And is that supposed to make my argument unsound? — TheMadFool

It does, assuming you mean the argument that God can't be indescribable.

It does, assuming you mean the argument that God can't be indescribable — BlueBanana

I see. So, it's an assumption. Then I may work with assumption that we can know God. Can we now focus on my argument that there's only 1 God?

Sorry if this as already brought up before.
Thomas Aquinas has a similar argument using 'perfection' instead of 'omnipotence', as so:

P1: If two beings are distinct, it means that one possesses an attribute that the other does not possess.
P2: A perfect being in every way possesses all attributes that make it perfect.
C1: Therefore if two perfect beings existed, they would both possess all attributes that make them perfect, making them non-distinct, or one and the same.
C2: Therefore there can only be one perfect being.

Thank you. It's a much better proof than mine.

I have one objection though. Differences can be perfection-related and non perfection-related. For instance position in space doesn't seem to be related to perfection. A perfect being at position x or y or z...is still perfect. So two perfect beings may share all perfection-related properties such as goodness but may not share the same position in space. Thus making them distinct but not affecting their perfection. Like identical twins. Taking physical attributes as perfection-related and spatial position as not, we can see how two distinct perfect beings may exist. Just saying...Thanks.

Mad Fool,

You assume that we can describe God. I disagree. Let's put God aside for a moment and focus our attention on buttons, like the buttons on a shirt. Could you give me a brief description of the perfect button?

With thanks

John

Could you give me a brief description of the perfect button? — John Gould

One that does its job properly.

I See, so others Ideas are irrelevant for your arguments, (I am assuming this because you can not see Ideas just like Unicorns) therefore this conversation just like your other conversasttions are pointless.
Thank you.

Sir2u,

But there are lots and lots of buttons that do their job properly ! Iam only interested in nature of THE perfect button and apart from doing its job properly what physical properties ( for example) it possesses in terms of, say its size, shape, colour, mass, density,what substance it is made from( wood , metal, plastic?), how many thread holes it would possess, or is it the case that the perfect button is one that is not sewn onto a shirt or trousers with cotton, etc?) and so on? According to Anselm's ontological argument we can possess an idea of God as THE perfect being, now a button is a much humbler thing than God Almighty so surely you should have no difficulty providing me with a brief descriptive account of the nature of THE perfect button as it is in itself?

Thanks

John

Good point. I think a 'being in every way' is one that transcends all other things; otherwise it is not as perfect as a thing can be. As such, this being would transcend space and time, if that is logically possible, and thus have no space-time attributes.

To answer the question "what is a perfect button", we must first answer the question "what is a button", that is, what is its essence. I am guessing you mean a shirt button as opposed to a button you press to activate something. I think its essence is: a device designed to hold pieces of fabric together at one spot. Now, as mentioned, a perfect thing is one that does its job properly, or one that fulfills its nature perfectly. Thus a perfect button is a device that perfectly fulfills its nature of holding pieces of fabric together at one spot. After that, all physical properties that provide a means to that end is part of the perfect button, although these are relative to each situation.

I accept God, even if only as a concept, has many dimensions. I also agree that they, together, must form a coherent whole. However, just for the moment, I'd like to focus on one specific God attribute - ommipotence - and see if I can prove there can be only one God. That's all. Sorry if you didn't like my responses.

Could you give me a brief description of the perfect button? — John Gould

A perfect button, for me, would have to combine aesthetics, utility, comfort, durability, cost, etc.

Samuel,

You are presuming that the essential nature of a button MUST be defined in utilitarian terms. What if my friend Mr X insists that the essence of a button is fundamentally a question of aesthetics (beauty). The onus is now on you to prove that Mr X is mistaken and that his thesis that the perfect button is the most beautiful button is false.

The ball is now in your court. Please present your objection/s.

Regards

John

Mad Fool,

According to St Anselm and yourself THE perfect button exists and it is something that human beings can conceive of in their mind, that is, hold as an entity in their waking consciousness/phenomenal domain ( I.e. as an experienced entity, that presents itself in their perceptual and conceptual consciousness ). You mention that the perfect button has (amongst other attributes) a certain cost. Please tell me roughly what its value is in US currency as I am interested in purchasing it and would like to know if I can afford to buy it. Remember I am a serious man on a quest for the perfect button so don't waste my time.


Over to you.

Thanks

John

You are presuming that the essential nature of a button MUST be defined in utilitarian terms. What if my friend Mr X insists that the essence of a button is fundamentally a question of aesthetics (beauty). The onus is now on you to prove that Mr X is mistaken and that his thesis that the perfect button is the most beautiful button is false.

The ball is now in your court. Please present your objection/s. — John Gould

Does the most beautiful button do its job?
If it does not fulfill its purpose as a button then it cannot be qualified as a button(in either of the senses).

If it does fulfill its purpose as a button, then any other quality is secondary and therefore just a question of taste or adaption to use.

According to Anselm ontological argument we can possess an idea of God as THE perfect being, now a button is a much humbler thing than God so surely you should have no difficulty providing me with a brief descriptive account of the nature of THE perfect button as it is in itself? — John Gould

What is the purpose of this god you talk about? If it has no purpose then any or even no quality would make it perfect for the job.

Buttons having a purpose can be described in so many ways that are each perfect for the job they do, so there might be millions of perfect buttons.

If you insist on an answer to your question you will have to provide some sort of quality or purpose that can be compared to a button.

But there are lots and lots of buttons that do their job properly ! Iam only interested in nature of THE perfect button and apart from doing its job properly what physical properties ( for example) it possesses in terms of, say its size, shape, colour, mass, density,what substance it is made from( wood , metal, plastic?), how many thread holes it would possess, or is it the case that the perfect button is one that is not sewn onto a shirt or trousers with cotton, etc?) and so on? — John Gould

And maybe you could provide a similar list of qualities for your god.

Sir2u,

With respect to the God I am referring to - the Biblical God - AS HE IS IN HIMSELF, that is, as what orthodox Christian theology refers to as God in his being as "essential" (or "ontological") Trinity , I am sorry to disappoint you but the answer is an emphatic "No, I cannot !". I absolutely cannot provide any such list of finite descriptive qualities or attributes as those you request. This is because the essential, "intrinsic" nature of God, the divine Subject, as essential/ontological Trinity is utterly unknowable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, unspeakable, transcendent (supernatural), "wholly other", and forever hidden from, humanity.

Regards

John

I am sorry to disappoint you but the answer is an emphatic "No, I cannot !". — John Gould

That is not in the least disappointing, I expected it.

forever hidden from, humanity. — John Gould

Could there be some reason for this? Or is that unknowable as well?

When dealing with other beings we quite often infer characteristics from their behavior, is it not possible to do this for your god?

You will find Nothing.

Please tell me roughly what its value is in US currency as I am interested in purchasing it and would like to know if I can afford to buy it. — John Gould

You seem to be implying that perfection isn't conceivable. Well, if you're looking for some universal standard then it's obvious you won't find it. We can't even agree on what food to order at a restaurant.

However, we may have our own conception of perfection, in a relative sense. This is possible and also a fact - people have ideals (read perfection) that guide them through life. I'm sure you have your own set of ideals to guide you - it's quite clear from your posts.

So, perfection isn't inconceivable. It is and even universal perfection is, if only we can agree.

You will find Nothing — Vajk

Did you read that somewhere? Is it your personal experience?

You will find it out When you get there.

However, we may have our own conception of perfection, in a relative sense. — TheMadFool

So you admit them the idea of your god being perfect is only relative to your own conception of perfection?

You will find it out When you get there. — Vajk

Did your search end in disappointment? Many seem to have found something.

So you admit them the idea of your god being perfect is only relative to your own conception of perfection? — Sir2u

It sounds that way. But we can come to some agreement on what perfection entails e.g. omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience aren't controversial.

I can not belive neither in anything and nothing.

Sir2u,

In answer to your question, there IS, in fact, a way that we (human beings) can know God, but it must be emphasised that the particular knowledge of God I am referring to is something that we are given; something that man can never earn or merit through his own efforts, and also that this knowledge is only ever INDIRECT- as opposed to - absolute, knowledge.

To begin with, it ALWAYS remains the case that there is no path from man to God; that is, there is no possibility whatsoever that man can ever know God (personally, I.e. as He is in Himself, as the divine Subject) through any process of human reasoning. No amount of philosophical "logic-chopping" however fervent nor rational analysis however rigorous and cogent nor application or scientific investigation even within a completed physical theory in the hypothetical future, none of our most compelling motivations, our most earnest strivings, our most heroic efforts to know Him will ever unveil God the Unknown. They are all futile and in vain. But while there is no direct path from man to God, there IS a path from God to man...

The good news is that God has chosen - of his own free will - to reveal Himself ( God self) to humanity. The choice or -in more theological terms - the "election" that God makes to reveal God self to man is, it must be stressed, the sole perogative of God; it is a choice that He and He alone elects to make solely at his own discretion. There is absolutely nothing man can do to force it or even to merit it. It (revelation) is, nonetheless, graciously GIVEN to man freely and regardl as a gift of the infinite love that God lavishes upon humanity. As St John rightly tells us, God's humanity can be summed up in three words: "Deus Caritas Est" ( God IS love). God, in graciously condescending to save a fallen and lost humanity through revelation of Himself is truly "Sir2u". Remember that and be grateful. And If you lack faith, then pray for it.

To continue. There are ,very briefly, a number of mediums through which God reveals Himself to man, the primary channel of communication being Jesus Christ. Christ is - if you like - the "go-between" or "middle man" through which God has freely chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. The resurrection of the man, Jesus of Nazareth, as Christ ( the risen Son of God) on the third day after he died an excruciating death on the Cross at Calvary, IS the revelation of God. Human beings cannot know God apart from His revelation in Jesus Christ. It is in the resurrection of Christ that all impossibilities are combined and all irreconcilables reconciled. Christ is the miraculous, paradoxical bridge that spans the profound chasms between God ( the Unknown and transcendent) and moral humanity, between the separate and distinct realms of time and eternity and between the domain of eternal death and that of hope for the promise of new life everlasting beyond the grave. In the resurrection of Christ, God reveals himself as the eschatological God, and it is in this precise fact that atheism in the postmodern era faces its greatest challenge. This ,however, is a matter that fully warrants a separate "thread" in its own right, so I will not discuss it any further here.

Finally, returning to the question at hand, and again very, very briefly, although man may ( in faith) know God through revelation, the knowledge he is given is, as I said above, only INDIRECT knowledge. For even after His revelation in the resurrection of Christ, God remains forever the Unknown and incomprehensible, "wholly other" God. (And) this is because in manifesting Himself, He is, ironically, actually even farther away than He was before. Put simply, the more mankind knows of God, then the more He is still to be known and the more there are of things of God which will yet remain unknown to him. Any serious scholar who has devoted an academic career - or even an entire lifetime - striving to master some particular subject matter in his field of interest- be it in the sciences, philosophy, mathematics or the humanities - will automatically confirm his experience of exactly the same kind of ultimate irony. It is through His revelation to man in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that God, in short, REALLY becomes a mystery. It is in Christ that He makes Himself known as the Unknown ; as He who speaks as the eternally silent One.

Regards

John

It sounds that way. But we can come to some agreement on what perfection entails e.g. omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience aren't controversial. — TheMadFool

If these are not controversial I don't know what is.
For something to be perfect, should it not include these qualities? How is something that is not omnipotent going to be perfect, a perfect being has to be capable of doing anything.

But while there is no direct path from man to God, there IS a path from God to man... — John Gould

So that is something like the Hollywood saying, "Don't call us, we'll call you".

God, in graciously condescending to save a fallen and lost humanity through revelation of Himself is truly "Sir2u". — JohnGould

Since it was his fault in the beginning he should help clean up the mess. If he was perfect and made humans in his image then someone screwed up somewhere. I guess that would be a good enough reason for not wanting to be seen though.

To be absolutely honest, I read the book several times and all I see in it is a rather twisted sales pitch. 2000 year old propaganda meant to scare the shit out of people to make them behave in a certain way. Cocacola spend millions to convert people into believers and have not had half of the success of religions. I wonder what it will be like when people start going to war over brands.

I mean these qualities aren't disputed. Omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience are universally accepted as attributes of God.

Sir2u,

It was not "God's fault" that humanity screwed up. Remember that it was God Himself who chose to endow human beings with the gift of free will ( freedom of choice) So Man, when he did ultimately screw up - and screw up "big time" -did so purely of his own volition. In any case, there was was no way, having already decided to granted mankind the gift of free will that God could (logically) intervene and act to prevent man's fall from grace before it happened. If He had done so, then it would have defeated the whole purpose of giving human being freedom of choice in the first place . Had God done this, man whom He created in His own image would have been reduced to nothing more than a mindless, (albeit righteous and well-behaved) puppet and He a mere puppet master predictably pulling the strings that would keep his toy on the straight and narrow , safe from harm's way.That's was never God's intention; apart from anything else he would have found it a very boring "gig". Rather the earth that God created for mankind was intended by Him to be a "vale of soul -making" , that is, a place where human beings could - through the process of erring and suffering the consequences of their mistakes, hopefully learn in a way that would eventually lead themto to freely choose Himself and the , infinite , burning love He so selflessly lavished on the humanity He created in. His very own image.

As for God and Hollywood, it is not so much a case of God saying "Don't call me, I'll call you." God has said that you are free to call Him anytime you like , AND He sincerely hopes that you will decide to give him a ring, it's just that you should expect that He is in any way obliged or "duty bound" to answer your call. Whether or not He chooses to pick up His iPhone when yo call Him and PERSONALLY talk to you is purely a matter for Him to decide, not you. He might pick up, then again, He might not...Like it or not, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.in this case and I'm afraid that there's nothing at all you personally or anyone else can do to change it.

Finally, with respect to having the shit scared out of oneself, I don't know about you, but nothing ever did that for me quite like the firm belief I once briefly held that there was no prospect of hope for redemption of the suffering that I and those I loved had endured - and would inevitably continue to endure - in this life... that all I ( and they ) had waiting in store was the grim reality of eternal death; of death, that is ,as FINIS ( where dead is dead).

Regards

John