Cap'n Refsmmat

I thought the argument for legalization was that the impact of legalizing marijuana was far less than, say, the impact of alcohol. Whereas the impact of everyone having healthcare is the difference between dying and getting medical treatment. We may all impact each other, but sometimes that impact isn't all that bad.

Yes. Which one of those terms implies absolute perfection in every attribute?

Why is that important? The argument stipulates a God who is morally perfect (i.e. perfect in A), not a God who is perfect in every attribute. The God in this argument does not need "absolute perfection" or perfection in B. If two attributes are exclusive, it follows directly that maximizing both simultaneously is impossible, so achieving perfection in both should be impossible. Why is that illogical, or a problem?

Now, please show your work.

I asked for [math]\int f(x) \, dx[/math], which is a function, not a constant value. What is the function?

Is God bound by economic theory? Again, suppose there are two competing goods, A and B. God may score an 8 in A and B, which is the "best" He can do logically, but it is logically possible for him to neglect B entirely and then score a 10 in A. Hence total perfection in A is possible. Whether God would practically choose to neglect B is irrelevant, since the argument stipulates one that does.

No. Competing goods being a logical possibility do not make them a necessity, so it is possible for absolute perfection to exist in those cases in which competing goods do not. Well, take that further. There may be competing goods, but their existence isn't a problem. It is a problem when I value those competing goods. If I neglect them, perfection is still possible.

The "best" you refer to is a qualified "best". Again, God may score an 8 in A and B, which is the "best" He can do logically, but it is logically possible for him to neglect B entirely and then score a 10 in A. The premises of the OP's argument mandate that God score a 10 in moral perfection, no matter what competing goods He gives up to achieve that.

Ah, I see. "Best" does not imply "perfect." God may do the best He can maximizing goods A and B, but it is possible to maximize A to perfection, by neglecting B. This argument stipulates that as a premise: God must be morally perfect, not morally the-best-he-can-be-given-the-circumstances. You are right to say that if God is not completely morally perfect, the argument does not stand. The argument only claims to work against a totally morally perfect God.

I feel as though post #41 has been forgotten, though it answers an important point.

I did. Please solve the problem I posed in post #30.

Please do solve the problem I posed in post #30.

Whoops. That was this post, as I quoted incorrectly: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__578852 And yes, "forum moderators" are resident experts, as they have limited abilities to move threads to the appropriate forums.

Please report posts when you believe there's a problem. Staff do not read every post, so reports draw our attention to the problems. No, he isn't, he's a resident expert, as noted by the "Expert" icon and not the "Staff" icon. Can we all calm down and be sane for a while? If someone uses a spectrometer, they must measure the angular separation of lines in the spectrometer's images and use trigonometry and mathematics to find the wavelength of the diffracted light. This is then compared with results of other elements, which can be computed mathematically from models or determined experimentally through similar mathematics.

To express the problem mathematically: we have an unknown function [math]f(x)[/math]. [math]\frac{d}{dx} f(x) = 2x[/math] [math]\left. \int f(x) \, dx \right|_{x=2} = 5[/math] Find [math]\int f(x) \, dx[/math].

! Moderator Note Moved this to Politics, where it belongs. Destiny, seeing as this same text has been posted on numerous other forums, I'm inclined to consider it PR spam, so you'll have to earn the right to post in Politics like everyone else.

But it's not impossible. God could clearly achieve a 10 in A if only he'd disregard B. If we claim that God is perfect in A for achieving an 8, the best He can under the circumstances, one could imagine another deity that neglects B entirely and achieves a 10 in A. It would be "more perfect." It's fine if stipulating moral perfection in the premises of the argument also requires God to neglect other potential goods. We must simply consider a hypothetical God that achieves a 10 in moral perfection, whatever that means for other goods God might want.

Ah, glad I've understood. Let's suppose there are two competing goods, A and B. God can achieve a level of each. Suppose we give a scale, 1 to 10, of how much He achieves of each. For example, if A were moral perfection, having 10 A would imply total moral perfection, whereas 1 would imply total moral corruption, and so on. Because these goods are competing, it's logically impossible for God to achieve a 10 in both A and B simultaneously, as we've agreed. Perhaps, then, God achieves, say, an 8 in both, and this is the maximal expression of both goods logically possible. But he is an 8 in A, not a 10, so he's not perfect in A -- he's just exceedingly good at it. Likewise, you essentially argue that God is not morally perfect, but merely as morally good as it is possible to be with competing goals and purposes. But the premises of the argument stipulate a God that is morally perfect, and scores a 10 in that category. In short, you say the argument does not apply because God may have competing goals and hence isn't totally morally perfect. (Rather, it is logically impossible for him to be so.) Theologically, I suppose this isn't a big issue, so long as he is still morally better than anyone else imaginable. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, 9th edition, defines it as "appeal to unqualified authority" and says it "occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility." Also, I believe ydoaPs cited Schellenberg, who has a DPhil from Oxford in a field of philosophy of religion. I'm sure he can find us other sources as well, although the point is not immediately relevant to this discussion. There cannot be a double standard here, since I apply no standard in this discussion -- I am forbidden from moderating it by our own moderation policy, as I am already involved. If you do believe violations of forum policy have occurred, feel free to report them. But ydoaPs has not shown a consistent pattern of using appeals to authority and other fallacies in debates.

Very well. Let's consider the possibility that they are competing goods. Hm. I think I'm beginning to understand your point, so let me double-check before I continue. You're saying that there may be multiple competing goods God attempts to maximize. As such, it is impossible to fully maximize any one good, because that would cause the neglect of another. Because God can only achieve what is possible, he achieves as much moral perfection as is possible without harming the other goods. Were he to disregard other goods (such as love, for example) he'd be able to achieve greater moral perfection, but those other goods are important and possibly (but not necessarily) more important than moral perfection. Have I got that right? Not exactly. It's only a fallacy when the authority is not a legitimate authority on the particular subject. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

That needs to go on the 2012 Spud Gun Wall Calendar.

Perhaps that's a discussion for another thread. I agree that the Old Testament God often seems to be immoral, but it's only tangentially related to the original topic of this thread.

Depends. Does it fail at disproving the existence of a perfectly moral, omnipotent, omniscient God? I don't think so. Do we actually believe in a God with those attributes? Perhaps not. There are many versions of morality. You are right that a moral relativist (which you appear to be) could apply morality to God and find him immoral. However, from a theological moral perspective, one could say God is the source of moral knowledge, and hence He creates the standards. This is particularly attractive to some Christian groups, who claim that moral relativism ("morality has no standard and is different for everyone") is unacceptable and plain wrong. Kant believed there is one single rational form of morality, and God, as a rational being, would be forced to abide by it if we are to consider Him moral. So yes, my argument only works with certain forms of morality.

Then they're not competing or exclusive values, and so this isn't relevant. If they're exclusive, and he values love over moral perfection, than moral perfection is not possible to achieve. You're not exactly doing the best job of clarifying. If I am not understanding you properly, please explain in more detail. Yes. So Anselm says God is perfect, because he has the best of all possible attributes. Being "perfect in every way" is neither possible nor necessary, because God is only perfect in those things that make him greater. Look, you originally argued this: If we have another attribute of value that is mutually exclusive, and God values that higher, He will by necessity not be able to achieve moral perfection. For example, if love were a mutually exclusive but more desirable attribute, God could become perfect in love, but would be logically unable to be morally perfect. Correct? (This is not to say that love is indeed more desirable or mutually exclusive; feel free to substitute in any other property you believe meets those requirements.) If this is true, then you're saying the argument fails in the case that God is unable to be morally perfect. This is quite true, because the argument rests on the premise of God's moral perfection, and removing that makes the argument fail.

Hm. I think there's a loophole in this argument that allows us to have a morally good God. Assuming the OP's argument is valid, we can't have a morally perfect omnipotent omniscient God. Jettisoning moral perfection is unattractive because God's moral perfection is the foundation of much of our current theology. Suppose, however, consider the matter of justice rather than moral perfection. Is God perfectly just? Well, "just" might mean: Giving someone what is owed to them, as in repaying a debt. Correctly applying higher rules to reach a decision, as in a judge making a just decision. However, neither definition clearly applies to God: God does not owe anyone anything, and there are no higher rules. God cannot be considered just or unjust. Similarly, we might argue that God cannot be considered moral or immoral in his actions, because there are no higher standards. (Clearly one cannot accept Kantian morality for this argument to work.) Now, it might seem like we've just gotten rid of God's moral perfection, but doctrine could still hold that God's word is morally perfect: that is, God's commands are always good. God himself cannot be moral or immoral, and so whether or not he creates perfectly moral beings can't be held against him; but as a matter of faith, we could still hold that God always commands moral things. (Just avoid reading certain bits of the Old Testament for that last part.) Would this still be an acceptable perception of God, which avoids the OP's argument but is still theologically attractive? Or have I screwed up somewhere?

Unfortunately, if we knew exactly which citizens were law-abiding and which weren't, we wouldn't need to be giving out guns, because we'd have gotten rid of all the non-law-abiding ones.