The Anti-theist Thread

[Cirdan]

JD,

First of all, I want to pass along my condolences to you and your family.

I think that many atheists have those moments in dealing with death of loss causes an increased vacilation between the rational and the emotional aspects of belief. My feelings toward my father, while apparently quite different from those that you hold for your mother, evoke similar feelings and doubt. My father died when I was young as well, but after he had left our family. He died within a three year period when my cousin and my grandmother died. I think those events, with different people who held widely ranging beliefs and with whom I had unique relationships, contributed to the dichotomy of interest in spirituality and greater doubt about what traditional religion teaches.

I hope that in these threads I haven't downplayed the socially important role that religion plays. The ceremony and ritual have proven effective for many people as coping tools. It didn't work for me as I suspect it did not for you. I think the concept of heaven is a way to help you keep the memories of your lost loved one.

You might want to make a point of discussing your mother with your father. I found that when I became an adult, especially a parent, that it was important to me to reconcile both mine and my mother's unresolved feelings about my father. I found that the recall of the happy or important events in their relationship helped to deals with the bitterness of the loss.

I know that within a few years I will lose my mother (age, health, etc). I have made a point to openly discuss the painful and well as as the happy times of our shared history in order to build that "heaven" in my mind; that place we can play cards together when we are separated. You don't have to decide if you believe in your memories; your desires for what could be. They just are as you created them.

In my "revisionist pantheist" days I tried to construct a theory of heaven that could exist in the "physics" of the rational mind. I believed that the culmination of our deeds and our relations could create a superdimensional "dream' afterlife where, like dreams, our deepest thoughts, fears, guilt,etc would be our heaven or hell. The number of exceptions required was beyond reasonable and became like the religious explainations for what is apparently unjust (the death of a child, for instance).

I eventually found it to be unnecessary to believe this because the logical conclusion that using the existential view the people both living and dead are alive within me. Share with your father each others' "heaven" and loss. In this way we honor their lives by living ours with them in mind.

[jerseydevil]

Thanks Cirdan. I understand what you are saying. I always talk about my mother. My mother was very open minded and when she died - I lost someone that I could really talk to. If people would listen - I'd talk about my mother all day.

When I told my parents I was atheist (although I don't think my father believes I am or has chosen to ignore it) my father said that "no atheist was living in his house". My mother, in front of me, said "what are you going to do - control what he believes?" My mother used to say a lot of stuff like that - and so she was a big part in making me so openminded I guess. Because of the suddenness of my mother's death I never was able to say goodbye really. With my grandmother - I want her to know how much she meant to me growing up. The memories of spending holidays at her house and stuff. The easter egg hunts I used to have with my cousins and all that.

I just know it's hard for my father. It was even his birthday on Saturday.

One thing that is strange - I almost don't understand why it's hard for my father and uncle. I do and I don't. My grandmother basically was not alive. She was a breathing shell that had no idea of what was going on around her. When my mother died - my parents were leaving on a business trip to Atlanta. We were planning a family vacation to cancun in May. We were planning our trip back to NJ for Thanksgiving the following week. My parents had just gone to the store and bought Christmas decorations the night before. In other words - when my mother died - she was alive in the full sense of the word. My grandmother to me was dead already and I think I feel almost guilty for feeling this way.

Well I guess I better go to bed - I need to get up for the funeral.

[BeardofPants]

Thomas Jefferson

The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three-headed monster; cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three-headed beast- like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.

Author Unknown

The scientist yearns to find and eventually know the truth; the religious man wants the truth to fit his preconceived mold. So, as a result... The scientist alters his perception to conform to the facts; The religious man tries to change the facts to conform to his beliefs.

Hungarian Proverb

The believer is happy; the doubter is wise.

Abraham Lincoln

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.

Friedrich Nietzsche

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Belief means not wanting to know what is true.

Albert Einstein

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

Clarence Darrow

I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.

Jethro Tull

Man made God in his own image.

James Morrow

Some people think it's profound to say that science doesn't have all the answers. They're wrong. Science does have all the answers --we just don't have all the science.

Mark Twain (on the bible)

A mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology.

Dr Pepper

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

Frederick Douglass, escaped slave

I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the South is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes - a justifier of the most appalling barbarity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds, and a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me ... I .. hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women- whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.

Stephen Ban

Citing the Bible as evidence for anything is like saying that the sun is in fact a chariot of fire that races across the sky because we read about it in Greek mythology.

Thomas Edison

All Bibles are man-made.

George Bernard Shaw

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

Napolean Bonaparte

I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get.

Douglas Adams

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Hypatia (Alexandrian mathematician, murdered by a Christian mob in 415 CE)

To rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force.

Bertrand Russell(1872-1970)

Sin is geographical.

Hippocrates

Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not under- stand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things.

Gandhi

The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.

Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent at the Behavioral Science Institution and Research Unit of the FBI Academy

The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement, but few can argue with it.

Catholic Church's decision against Galileo

The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.

Hippocrates

Where prayer, amulets and incantations work it is only a manifestation of the patient's belief.

Anonymous

RELIGIOUS ACCUSATION: Atheism is a religion! ATHEIST REPLY: Like baldness is a hair colour?

[Earniel]

I know how you feel JD. I lost my aunt two years ago. She had lungcancer and for the last 6 months of her live she was far gone already. At the funeralmass the priest said: We are here gathered to remember Huegette and to worship Jesus Christ. I got so angry at that. Each time he said something about my aunt he had to drag either god or Jezus with it. I hadn't come for any god I had come for her. I don't know whether she was religious but I can imagine she was to some extend. I ignored the priest for the most of the time and instead remembered how my aunt was, how she had cut me apples when I was young, how she had listened to my insane ramblings. And I know this would have been what she would have wanted, all her family and friends to see her through to the very end. And for my aunt I was willing to believe in at least some form heaven, no matter whose heaven it was, where at least she could be happy.

[BeardofPants]

A critique of Milton's Strawman fallacy can be found here.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Well... Like I said, I draw the line at Abiogenesis, and massive changes in the genotype.

Hmm... I guess it would be easier to say anything that violates what I know about genetics. No complete makeovers of species, no traits arising from mutation, No hopleful monsters. Etc. So, if you can prove that something will work with what we know abou tgenetics, I'll buy it. But not before.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.


Bacteria that eat nylon
Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.


Sickle cell resistance to malaria
The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.


Lactose tolerance
Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk.


Resistance to atherosclerosis
Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.


Immunity to HIV
HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele

[BeardofPants]

The Paley's watch story is refuted here.

[Starr Polish]

In regards to BoP's Hungarian proverb.

I would much rather be happy than wise. Also, those who find true happiness (and I am young yet, and I don't believe I have found it) are the wisest of us all, regardless of religious belief.

[Earniel]

Great article BoP! Very interesting. I completely forgot that kind of mutations. And good quotes too, I wrote one or two down.

[Andúril]

Wayfarer:

Long have we remained silent in this matter.

Your entire argument rests on God being limited by the same things that you are.

Your entire refutation rests on God not being limited by the same things that we are.

Now imaigine that the artist somehow draws all the frames at once, and you can vaguely understand it.

Somehow? I think you are going to have to show me exactly how he is able to perform that action, and you will have to show me the evidence from the bible, the innerant word of God, in order to back up your claim.

Just because an artist can "somehow" see all frames, how does it follow that that artist can edit all frames at the same time. Totally unsubstantiated.

First, you could take the easy way out and say that this is a use of temporal language to describe something outside of time.

The bible, if I am not mistaken, is full of temporal language, in its attempts at describing something that you claim is outside of time:

Gen 18:20-21 Then the Lord said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

1) God is omniscient? - he should have already known the situation
2) God is omnipotent? - he should have been able to know the situation without necessitating an earthly visit.
3) God is outside of time? - he can not act in the realm of cause and effect. Therefore, he can not 1) sit in heaven, 2) decide to go down, 3) then go down, 4) then know the validity of the outcry.

A self-esistant god does not have to be in any universe. Nor does he have to be constrained by any laws but those of his own nature.

Really? Why not? Just because we, from your "flatland" perspective, can not fully perceive a being of more than 4 dimensions, does that make this being self-existant? What reason do you have to believe that God does not exist in his own universe, and theists just interpret that being as "self-existent"? How are you justified in believing that a being, who exists in more than our four dimensions, is not constrained to any external laws?

Now, a four dimensional creatuer would be equally unconstrained by a Cube. A Five-Dimensional creature would be able to slip around a tesseract.

These are geometric dimensions, not time dimensions.

God can see the whole thing, and can edit all the frames simultaneously.

How?

As I walk down the street, I see what's around me. If I were to fly above the city, I could see the whole thing at once.

Fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with time.

[Andúril]

Being outside of time itself, means that you are not within time, and thus you lack time. Time can be defined as the measure of change, it is the dimension in which spatial change occurs. There is no change without time. A causal relationship requires both a cause and an effect, in which the "cause" is a change which triggers change in the "effect". There is no causation without time. Therefore, if a timeless God exists, he cannot cause, or do, anything.

[Andúril]

Stay tuned for my forthcoming Incompatible Attribute Arguments.

[Andúril]

But in the meantime, perhaps we can think about temporality, and that the only way to express a description of a being that indulges in cause and effect, or the actions and events thereof, is in temporal speech.

Likewise, the only way to describe an atemporal being (outside of time), is to use atemporal speech, which negates cause and effect.

Therefore God created the earth is temporal speech, it shows that God at one time created the earth, and now does not. As soon as cause and effect enters the picture, temporal speech is used. God appeared to Abraham.......And God spoke to Moses, saying.......And God did this, and that, and the rest.... - all of this shows that God performed actions, indulged in cause and effect, and stopped performing those actions. Just the very idea of God starting to do something shows that time existed to God before he started to do whatever it was.

Also God is just is atemporal speech, it shows that God exists in a state of eternal or constant justness. But then again, I could say, "I am an evil blasphemor", but that does not mean that I exist in a state of eternal or constant evil or blasphemousness (hehe). It is just atemporal speech. Which explains things such as "I am" and other strange things that Jesus Christ is alleged to have said.

[Andúril]

Here's a few - I am still constructing them, so they might seem obviously refutable. If so, please refute.

=========

Omniscience and Free-will

A being cannot be all-knowledgeable and also have the ability to exercise choice. It is impossible for a being to exist where there is nothing that this being does not know, and at the same time, there is the situation where choice can be exercised:

Argument (1)

(1) An omniscient being is all-knowledgeable and there is nothing that this being does not know.
(2) An omniscient being knows the future with perfect accuracy [from 1].
(3) If there is perfectly accurate knowledge of the future, it is impossible to change the future [see Explanations]
(4) Choice is the ability to select one or more alternatives.
(5) A being with free will has the ability to exercise choice.
(6) A being with free-will cannot exist in a situation where choice cannot be exercised [from 5].
(7) There is a situation where choice cannot be exercised [see Explanations].
(8) An omniscient being with free-will cannot exist [from 6 and 7]

Explanations:

(3) Being (b) knows that at a certain time in the future (t), event (x) takes place. If the future is changed so that in place of event (x), event (y) takes place, (b)’s knowledge was incorrect, because event (x) did not take place. If there is an accurately known sequence of events (x), (y) and (z), the sequence cannot change order, and no changes can be made to it (by deletion, insertion, or addition). Otherwise the sequence of events was not accurately known.

(7) If being (b) reaches a forked road, there are three possible directions to continue: left, right, and backwards. According to (b)’s knowledge of the future, in the sequence of events, (b) arrived at the street corner, and then continued in one direction (let us say left). With perfectly accurate knowledge of the future, (b) would know the direction that was taken on arrival at the forked road. If (b) continued right, (b)’s knowledge would be incorrect, since the knowledge stipulated that (b) would continue left. If (b) continued left, (b)’s knowledge would be correct, since the knowledge stipulated that (b) continue left. Here, (b) does not have the ability to select one or more alternatives. Therefore, in this situation, choice cannot be exercised, because choice is the ability to select one or more alternatives.



Omnibenevolent, Omniscient and Creator

A being cannot be all-good, all knowledgeable and the creator of everything. It is impossible for a being to exist when that being has only good motivations and intentions, and does only good, and at the same time be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist, as well as know everything.

Argument (2)

(1) An omnibenevolent being cannot perform an evil act.
(2) An omniscient being would know whether good, evil or neutrality would result from any act.
(3) An omniscient being would therefore know whether the existence of at least one being would bring about evil implications [from 2].
(4) The wilful act of the creation of at least one evil being was evil [from 3].
(5) A creator that is omnibenevolent and omniscient cannot exist [from 1, 2 and 4].

Explanations:

(4) Take for instance, Hitler, as an evil being. Being (b) knew before creating Hitler that Hitler would turn out to be evil, and evil implications would arise from the existence of Hitler. Thus, if (b) intentionally created Hitler, (b) intended on the evil implications arising. If (b) did not intend on the evil implications arising, (b) would not have created Hitler. Therefore, to intentionally perform the creation of an evil being (Hitler), is an evil act in itself.



Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent

A being cannot be all-powerful and all-good. It is impossible for a being to exist when that being has the ability to perform any logical action and at the same time has only good motivations and intentions, and does only good.

Argument (3)

(1) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(2) An omnipotent being can intentionally perform evil actions.
(2) An omnibenevolent being cannot intentionally perform evil actions.
(3) A being cannot exist if it can intentionally perform evil actions and also cannot intentionally perform evil actions.
(4) A being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent cannot exist.



Omnipotent and Perfect

A being cannot be all-powerful and perfect at the same time. It is logically impossible for a being to exist when that being has the ability to perform any logical action, and at the same time is complete, faultless, absolutely precise, and unequalled.

Argument (4)

(1) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(2) An omnipotent being can intentionally perform imperfect actions.
(3) A perfect being can perform only perfect actions.
(4) A perfect being that can perform only perfect actions cannot be an omnipotent being that can perform imperfect actions.
(5) A perfect being that is omnipotent cannot exist.

Explanations:

(3) If a being performs an action that is imperfect, that being was not able to perform that same action perfectly. Being (b) takes a test and gets a total of 99% of the answers correct. This shows that (b) was not able to get 100% of the answers correct. In this case, if (b) was indeed perfect, (b) would have achieved a perfect score, that is, 100%.

(4) If (b) was perfect, (b) would take the test and get 100% of the answers correct. If (b) was omnipotent, (b) would have the ability to get any percentage of the answers correct. It is impossible to get both 100% and less than 100% of the answers correct on the same test.




Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Creator

A being cannot be all-good, all-powerful and the creator of everything. It is logically impossible for a being to exist that has only good motivations and intentions, does only good, and at the same time has the ability to perform any logical action, as well as be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist.

Argument (5)

(1) An omnibenevolent being has only good motivations and intentions, and cannot perform evil acts.
(2) An omnibenevolent being does not want unnecessary harm to befall humans [from 1].
(3) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(4) A being cannot exist if that being had the ability to create Earth in such a way that unnecessary harm does not befall humans, and also desires it, and the Earth has been created in such a way that unnecessary harm does befall humans [from 2 and 3].
(5) Earth has been created in such a way that unnecessary harm befall humans.
(6) A being that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and creator cannot exist [from 4 and 5].

Explanations :

(2) The motivation and intention to harming humans unnecessarily is evil. Therefore, an omnibenevolent being, which is good, and cannot perform evil acts, cannot have the motivation or intention to harm humans unnecessarily.

(4) If unnecessary harm does befall humans, either omnipotence, or omnibenevolence are not attributes of a creator. An omnipotent creator that is not omnibenevolent does have the ability to create Earth in such a way that unnecessary harm does not befall humans, but does not want it. Similarly, an omnibenevolent creator that is not omnipotent does desire that no unnecessary harm befall humans, but does not have the ability to create Earth in such a way that no unnecessary harm befall humans.

(5) Natural disaster is one source of unnecessary harm that befalls humans.



Omnipotent and desires communion with all humans

A being cannot be all-powerful and desire communion with all humans. It is impossible for a being to exist that has the ability to perform any logical action, and at the same time have a desire for communion with all humans

Argument (6)

(1) An omnipotent being is all-powerful.
(2) An omnipotent being, therefore, has the ability to achieve communion with humans [from 1].
(3) A divine being that desires communion with humans, might not have the ability to achieve this communion.
(4) If all humans do not experience communion with a certain divine being, that being is either not omnipotent, in that it does not have the ability to achieve this communion, or does not desire this communion, or both.
(5) All humans do not experience communion with a divine being.
(6) A being that is omnipotent and has the desire for communion with all humans cannot exist [from 4 and 5].

Explanations:

(5) Humans claim to have experienced communion with many different divine beings, and some claim to have not experienced communion with any divine beings.

[Andúril]

Perfect and Creator

A being cannot be perfect and at the same time be creator. A being cannot be complete, faultless, absolutely precise, unequalled, and at the same time be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist.

Argument (7)

(1) Any intended action necessitates want or desire, prior to the action.
(2) Any action intentionally performed is an indication of want or desire. [from 1]
(3) Creation took place as a result of the want or desire for creation to take place. [from 1 and 2]
(4) A perfect being is complete.
(5) Being complete implies having no wants or desires.
(6) A perfect being has no wants or desires. [from 4 and 5]
(7) A creator that is perfect cannot exist. [from 3 and 6]

Explanations:

(1) Being (b) has the intention to perform action (a). Before (b) has performed (a), (b) wants, or desires, to perform (a). After (a) is performed, (b) no longer wants, or desires, to perform (a).

(2) If (b) does not want, or desire, to perform (a), then if (a) is performed, the action was not intentional.

(3) The creator intentionally performed the creation, thus the creator wanted or desired to perform creation.

(5) Wants and desires are feelings that indicate incompleteness. If being (b) wants or desires (a), (b) does not have (a), thus (b) is incomplete. Similarly, (b) will want or desire (a) until (b) has (a). If (b) already has (a), (b) is complete, and no longer wants or desires (a).



Perfect and desires communion with humans

A being cannot be perfect, that is, complete, faultless, absolutely precise, unequalled, and at the same time have the desire for communion with humans.

Argument (8)

(1) A perfect being is complete.
(2) Being complete implies having no wants or desires.
(3) A perfect being has no wants or desires [from 1 and 2].
(4) A perfect being that has any wants or desires cannot exist [from 3]
(4) A perfect being that desires communion with humans cannot exist [from 4].

Explanations:

(2) Wants and desires are feelings that indicate incompleteness. If being (b) wants or desires (a), (b) does not have (a), thus (b) is incomplete. Similarly, (b) will want or desire (a) until (b) has (a). If (b) already has (a), (b) is complete, and no longer wants or desires (a).

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
In regards to BoP's Hungarian proverb.

I would much rather be happy than wise. Also, those who find true happiness (and I am young yet, and I don't believe I have found it) are the wisest of us all, regardless of religious belief.

sorry star, happines and wisdom are not concommitent terms

[Elvellon]

Jerseydevil, my sincere condolences

[Elvellon]

I’ve been reading some posts on this tread, I must say I’m quite surprised. I’ve never met a creationist (it is more probable a gold nugget to pop out of the thin air in front of me that is to find a creationist were I live).
Is any creationist here of any nationality but American? I’m getting the impression that creationism is a significant movement only in the USA.

[BeardofPants]

Dammit! It's no fun, if there is nobody disputing all our arguments....

[Andúril]

As usual, I totally agree. Maybe they're hiding.