Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 3:49 pm You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

Is your unique definition of God contained in the OP, which I have reposted here?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 3:49 pm You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

Is your unique definition of God contained in the OP, which I have reposted here?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:02 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:55 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:26 pm

No, it is a priori according to an acceptable definition of God. God must be perfect or else anyone, e.g. bahman, could be God. And that’s blasphemous.

I don't agree with that definition and I don't think that anyone else could be God given the definition of God I provided.

Provide the name of someone who agrees with your premise that God is not perfect. I down-and-dirty-double-dog dare you.

I don't need the support of anyone to show my premise that God is not perfect is correct. There is room for an imperfect God in my worldview. Still, I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist in my worldview.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 3:49 pm You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

Is your unique definition of God contained in the OP, which I have reposted here?

Yes, there is a definition for God or any deity who can give shape to nature.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 3:49 pm You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

Is your unique definition of God contained in the OP, which I have reposted here?

Yes, there is a definition for God or any deity who can give shape to nature.

Can you quote the definition you have provided here, or anywhere else.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:02 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:02 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:55 pm
I don't agree with that definition and I don't think that anyone else could be God given the definition of God I provided.

Provide the name of someone who agrees with your premise that God is not perfect. I down-and-dirty-double-dog dare you.

I don't need the support of anyone to show my premise that God is not perfect is correct. There is room for an imperfect God in my worldview. Still, I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist in my worldview.

Provide the name of just one person who believes that God is imperfect.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:02 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:02 pm

Provide the name of someone who agrees with your premise that God is not perfect. I down-and-dirty-double-dog dare you.

I don't need the support of anyone to show my premise that God is not perfect is correct. There is room for an imperfect God in my worldview. Still, I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist in my worldview.

Provide the name of just one person who believes that God is imperfect.

Me

This may help in clarify what the OP is claiming.

Defining the Universe - Philosophical Dialogue
Summary:
In this philosophical exchange, two philosophers grapple with the challenge of defining the universe. Philosopher 1 posits matter as the fundamental "stuff," and energy as a supernatural property, sparking disagreement with Philosopher 2. The latter raises concerns about the contradiction inherent in matter, a natural substance, creating the supernatural property of energy.

Energy is not supernatural

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:15 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:02 pm
I don't need the support of anyone to show my premise that God is not perfect is correct. There is room for an imperfect God in my worldview. Still, I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist in my worldview.

Provide the name of just one person who believes that God is imperfect.

Me

Maybe the meaning of perfect and imperfect is what is at odds here. Take the example of good-better-best for comparison of superlatives.

A thing can be more good than good. A thing can be more better than better. A thing cannot be more than best.

A thing cannot be more than perfect.

So, bahman and Me, maybe you could tell me what you mean by a perfect God who would actually be God. School me as to your ideas about this.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:09 pm

Is your unique definition of God contained in the OP, which I have reposted here?

Yes, there is a definition for God or any deity who can give shape to nature.

Can you quote the definition you have provided here, or anywhere else.

"a supernatural being that gives shape to nature"

Maybe the meaning of perfect and imperfect is what is at odds here.

Yes, "perfect" is one of those words that could mean something or it could mean nothing.

A "perfect god" ... what could it mean?

The more one thinks about it, the nuttier it becomes.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 8:38 pm

Maybe the meaning of perfect and imperfect is what is at odds here.

Yes, "perfect" is one of those words that could mean something or it could mean nothing.

A "perfect god" ... what could it mean?

The more one thinks about it, the nuttier it becomes.

Putting aside that "perfect" seems to mean some hypothetical state that is unachievable in reality, don't we just mean something that is ideal for the purpose it serves, or as near as damn it to the ultimate standard that we can imagine? When the term is applied to God, I guess it's just a way of avoiding having to answer awkward questions. We might not understand it, but if God did it, it must be because he had a perfect reason for doing it, because he is the perfect being. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card.

I think it comes from theists who are too enthusiastic and give their god all sorts of wonderful attributes.

That actually generates awkward discussions for them.

If god is perfect, then why does he/she/it make little kids suffer horrible diseases or abuse?

One has do some wild babbling to rationalize it.

God might have screwed up some stuff. We don't know enough to say how or why. That's the real honest answer.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:02 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:02 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:55 pm
I don't agree with that definition and I don't think that anyone else could be God given the definition of God I provided.

Provide the name of someone who agrees with your premise that God is not perfect. I down-and-dirty-double-dog dare you.

I don't need the support of anyone to show my premise that God is not perfect is correct. There is room for an imperfect God in my worldview. Still, I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist in my worldview.

So, WHY even BRING 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'worldview' INTO 'things' here?

WHY TELL "others" of just what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, but which 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF AT ALL FOR? What WOULD BE the ACTUAL PURPOSE of DOING such A 'thing'?