunch of people deliberately, would I still be perfect?

Is perfection one thing, or two things?

[JoeyKnothead]

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

Well it's not wrong, but it's non-useful.

So I ask how we can know it's not wrong.

What do you think it means to be perfect?

I leave such definitions for the claimant.

If I never made a mistake, but I killed a bunch of people deliberately, would I still be perfect?

Beats me. I got me a pretty thing who makes sure I know I ain't perfect.

Is perfection one thing, or two things?

I've seen chicks with a single perfect tiddie, but one of em pointed out towards Valdosta, and I've seen chicks with a perfect pair.

But I get ya. It's hard to put truth to the subjective.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I derive it from my argument. https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ing-at-all

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I derive it from my argument. https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ing-at-all

Are we to conclude you're unwilling to defend your argument here on this site, where you presented it?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I derive it from my argument. https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ing-at-all

Are we to conclude you're unwilling to defend your argument here on this site, where you presented it?

Yes. I have been defending it. So far, no one has shown a real issue with the argument itself.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I derive it from my argument. https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ing-at-all

Are we to conclude you're unwilling to defend your argument here on this site, where you presented it?

Yes. I have been defending it. So far, no one has shown a real issue with the argument itself.

You presented a link to a website of dubious reliability.

But if that's the best you can do, we'll there we go.

[theophile]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

I derive it from my argument. https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ing-at-all

Are we to conclude you're unwilling to defend your argument here on this site, where you presented it?

Yes. I have been defending it. So far, no one has shown a real issue with the argument itself.

I think you too quickly dismiss infinite regress, or you lump it into your first option that something always exists (i.e., the regress itself) and then you avoid the complications of it as you get into the details of your argument

i.e., if the something that always exists is in fact an infinite regress, then how can you possibly go on to conclude that this something is itself unchanged and uncaused? Infinite regress by definition means that change, or a chain of causes, goes all the way down... That there is no uncaused cause or eternal substance at the bottom of it all, but rather an ever changing flow of things. (Perhaps similar to what Genesis 1:2 calls the deep / waters...)

So I do think there is a third option between the two that you lay out, and that's it.

[Purple Knight]

Well it's not wrong, but it's non-useful.

So I ask how we can know it's not wrong.

Because perfection could be anything. To me perfection is just the claim that someone never makes a mistake. A serial killer could be perfect if he never makes a mistake; it just means (to me) that he wouldn't be the sort to get sloppy and get caught. Any time a precaution could save him, he takes that precaution and is saved. He could even be caught and still be perfect, if he's checkmated from the start... for example, in a world where cameras are on you 24/7. And if he somehow didn't have the means to know he was checkmated from the start, that could still constitute perfection.

But what in the world does "a perfect will" mean? Does it mean some wishes for the future are more perfect than others? Honestly the only meaning I can get out of that is that he sees the endgame and that's pretty much canon so I don't see it as false.

I've seen chicks with a single perfect tiddie, but one of em pointed out towards Valdosta,

Eww. You can't beat the ick factor of what JW posted the other day, though, posting 10 interesting facts about figs, and one of those facts is that wasp maggots have been in every fig you ever ate. The flowers are on the inside. They do not get pollinated (and thus the fruit does not develop) unless a wasp goes inside the fig, and she does so in order to lay her maggots in there, then she dies. Ideally most of the maggots are gone by the time the fig is eaten but her corpse remains.

And he didn't say this but... fig newtons have real figs in them. So. Yeah.