Does the fac that I never once believed any diety to be perfect make a difference to your argument?

Actually, the fact that you deny the exsistance only strengthens it. In order to say something does not exsist, suggests that it had to exsist in order to deny it.

By rejecting a 'perfect' being, you still formulate the concept of a perfect being, and therefore, the exsistance of the perfect being is reaffirmed by your rejection, as again, their needs to be something to reject.

It's a little hard to know when we are talking about spirituality or science in this thread.



I never said there was a connection. Though, there could be.



Insofar as we are told anything is fact, yes, I was told. My point was that I am not forced to believe anything. I deny the divinity of Jesus, I am ranted at and penalised for it (or was, by my Catholic school), yet I continue to do so even though I am told that Jesus' divinity is truth.

I maintain that carbon-dating is a theory and the best theory we have at the moment. I know it has flaws, I never said otherwise. I know it is only a theory, nothing in science is ever fact. My point was that if I did not want to believe in carbon-dating I would not have to. I could just as easily believe in the Book of Genesis.



I find Christianity and various other cultural norms to be more forceful than science. Oh well.



You can believe in something and still udnerstand something else enough to past a test. Taking a stand on scientific theory is fine, but why would you do it in a test?



I'm not sure I follow.




I never said I believed history was the truth, I treat it as a theory just like everything else. Same as gravity. The theory fits well enough for me.

What you seem to be saying to me is, because science is not perfect, there must be a creator god. Is that what you're trying to get across?

I don't believe science has all the answers, I just like the answers they have better than the ones in the Bible.

True, but to talk about a concept is enough to apply some form of denial or acceptance of it. It's impossible for me to discuss anything without giving it atleast a metaphysical existance, if only created by my own thoughts.

That kind of opens up an idea about collective conscience though. If my belief or denial affirms existance, wouldn't the object or being I am deny or rejecting be a personal creation? If not, does my denial or belief add weight to some kind of collective thought-pool?

Just playing with ideas.

Here here.

By assuming, even in the metaphysical, the exsistance of a perfect being, then it has exsistance. A perfect being can not only exsist in your mind, it has to exsist everywhere, otherwise it is not perfect.

Since we all have a concept of a perfect being, even though many of us deny it, it is safe to say that a perfect being exsists, for to deny a perfect being requires the exsistance of the perfect being.

So in the end, there is no collective thought pool, because if you walk up to anyone and ask them if they think there is a God, they will tell you one thing or the other. Yes or No.

Abstractions are just that, abstract. A perfect being is just a culmination of a familiar concept with as much fine tuning to create an ideal of "perfection" as possible. I can "imagine" many things which have no place in reality simply by making a transposition of parts and qualities. My capacity to do so does not in and of itself necessitate such an existance.

Perfection is a concept that I don't believe can be imagined by a human mind. Aspects of one's ideal of perfection possibly, but not the figurative ideal of 'perfection.'

I've never once accepted or denied the possibility of a perfect being. I once believed in God, etc., but never once did I actually understand the entirety of the concept of perfection.

I don't see how you can make the leap that assumes perfection must bring a being into existance outside of one's mind. Perfection, to me, simply means 'without mistake'. Perfection in itself is not a concept easily proven. We can argue to the end of days about fate and what is 'meant to be'.

Your denial of a collective thought-pool doesn't really fit either. We could all simply envisage our own gods, it doesn't mean they exist any less.

That is what Kant argued, however, like Kant, you are still faced with the wall of yes, I can imagine a unicorn, but a unicorn is not a perfect being.

But when you imagine a perfect being, like I said before, you have given it exsistance, if a perfect being can exsist in the metaphysical, it has to exsist everywhere, otherwise it would not be perfect.

Therefore, like I have said before, merely acknowledging the exsistance of a perfect being, even if it is to deny it, is to reaffirm its exsistance.

I can not make it any clearer, and I am beginning to sound like a broken record. In the end, your personal beliefs will get in the way of understanding if you do not want to admit the exsistance of a perfect being.

But a perfect being MUST exsist, this goes back to the necesary truth. If it is Perfect, it must have exsistance. Therefore there is a perfect being that exsists, otherwise we would not even have a narrow concept of a perfect being, we would have no concept of perfect at all, unless there was something perfect in exsistance.

Who says a unicorn can't be perfect? We're still faced with the problem of defining perfection. Maybe then I'll understand why you think a perfect being can't exist only in a metaphysical sense.

By your logic, denial of the existance of an imperfect being can validate it's existance.

Don't bother arguing. Concepts like this, especially in the hands of people who just have an inkling of what they are talking about, are -extremely- dangerous, given that they have no logical backing outside of their own statements. They are entirely self fulfilling, so as long as one keeps referring back to the original statement as proof, it can never be disputed.

This doesn't make it any more correct. Just more confusing for those that can't (or refuse to) accept its absurdity outright.

Denying the exsistance of an imperfect being does not affirm it, as you only suggest an imperfect being COULD exsist.

To deny a perfect being though, well a perfect being has to exsist in order to be a perfect being, you affirm its exsistance.

Rhysus, I love that you decided to insult me instead of presenting a well thought out arguement. It's ok though, I know my background in this subject, particulerly the argument of the exsistance of a divine being, you don't. Not a problem with me.

This is circular logic, you realise? You and I have different definitions of 'perfect', I think that is where the problem is.

I will have to take Rhysus' advice. There is no point arguing circular logic, really.

EDIT: I don't mean to be insulting, but the logic is clearly circular. I'm trying my best to be fairly diplomatic and uninsulting so I apologise if I project a different image.

Oh, it wasn't an insult. You're obviously familiar enough to regurgitate information you've heard in the past. I've just not heard anything novel to suggest an improvement on the flaws of the initial postulate.

I have not gone into much detail, I have only mentioned the first nessecary truth, which is all that is required for this argument. That truth is that a perfect being has to exsist to be perfect.

Perfection is without flaw and nothing greater or 'more' perfect can be conceived of.

I don't think perfection is anything more than a concept, though. I still cannot understand the logic of your argument beyond that.

It doesn't exist.