Evidence for God from Science

Squible
Now you are shift goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.
Ken
I was initially talking to someone else and it was clear I was talking about a perfect person. I don’t know how you are defining the difference between person vs being, but I definitely was not talking about perfection in general. When you entered the conversation I assumed you were on board with what we were talking about; I was also at work and in a hurry to give a reply so I didn’t read your reply carefully and didn’t notice you said “something perfect” instead of “perfect person”. Had I read your response more carefully I would have made the correction at that time.

Squible
In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!
Ken
So to answer my question; how does an imperfect person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)


Ken

Kenny wrote:Squible
Now you are shift goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.
Ken
I was initially talking to someone else and it was clear I was talking about a perfect person. I don’t know how you are defining the difference between person vs being, but I definitely was not talking about perfection in general. When you entered the conversation I assumed you were on board with what we were talking about; I was also at work and in a hurry to give a reply so I didn’t read your reply carefully and didn’t notice you said “something perfect” instead of “perfect person”. Had I read your response more carefully I would have made the correction at that time.

Squible
In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!
Ken
So to answer my question; how does an imperfect person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)


Ken

Well you're not perfect.

2+2 = ?

Kenny wrote:Squible
Now you are shift goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.
Ken
I was initially talking to someone else and it was clear I was talking about a perfect person. I don’t know how you are defining the difference between person vs being, but I definitely was not talking about perfection in general. When you entered the conversation I assumed you were on board with what we were talking about; I was also at work and in a hurry to give a reply so I didn’t read your reply carefully and didn’t notice you said “something perfect” instead of “perfect person”. Had I read your response more carefully I would have made the correction at that time.

Squible
In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!
Ken
So to answer my question; how does an imperfect person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)


Ken

What standard are you using to verify what an imperfect being is? (or insert person which is a kind of being)

And yes your starting position was put in terms of a being in general, and from what I understand that we can't tell perfection in general. It's clear others have based their view on your conversations with me.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:Squible
Now you are shift goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.
Ken
I was initially talking to someone else and it was clear I was talking about a perfect person. I don’t know how you are defining the difference between person vs being, but I definitely was not talking about perfection in general. When you entered the conversation I assumed you were on board with what we were talking about; I was also at work and in a hurry to give a reply so I didn’t read your reply carefully and didn’t notice you said “something perfect” instead of “perfect person”. Had I read your response more carefully I would have made the correction at that time.

Squible
In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!
Ken
So to answer my question; how does an imperfect person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)


Ken

What standard are you using to verify what an imperfect being is? (or insert person which is a kind of being)

A person with flaws.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:Squible
Now you are shift goal posts. You initially said being actually, and you have gone all over the place to perfection in general as your main thesis, this is confirmed by the fact that you agreed with what I said was your argument.
Ken
I was initially talking to someone else and it was clear I was talking about a perfect person. I don’t know how you are defining the difference between person vs being, but I definitely was not talking about perfection in general. When you entered the conversation I assumed you were on board with what we were talking about; I was also at work and in a hurry to give a reply so I didn’t read your reply carefully and didn’t notice you said “something perfect” instead of “perfect person”. Had I read your response more carefully I would have made the correction at that time.

Squible
In any case, the point is even though we are flawed it doesn't necessarily follow we can't recognize perfection. Which is the heart of your argument!
Ken
So to answer my question; how does an imperfect person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)


Ken

What standard are you using to verify what an imperfect being is? (or insert person which is a kind of being)

A person with flaws.

Ken

How do you verify that they have flaws?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

No... I am not against Wikipedia, just cautious of it - it can be oversimplified or biased on many topics.

When Kenny used Wikipedia it most certainly simplified skepticism because there is centuries of perspectives on the topic, that is not covered in Wikipedia.

In this case its definition of circular reasoning is all you need. However, I was trying to get the definition from the International Encyclopedia of philosophy (IEP) but the site is down.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

Taboo on wikipedia? That requires a belief in wikipedia/s.

It''s called "wiki" for a reason. wiki, wicked...
It's certainly not a neutral source.
So if possible it's always best to be a-wikipedia.

That is, without wikipedia.
I'm don't even acknowledge its existence.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

Taboo on wikipedia? That requires a belief in wikipedia/s.

It''s called "wiki" for a reason. wiki, wicked...
It's certainly not a neutral source.
So if possible it's always best to be a-wikipedia.

That is, without wikipedia.
I'm don't even acknowledge its existence.

Some believe; Wikipedia is the source of truth therefore Wikipedia is true.

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

Taboo on wikipedia? That requires a belief in wikipedia/s.

It''s called "wiki" for a reason. wiki, wicked...
It's certainly not a neutral source.
So if possible it's always best to be a-wikipedia.

That is, without wikipedia.
I'm don't even acknowledge its existence.

Some believe; Wikipedia is the source of truth therefore Wikipedia is true.

Is that subjective or objective truth?

Didn't I make myself clear? I'm a-wikipedia. It's not even on my radar.
Why you talking about subjective and objective for?
It because that people push it on me that I have to respond with no belief.

"a-" without
"wikipedia" - whatever that is.

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Did you just reference a wikipedia link Squib?

Is Wikipedia taboo in your family?

Taboo on wikipedia? That requires a belief in wikipedia/s.

It''s called "wiki" for a reason. wiki, wicked...
It's certainly not a neutral source.
So if possible it's always best to be a-wikipedia.

That is, without wikipedia.
I'm don't even acknowledge its existence.

Some believe; Wikipedia is the source of truth therefore Wikipedia is true.

Is that subjective or objective truth?

Who's asking?

Rick, it's always shameful I think that you as a mod encourage taking threads off topic.

Actually I think it is more really begging the question, since Kenny's argument isn't to long.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion

People are flawed if they have flaws, and without telling us how he comes to that conclusion, ie: something not flawed to verify it by.