Evidence for God from Science

Squible wrote:

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

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Or just be able to recognize mistakes.

K

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Do you suppose your idea of a perfect person would be the same as mine? Assuming a perfect person does exist; do you think everybody would agree that this person is perfect?

Ken

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Or just be able to recognize mistakes.

K

Now you are redefining your terms "flawed" with "mistake" which is now making your reasoning into a tautology.

In any case, I'll play How do you know you're not mistaken?

It seems what you are doing here is attempting to squirm out of the original proposition.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Do you suppose your idea of a perfect person would be the same as mine? Assuming a perfect person does exist; do you think everybody would agree that this person is perfect?

Ken

Firstly an abstraction doesn't mean actualized physical features. It could also entail things like truthful, loving.

Secondly your question is irrelevant because it doesn't follow that everyone needs to be in agreement in order for something to be true.

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I would like to ask what kind of attributes would you assign to a perfect being?


Cheers

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Or just be able to recognize mistakes.

K

Now you are redefining your terms "flawed" with "mistake" which is now making your reasoning into a tautology.

In any case, I'll play How do you know you're not mistaken?

It seems what you are doing here is attempting to squirm out of the original proposition.

In case you haven't noticed; throughout this topic, I have been using the terms flaw, error, and mistake interchangeably. As far as how do I know I am not mistaken; as I've said many times before, I always recognize the possibility that I could be wrong, in other words; I don't.

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:It seems there is a hidden premise behind the conclusion..

Oh well I can't put my finger on it...

Because you would have to have some abstraction of "perfect person" in order to compare by which he refuses to acknowledge.

Do you suppose your idea of a perfect person would be the same as mine? Assuming a perfect person does exist; do you think everybody would agree that this person is perfect?

Ken

Firstly an abstraction doesn't mean actualized physical features. It could also entail things like truthful, loving.

Secondly your question is irrelevant because it doesn't follow that everyone needs to be in agreement in order for something to be true.

If everybody doesn't recognize it as the truth, how do you know it's true?


Ken

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

I would like to ask what kind of attributes would you assign to a perfect being?


Cheers

Probably something akin to mine

K

RickD wrote:Squible,

Just between you, me and the wall, are you pulling your hair out yet?