Evidence for God from Science

As a skeptic, LOL, I do NOT have to accept that max excellence to mean anything other than the mxium of the standard definition of excllent, ie: very good or superior.
So, I would view a max excellent view as the APEX of his TYPE, but the TYPE is left open to interpretation.
It may be that He is the MAX excellent of goodness and love, which does NOT imply that He must be all knowing or all powerful or everywhere, simply ALL loving.

PaulSacramento wrote:As a skeptic, LOL, I do NOT have to accept that max excellence to mean anything other than the mxium of the standard definition of excllent, ie: very good or superior.
So, I would view a max excellent view as the APEX of his TYPE, but the TYPE is left open to interpretation.
It may be that He is the MAX excellent of goodness and love, which does NOT imply that He must be all knowing or all powerful or everywhere, simply ALL loving.

Good Grief man!
If this maximum being isn't all powerful, then he's not maximum. If he's all loving, and all good, but not all knowing, not all powerful, or not omnipresent, then he's not MAXIMUM! If he was Maximum, he'd have to be maximum in all possible ways.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:As a skeptic, LOL, I do NOT have to accept that max excellence to mean anything other than the mxium of the standard definition of excllent, ie: very good or superior.
So, I would view a max excellent view as the APEX of his TYPE, but the TYPE is left open to interpretation.
It may be that He is the MAX excellent of goodness and love, which does NOT imply that He must be all knowing or all powerful or everywhere, simply ALL loving.

Good Grief man!
If this maximum being isn't all powerful, then he's not maximum. If he's all loving, and all good, but not all knowing, not all powerful, or not omnipresent, then he's not MAXIMUM! If he was Maximum, he'd have to be maximum in all possible ways.

Obviously my atheist-fu and skeptic-jutsu is wearing you down !!
BWWAAHH !!
If a being is Maximally excellent we are already limiting his degree of maximum b y stating a qualifier ( that he is excellent).
You did not state that He is Maximally powerful or Maximally fast or maximally hairy, nope you said excellent so all I did was define excellent in a way that holds true to what you stated, a Maximally excellent being is one that is maximally good or maximally meritorious.

MY original point stands that for the OA to be valid a person must accept the "IF" and if they don't, the argument is invalid.
Of course they must have a reason to not accept the "IF" and my point is that it requires the skeptic to agree with a definition that he can logically disagree with.

Two things:

1. This little back and forth demonstrates why the OA is intrinsically so unpersuasive and why we should never use it. Too much philosophy is required since it allows people to be dishonest (or, simply ignorant) in their discussion of important terms like "omnipotent," "great," "maximal," etc. So, AGAIN, I tell people--stay away from it as an apologetic device. Use it in theology as a tertiary way for discovering the divine attributes (the primary way being Scripture, the secondary being the causal argument, namely, that in order for the FC to cause the existence of a perfection, that perfection must preexist in some sense in the FC).

2. Paul, my point still stands that, yes IF a person accepts the existence of a maximally great entity--indeed, IF they even accept it as a valid definition--then the rest of the argument follows; yet that is precisely the case with the KCA and with ALL forms of argument. If I reject the second premise of the KCA--which pretty much all atheists do--then I don't have to embrace the conclusion. If I reject the major premise in Craig's moral argument, then I don't accept the conclusion.

That's what arguments are. A series of premises so arranged as to lead to a particular conclusion. There are two "ifs" that must be accepted in ANY argument for the conclusion to follow: 1) you must answer IF the premises are properly arranged, that is, is the argument logically valid; and 2) you must answer IF the premises are true, supported, and accepted. Your complaint that the OA is just a matter of the second IF is trivial, because that is the case with ALL arguments. The fact, however, that the OA's major premise is very hard to defend as true, supported, and acceptable, whereas the KCA's is not, goes to my original post in this thread as to why we should not use the OA. It is just unpersuasive!

Jac3510 wrote:Two things:

1. This little back and forth demonstrates why the OA is intrinsically so unpersuasive and why we should never use it. Too much philosophy is required since it allows people to be dishonest (or, simply ignorant) in their discussion of important terms like "omnipotent," "great," "maximal," etc. So, AGAIN, I tell people--stay away from it as an apologetic device. Use it in theology as a tertiary way for discovering the divine attributes (the primary way being Scripture, the secondary being the causal argument, namely, that in order for the FC to cause the existence of a perfection, that perfection must preexist in some sense in the FC).

2. Paul, my point still stands that, yes IF a person accepts the existence of a maximally great entity--indeed, IF they even accept it as a valid definition--then the rest of the argument follows; yet that is precisely the case with the KCA and with ALL forms of argument. If I reject the second premise of the KCA--which pretty much all atheists do--then I don't have to embrace the conclusion. If I reject the major premise in Craig's moral argument, then I don't accept the conclusion.

That's what arguments are. A series of premises so arranged as to lead to a particular conclusion. There are two "ifs" that must be accepted in ANY argument for the conclusion to follow: 1) you must answer IF the premises are properly arranged, that is, is the argument logically valid; and 2) you must answer IF the premises are true, supported, and accepted. Your complaint that the OA is just a matter of the second IF is trivial, because that is the case with ALL arguments. The fact, however, that the OA's major premise is very hard to defend as true, supported, and acceptable, whereas the KCA's is not, goes to my original post in this thread as to why we should not use the OA. It is just unpersuasive!

I agree on all points Jac, and you stated my case better than I did but I sure had fun teasing Rick, LOL !

PaulS wrote:
I agree on all points Jac, and you stated my case better than I did but I sure had fun teasing Rick, LOL !

It seems we have a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in our midst! Not just any wolf, but a Canadian timber wolf.
but it seems the Canadian wolf's bark is worse than its bite. Woof, eh. Woof, eh.

Nice one
ON a serious note though, it is important for us as believers to always try to see from the other side or in the end, all we are going to be able to do is to preach to the converted.
Know what I mean?

Jac3510 wrote:

dom wrote: your opinion (for lack of a better word) sucks . . . you are very lost . . . Hilarious, right? . . . YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY, SIR!

I'm not arguing with a child. When you decide you want to act like an adult, let me know.

Hey Jac, , if you're going to act like an intellectual buffoon, I will gladly point it out. If you think it's childish, then it's simply affirming your nonsense.

This isn't the first time I've challenged you here on several issues. I don't expect you to and my impression of that is that you're just simply a coward.
That's not all I think of you. Your theory of knowledge makes you a liar, and that makes your intellectually worse then the agnostics.

There is a large difference between your approach and mine.
You, find my philosophy wrong (with a false theory of knowledge), and don't find it true at all.
I, however, don't say your philosophy is wrong. I find it RATIONAL ONLY AFTERWARD that we affirm God's existence. It only makes sense then.

1. Your characterization of the ontological argument is dishonest. Contradicts the bible, too.
2. Your characterization of Descartes philosophy is extremely contrived simply to hold an absurd theory of knowledge.

I don't expect you to admit any of this, but I will bring it to your attention in a clear manner. I find you irrational until then.

Right. Domo

Please word your posts more civilly and do not fall back on insults. Points can be made through discussion and not by reverting to name calling. If Jac doesn't understand what you are saying - they approach it differently. But all the time with humility and love to a fellow brother in Christ. I would personally rather someone explain something to me that I didn't understand then calling me a coward or essentially stupid from not seeing their point of view.

Silvertusk.

Silver,

The problem here is that he is arrogantly and unwillingly wanting to acknowledge his irrational parodies. It's mockery and intellectually invalid. It's foolishness. Jac does know what I am telling him. He isn't ignorant.

There is a difference between foolishness and ignorance. So, what's so invalid about pointing such things out?
E.g. "everything is analogous to perfection"
E.g. Nothing is in the mind without first experienced thru the senses (paraphrased)

So, why is the table turned right back to him? Do you really think it's not worthy?
Again, I stress the point that saying people may not know God exists is a contradiction to a great deal of the bible. It's contrary to general revelation.

So, why so fierce in my opposition?
Does Jac really think his argument against is persuasive?
Let me ask you guys, do you think God needs to persuade anyone so we can know he exists?
How many demonstrations has God made? Then follow it up to the foolishness of man. When Thomas saw Christ he said he couldn't believe it until he touched him. Really, Thomas? It wasn't because he wanted to sense him. It's because it didn't make any sense at all.