Ok, perfection is to have nothing greater then it. So now, imagine a being which can have nothing better then it. The greatest of all possible features.

This is a perfect being... now, the ability to imagine this being means it must exsist. Because if it could not exsist, it would not be the most perfect.

Thus a perfect being, by the mere conception of it, has to exsist.

It still does not make any sense. Honestly. Thinking about something does not have to mean it exists, perfect or not. I think about purple flying horses who eat humans and poop out monkeys (and the horse is perfect), I don't think it actually exists anywhere but in my thoughts, though.

Crude analogy, but do you see what I mean?

I will rebuttle tomorrow when I am more awake, and not writing a sermon at the same time, hehe. Just so ya know aint backing out, just calling braindeath

Works for me! I am about to go out anyway.

I am honestly interested in understanding your argument, it just doesn't seem to compute at the moment. Whether that is my stupidity or your argumet...*shrug*.

My only complaint - I don't believe you -can- imagine it. You 'think' you're capable of imagining it, but the concept of perfection eludes your human brain.

I've never successfully envisioned perfection. Aspects of my biased view of perfection, but not -perfection-.

A perfect being would not be a subjective issue. If your perfect being is different than my perfect being, than that being is not pefect.

I would have to agree with VLC, you can't conceive of a perfect being.

The reason for this is that once you use say "Here is the perfect being" or "here is perfection" your mind immediatly puts a border on it. Once you have a border, you get what is prefection, and what isn't perfection. You as a seperate entitiy can not exist seperate from this perfect being, because if you did, that being would not be perfect.

However, I see the affects of this perfection time and time again, and I can not deny it's existance. That is one of the things that fascinates me most about the Kabbalah.

The main question, the first question, that Kabbalah asks is "Given G-d's existance, How can -We- exist?" The answer is fasinating and really explains everything, and I'm sure soon the String Theory will come to the same conclusion(as they are allready fairly close)

I don't understand how you can say "I just like the answers they have better than the ones in the Bible." because they don't even mention the same topics or overlap in anyway. The only overlap would be the order of creation, and that is the same as any scientific theory.

Ack, I competely forgot to post the hijack that I wanted to...

Anyone know whats going on with Saudi Arabia local elections? They had a blurb about it on Fox News, and well, I just don't trust them. Anyone know whats going on there?

Strictly anything only exists because you think it does. There is no rule that says just because you see a chair in the corner it actually has to be there, the corner itself may not even be there. Natural thinking tells us that everything we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell must be the case, but everything you observe is subjective to your own perception. There are plenty of serial killers out there who -know- that people told them to go out and kill. Every existance is purely subjective to your current perception of it. The only existance you can be certain of is your own.

False metaphysical crap.

Existance has nothing to do with perception on the macroscopic scale. Even on the quantum level, observation only brings clarification to a state, it does not create it. If a thing must first be imagined before it is made to exist, the concept of a surprise would cease to exist. To have the idea that the entire universe exists because we imagine it to is worse and more self important than the anthropic principle, and has no basis in consummate reality outside of the minds of poor philosophers.

Existence has everything to do with perception. If something is not perceived there is no way you can prove its exists. You may later observe it but that doesn't prove it was there before. This does not preclude the concept of suprise in any way, or do you claim to be such a master of your own perception that you know everything you are about to think?

And if its so crap, name one thing you know exists without you perceiving it in some way.

And on the quantum level it doesnt clarify the state, it shows you the state at the time of observation it is in no way relative to any previous state it may have been in, and there is no way for you to deduce from the observed state what the previous state may or may not have been. But regardless quantum theory has little to do with the argument of existence since I couldnt prove it didn't exist before the observation, just as you can't prove it did exist.

Baryonic dark matter. Hell, all dark matter. Not to mention electrons, which while -we- can perceive them, their existence was postulated far before we could down to minute details. If something needs to be perceived to exist, it must first exist to be perceived. It's a Catch-22.

You don't understand the concept of perception. Lets take your electron example. The electron was hypothesised based upon effects that were seen which suggested atoms could not be solid, these effects WERE perception. Nobody just randomly got up one day and went I think we need little things orbiting central nuclei. Thomson theorised upon information that was available to him that it must be the case. Therefore he had observed the effect of an electron (or corpuscule as he called it) and thus had perceived its existence.

Want me to take apart the Baryonic Dark Matter one as well?

You're completely ignoring the fact that in order to have made his observations accurately, the electron would have needed to exist prior to his postulating it. The same is true of dark matter. If it wasn't there before it was perceived, it wouldn't have the effect it does on surrounding matter that permits us to postulate its existence.

That only proves it existed at the time it was observed, not prior to it. Which was entirely my point. Of course it existed to be observed, but it does not necessarily follow that prior to its observation that it must have existed.

Sorry for the late reply but it was a fast growing thread and I hadn't had time to finish reading them. However, in this case I personally don't find it is the case. The more I learnt about God, more so in the New Testament than the Old Testament, I feel that I am growing through Him. I find I realise more how much God has done for me rather than the other way round.



Actually there is a group, not sure if it is only in Australia or not, but it is called "Jews for Christ" - runned by Jews who are also Christians. Being Christian does not mean that you give up Judaism, quite the opposite. It just means you take on an extra aspect that you believe that the Messiah has come and saved.

The reason that Jesus can sacrifice himself for us is because he himself is the perfect sacrifice. There has never been or never will be another like Him. For example, the Priest won't have done exactly the same sins you ever done right? So I don't see how this rule stands. Jesus has been -tempted- by the same sins that has happened to us, so basically he chose God's way, than the way of the World.

I'm not saying my arguments are safe-sure. But this is what I understand. If you want to know more, bug Nementh I guess. I'm not a super-kid-know-it-all... just stuff I've learnt in Youth Group and Sunday School.

I thought this was kinda fitting.

...OMG, I hope I never find one of those paralysis ticks. Sounds nasty.

*peer* when did creationism say that the mammoth and the sabretooth tiger never existed?

The part where it claims that fossils and carbon dating are wrong... But that is only a small minority. Most people have come to accept evolution as Gods means to an end... it is only a minority, loud one, but only a minority who give no creed to evolution.