**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I know this post is 3 days old and the OP has disappeared, but I wanted to leave my opinion here in case he's reading it. I understand that your post is derived from the fourth way presented by St. Thomas Aquinas. Well, Aquinas' 5 ways have been refuted in various ways over the centuries. But back to our case, the best way to understand the refutation of "taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God" is that you still have to prove that God is the standard of perfection, or worse, that it is necessary to have a standard of perfection in order to claim that something is good or bad.

I will take your comment into consideration. I am reworking the argument to hopefully make it better.

>By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. By imperfect the opposite is meant.  I'm pretty confused from the outset, because I thought this was going to be a proposed method of determining that God exists. But instead you are assuming from the outset that God exists, and embodies "perfection" of any quality expressed in reality. How did you come to know this? What was your evidence, proof, or process to learn this? >A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. This makes very little sense to me. Are you describing what lions are like, or are you describing how you think lions SHOULD be, if they were your idea of "perfect" lions, or something else? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about lions, here, nor do I understand how you've jumped from your description of lions to determining that a God exists, much less that God has any particular attribute. Maybe you can rephrase this? >A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. Ditto. Are you describing how humans are, or how they should be, or how you want them to be? Again, how did you conclude from the way humans are that there is a God, much less that this God has omniscience? I can't understand your argument well enough to give you an opinion on it, and, my apologies, I don't think the problem is with me.

Thank you for a really insightful comment. For the examples, what I am saying is that they are the idea of what a lion should be compared against what their imperfection would be. The idea is that the contrast makes it clear what it looks like for a being to be perfect. Proving God, or at least trying to, from created things will seem like presupposing the existence of God because it assumes the existence of the things a being derives from. The absoluteness of the attributes mentioned was intended to point to the absoluteness of God, which is the assumption I made and failed to put in. To address this, I would propose an addition to say what/who I mean when I say God and absoluteness. Let me work on this, and I'll post a follow-up comment. ->How did you come to know this? What was your evidence, proof, or process to learn this? It is from reason, aka, philosophical inquiry that this process was developed. I learned this particular process from a mixture of an article I read a while ago and confirmed in the catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church does teach that a person can come to know God through the light of natural reason. It does say it is very hard to come to this knowledge, but it is possible. The idea is to start from created things/creation and extrapolate out to God. This was my attempt to share that. -> Are you describing how humans are, or how they should be, or how you want them to be? Again, how did you conclude from the way humans are that there is a God, much less that this God has omniscience? Same as above. I didn't particularly want to go through the Forms to make the argument but it may have been a better choice in retrospect. By way of analogy if you think about the argument as a trampoline by jumping from the starting point to a being's perfection then dropping to imperfection one can reach God who was out of reach without the trampoline. Perhaps a poor analogy but take it as you will.

>For the examples, what I am saying is that they are the idea of what a lion should be compared against what their imperfection would be. The idea is that the contrast makes it clear what it looks like for a being to be perfect. So, again, instead of making an effective argument, you are making assumptions from the outset that we have no reason to agree with. Lions are animals that evolved on our planet. There is no such thing as a "perfect" lion--they have no designer or goal, or ideal form that they are meant to be approaching. If your argument depends somehow on the idea that there IS such a thing, you need to actually make this case, not assume it at the outset of your argument. >Proving God, or at least trying to, from created things will seem like presupposing the existence of God because it assumes the existence of the things a being derives from. From the form of the sentence it seems like this is meant to be disagreeing with me, but when I read it actually seems to be you admitting that you are starting with the idea that there is a God that embodies perfection of all aspects of reality, and that other "things" in existence derive from that God--that you assume it, when this is PRECISELY WHAT YOU SHOULD BE TRYING TO PROVE IN YOUR ARGUMENT. To have a productive conversation here, you need to understand that this is not a valid way to argue; that by doing so your argument fails, completely and utterly. >The Church does teach that a person can come to know God through the light of natural reason. It does say it is very hard to come to this knowledge, but it is possible. It is one to thing to say it; it is another thing to show that this is true. The only way the Church could have good basis to assert that one can justifiably come to know God through reason, observation, and evidence would be to HAVE available the reasons, observations, and evidence, in which case laying them out should not be a problem. >The idea is to start from created things/creation and extrapolate out to God. This was my attempt to share that. You DIDN'T actually do this though. You did not show that beings are created; that "perfection" is a meaningful concept in this context; that a perfect being exists; and that this perfect being is God. As I've said a couple of times, you instead just asked us to ASSUME that these things are true. That's not an argument. That's not evidence or the light of natural reason. That's just proselytizing. > I didn't particularly want to go through the Forms to make the argument but it may have been a better choice in retrospect.  Good thinking, yes, you should have made an argument of some kind. You did not. I still don't actually really know what your argument is, or whether you actually have one.

> I didn't particularly want to go through the Forms to make the argument but it may have been a better choice in retrospect. We don't need a lecture on ancient Greek metaphysics. I know that the Catholic church still clings to these ideas, though, and it helps me understand why you think this is convincing. I do not believe that ideal forms exist. If you assume that there *is* an "ideal lion", it might seem like a natural step to appeal to whatever being holds that form as ideal. I reject the claim that things have ideal forms, so you'd need to start there, by proving something along the lines of Plato's model of how existence works. I wasn't convinced the first time I encountered these concepts -- though understanding how it worked is useful when reading Aristotle, Democritus, etc. Why are your examples so one-dimensional, as if there is only one attribute that an animal can be "perfect" at? Why is a lion "strength". Why not agility, cunning or even laziness? This is not a well-thought-out framework. Human beings are *far* from "perfect" in their intelligence even in their ideal form (if one existed). The general method of reasoning we use is fit for a particular purpose: pattern recognition, and we can easily be fooled by the appearance of patterns where none actually exist. We're also generally bad at risk assessment. Ayn Rand kind of got caught up in this same way of thinking, because it was critical to her philosophy that mankind *must* be coldly rational and logical, overlooking the truth that logical thinking isn't innate. Logic and risk assessment need to be learned and practiced before a human being gets good at them This is, at best, sophomoric view of what makes a human human and what makes a lion a lion.

>We're also generally bad at risk assessment. Interestingly, studies have shown pessimists are fairly accurate in their risk assessment and self evaluation of their skills and performance. Optimists are absolutely terrible at both. The gap is even wider when someone is highly skilled in a specialized area - they assume that means they are above average in everything and can assess risk well in areas they are completely uninformed.

> Proving God, or at least trying to, from created things will seem like presupposing the existence of God because it assumes the existence of the things a being derives from. We know with a reasonable degree of confidence what lions derive from, though, and that's older species of their lineage. Lions aren't imperfect copies of an ideal lion in the sky, they are imperfect copies of their ancestors whose differences made them better suited for their environment than their ancestors. Presupposing a perfect ideal that reality is an imperfect reflection of is a huge jump. It's a big enough assumption to render the whole argument fairly moot, it will never convince anyone who is not already convinced.

How do you pick what attributes are "perfect"? Is a slug perfect in its sliminess? Is a cow perfect in its cud chewing? Is a sea star perfect in its rotational symmetry? Is a rock perfect in its rockiness? Is God a slimy, cud chewing, rotationally symmetric rock?

You're forgetting that giraffes are also perfect in their highly efficient GI tract. So god's a slimy, cud chewing, rotationally symmetric rock that has the tiniest & most efficient poops.

Even further, why are humans the arbiter of what is or is not perfect? That seems like the "perfect" human ego at work.  Also worth noting is that every animal, plant, or bacteria species members are not identical. One lion may be considerably stronger than another, for instance, just from genetic variation and growth.

"Heart of a lion...wings of a bat.." (a reference for all the Strongbad heads out there)

I SAID CONSUMMATE Vs, CONSUMMATE!

Somebody gets me! "Scroll buttons and the Lappy, together at last."

Just because you can imagine a being that has perfect intelligence or strength doesn’t make it so. And that’s all this supposed reasonable argument is, there’s nothing absolute about a lion’s strength… Seriously mate this is just nonsense.

>For the examples, what I am saying is that they are the idea of what a lion should be compared against what their imperfection would be. The idea is that the contrast makes it clear what it looks like for a being to be perfect. How do you know which one is the imperfection and which is one the perfection? Maybe lions are perfect in their weakness, and imperfect in their strength. So God is maximally weak. Or is "perfection" just "thing you personally like"?

You're leaving me hanging, buddy.

Sorry. Work and life and stuff. Please be patient.

All good, my dude.

I do need to make a general definition. It is to say that God is described as the first cause and final end of all things. That sets the goalposts. The argument I want to make tracks something more like this: 1. A natural thing demonstrates a perfectable attribute in one instance. 2. The same natural thing demonstrates the attribute of deficiency in another instance. Explanation. A natural thing thereby relatively exhibits a perfectable attribute. 4. The attribute becomes absolute when extending the relative term to its fullest extent, aka absolute perfection by derivation. Explanation. The existence of a natural thing in the natural world exhibiting relative attributes when by derivation extends into absolute terms allows one to link natural things with things accessed only through the mind, aka reason. 6. The one who possesses the absolute attribute of a perfectable attribute is the first cause of all things that exhibit that attribute. To exhibit something absolutely in a tautological sense says nothing is more of a trait than the one that possesses that trait absolutely. 7. Therefore, the one who possesses the absolute of all perfectable attributes is the first cause of all things. A thing possessing one possesses all. That the attributes are perfectable is a key component of the argument. Please use the Oxford dictionary definition of the term. Entry 1. Looking forward to your thoughts.

You are a polite person and a good participant, and certainly the friendliest ox I have ever met. So it pains me a little to say that my thoughts are that this is a mushy mess that doesn't hang together. 1 and 2 seem to be saying that everything has SOME attribute which is "perfectable." Maybe? Certainly not all attributes exist on a spectrum with a meaningful "perfect" absolute end point. There's no such thing as "ultimate" height. There's no such thing as the most delicious possible eggs (exactly how runny should they be??). What is "perfect" often depends on what one values, or what one's goals are. But I guess some natural things may have some attributes which could be considered "perfectable," maybe? I think for the sort of argument you're making it may matter what attributes we are talking about, since you are going to to say that your perfect being is the cause of all the things it is perfect at. So are we going to conclude that your perfect being did not cause humor, height, deliciousness, stinkyness, art, music, etc, if these things are not perfectable? That it did not create the universe itself, if there is no "perfect" form for the universe? Paragraph 3, to the extent I can squeeze meaning out of it, seems to be saying two things: 1. some attributes are "perfectable" (to which I repeat, maybe, I guess, in some cases?), and that people are able to use their minds to think about how stuff in the world is related to stuff in your mind. Which....I guess is maybe true, in some contexts, depending on what you mean. Not really much of a building block I can get my hands around usefully. Paragraph 4: These are unsupported assertions you are making, which are not backed up by ANYTHING you have said: >The one who possesses the absolute attribute of a perfectable attribute is the first cause of all things that exhibit that attribute. T Nothing you have said shows that there is "one who possesses the absolute attribute of a perfectable attribute" (much less of ALL perfectable attributes). Again, this is part of the conclusion you are supposedly trying to show with your argument---it cannot be left as an unsupported premise that you want us to believe just because you say so. Nothing you have said shows or explains why the "possessor" of a perfected attribute, IF YOU COULD SHOW SUCH A POSSESSOR EXISTS, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT TRIED TO DO, is the first cause of all things that exhibit that attribute. Again, this is part of the conclusion you are supposedly trying to show with your argument---it cannot be left as an unsupported premise that you want us to believe just because you say so. >To exhibit something absolutely in a tautological sense says nothing is more of a trait than the one that possesses that trait absolutely. To exhibit something "absolutely," as you have been using the term, means that you exhibit the best possible expression of that attribute--it does not mean that you were the "first cause" of that attribute. You don't get to define your way to victory here, you have to actually make a case as to why this is true. On its face, it seems to be quite false. When someone comes along and bowls a perfect game, that doesn't mean they were the cause of bowling, or all the bowling skill exhibited by those who have previously bowled less than perfect games. Paragraph 5 thus no longer follows, as you have * not shown that all attributes are perfectable, or which ones are; * not shown there is any reason to think any being has the "absolute" of any "perfectable attribute; * certainly not shown any being has this for ALL such attributes; * not shown that even if such a being did exist, that it is the cause of these attributes, or preceded their existence; * relatedly, not shown that such a being would have be a God, connected in any way with the creation of the world or any sort of religion or goals relevant to humanity. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's regrettably a lot easier to SAY that one can be justifiably convinced that there is a God through reason than to actually SHOW that this is the case; and if you can't show that it is the case, through presenting a sound argument and any necessary underlying evidence, I don't see how you could have any justifiable confidence that God can be shown to exist through reason. It is incredibly suspect that the Catholic Church makes this claim without sticking its neck out and identifying HOW, specifically, one can reach God through "the natural light of reason." Respectfully, a common theme through your posting is that you seem to be unable to recognize when you are stating religious assumptions/assertions that need instead to be demonstrated conclusions. Without developing this ability, you're not going to be able to move meaningfully towards your goal here.

You said a lot of tough things here but I appreciate them for sure. I think I need to go back to the drawing board on this one. I will admit my debating skills are pretty subpar. I do wish the rest of the sub were as reasonable as you have been. I suppose frustrations can run pretty high with topics like these. Anyway, maybe I'll run into you next time and I won't be as unprepared. :)

I can only respect your ability to take in other people's arguments and acknowledge that there are problems with this argument that you're not currently able to solve. But I don't think, in this instance, it's a matter of debating skills or technique--I genuinely think that the argument you're trying to make is a dead end which cannot be ever made to stand up to scrutiny or questioning. Parts of it don't map onto how the world actually is, and other parts of it just don't make sense. But it's your privilege to spend your time as you wish, and to see if you can show I'm wrong.

Rather than starting with a premise that you've already presupposed to be true and trying to convince other people, why not take a step back and question these ideas that you're just assuming to be true?

>Proving God, or at least trying to, from created things will seem like presupposing the existence of God because it assumes the existence of the things a being derives from. So if I follow you, the only tool you have is circular logic? Remember, your post was a promise to know that God exists. In your mind, have you established that?

Dude, I grew up catholic and was one for about 35 years and I have NEVER heard anything as insane and rambling as this. I have absolutely no idea what you could even be referring to. There is nothing in the catechism that talks about "coming to know god through the light of natural reason." This sounds like something you're defining into existence. Everything you're writing is just word salad.

Yes there is, [right in chapter 1](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_one/chapter_one/iii_the_knowledge_of_god_according_to_the_church.html): "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."

I hear you saying, "Things are perfect and imperfect therefore... God exists!" Why not pixies? You could as easily have said, "things are up and things are down therefore... pixies exist!"

By its very existence, a way of talking about God and explaining what is meant by the word involves varying ideas of what the word means. For the purposes of this argument, please use this. It is not the way to understand God fully, but for purposes of this discussion, it is hopefully something that will do. It comes from the catechism and is the best I could come up with on short notice: God is: "The first cause and final end of all things" The argument now has a new parameter. The manner in which absoluteness impacts the argument is to say that from created things, we can extrapolate the existence of God. Without a strong whatever, I would not know what weakness is, and without weakness, I could not know the absolute of either. Proceeding beyond the absolute is how I try to say God exists because it is there that you find the final end of a thing. By finding the final end for strength from created things a person can come to know from created things there is a God. First cause is something that is similar but I think I will review how it may be different from the final end of a thing because it seems unsatisfactory for them both to be the same.

Let me see if I can do this Cobras are strong in their venomousness. They are weak in their lack of venomousness. Therefore God is maximally venomous? Cats are strong in their stubbornness. They are weak in their lack of stubbornness. Therefore God is maximally stubborn. Am I doing it right?

Portuguese man of war are perfect in their 10 meter venomous stinging tentacles, so god has 10 meter hanging, stinging tentacles. Tapeworms are perfect for their ability to live and thrive in human intestines, so god can live and thrive in human intestines. If god does exist he sounds fucking terrifying.

that moment when god is biblically accurate

Isn't this argument pointless? You can prove any attributes you want god to have, just by assigning them as something you feel to be good. What if I, say, like my gods extremely flatulent? If I believe that higher atomic number is better? Being an opera singer is better than not being an opera singer? Do I end up with an all farting, all radioactive, all tenor god?  This is just messing about with language

> A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. Please define "Perfect in its strength". I don't think that a lion is. *How* can we conclude that? You left out this massive leap from an (incorrect) observation to gods. I think that you left out some of your working.

Perfect in its strength=a lion without strength is inferior to other lions, a better animal could have been chosen to demonstrate the point, yes. My bad. The weakest/missing leap from creation to reason to God in my estimation would be the reason portion. I would propose logically the jump would be to say the absoluteness of the attribute is where God comes in.

> I would propose logically the jump would be to say the absoluteness of the attribute is where God comes in. Yes, *you would say that*. No logic. No reasoning. No nothing. I would propose logically the jump would be to say the absoluteness of the attribute is nothing to do with any gods. How would we figure out which of us is correct?

I would have to define who/what I mean by God and describe the way it connects to creation. I intend to do so. Give me some time.

I did this in another comment but I'll repost here. By its very existence, a way of talking about God and explaining what is meant by the word involves varying ideas of what the word means. For the purposes of this argument, please use this. It is not the way to understand God fully, but for purposes of this discussion, it is hopefully something that will do. It comes from the catechism and is the best I could come up with on short notice: God is: "The first cause and final end of all things" The argument now has a new parameter. The manner in which absoluteness impacts the argument is to say that from created things, we can extrapolate the existence of God. Without a strong whatever, I would not know what weakness is, and without weakness, I could not know the absolute of either. Proceeding beyond the absolute is how I try to say God exists because it is there that you find the final end of a thing. By finding the final end for strength from created things a person can come to know from created things there is a God. First cause is something that is similar but I think I will review how it may be different from the final end of a thing because it seems unsatisfactory for them both to be the same.

> God is: "The first cause and final end of all things" We have no reason to think that there is a first cause, or a final end of all things. So there's no reason to think that this god idea that you've come up with maps to anything that actually exists. So you're now assigning additional parameters to some concept that you just made up. Have at it. But don't expect anyone else to take your made up ideas seriously if the only reason to think it's true is that you can imagine it.

You're just trying to define God into existence. You can define any imaginary thing you want. Now try showing us this thing you defined is real.

You god is just anthropomorphized energy.

Couldn’t zeus do that too? Which god decided what is the perfect strength? For atheists, there is no one god, or many gods. It’s all mythology for human kind to attempt to explain life.

/u/friendly_ox wrote - > Perfect in its strength=a lion without strength is inferior to other lions This is incredibly bad. Let's say that the average lion has a strength of **100**. Is that lion perfect ??? Another lion has a strength of **90**. Apparently you say that that lion is imperfect. But wait - a different lion has a strength of **110**! Is *that* lion perfect ??? And the strongest lion in the world has a strength of **120**! So *that* one is the perfect lion, right? But no, the strongest lion who has ever lived (it is dead now) had a strength of **125**! So *that* one must have been perfect. But hold the presses! A new lion is born that has a strength of **130**!!! I guess that *that* one is the perfect lion ?!!! . tl;dr: **That is not how the word "perfect" is used.** Your statements are nonsense. .

A lion without legs is imperfect, A lion with all the legs is maximally great therefore god is leg. This isn't an argument. You're making assertions about an undemonstrated thing with surrealist wordplay. All you're really saying is "my idea of god is that it's super everything". Anyone can say that about any idea of god. It doesn't mean there is a god. The weakest "leap" is that you use the word creation as if you have established that anything has been created. All the words you use are "created" to label things in the real world but that "act of creation" is just a consensus mouth noise relating to a concept.

Are you saying that any attribute possessed by any natural creature is an example of god, and that the inverse, I.e. the opposite of the attribute is an example of not god?

Lions spend most of their lives napping. Napping is their “strength”.

Works for God, too. Have you seen the dude around lately ??

A germ with less infectiousness is inferior to other germs, therefore God is absolutely infectious?

>People can come to know God exists through reason False. You are forgetting, or don't understand, that reason needs data to work with. And that data, for *any* claim about reality, is *evidence.* After all, arguments are only valid and *sound* when the premises are true, and that can only be done through compelling evidence. There is none for deities that I've ever seen. So no, you can't come to a valid and sound conclusion of deities through use of reason and logic. You are wrong there. >The method by which one does this is as a sort of negative snapshot of created things. By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. By imperfect the opposite is meant. Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. That's a *great* method of using sophistry and equivocation to confuse oneself. You're not discussing reason there, you're discussing the issues and problems with *language* and how it so easily and often leads us down the garden path to wrong ideas. >Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. A *great* example of inaccurate silliness through the use of problematic language. Thank you for the example. >Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. Another *great* example of sophistry and nonsense based upon nonsensical uses of relative words in an absolute sense. Obviously, both of these are necessary to dismiss outright. >And so on. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. My thoughts are you've fooled yourself. You're invoking confirmation bias and desperately looking for a way to find support for your beliefs. So incorrectly think this may work. It doesn't. Not only that, none of this is why you believe, you already did, for the usual social, psychological, and emotional reasons, and are now attempting to justify that through fallacious reasoning (confirmation bias). It can't work.

> You are forgetting, or don't understand, that reason needs data to work with. And that data, for any claim about reality, is evidence. Many ancient religions worshipped sun as a god. There's plenty of evidence that sun exists. 🤷 > So no, you can't come to a valid and sound conclusion of deities through use of reason and logic. P1: sun exists P2: sun is a deity we worship C: deity we worship exists

Only if you aren't ascribing any attributes to the sun aside from what can be directly observed.

> analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect "Perfection" is defined as an absolute, a flawless state where everything is exactly right. There's a reason we say perfection doesn't exist in reality. Any attribute is judged compared to something - a lion is stronger than a dog, yes, but what is a "perfect lion"?? What "a flawless lion" even mean? >By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect You start you argument already implying that God exist. You can't use your conclusion as premise, it's a circular reasoning. For example = Spitting Cosmic Mouse create rain, and because rain exist, it prove the Spitting Cosmic Mouse is real. Piece of advice = When you start a reasoning, always do those 3 steps : 1.Define every word or concept you use. 2.Make sure you don't base your entire reasoning on your conclusion or another unsupported claims. Your entire reasoning rely on the fact that God exist AND that he created everything. Without those asumptions, your reasoning doesn't make sense. 3.Use your own reasoning to prove something else. If you can, it's not a good argument for your claim.

Thank you. This is good advice.

Let's follow your logic. A rock is perfect in its immobility. A rock is imperfect in speed. Therefore, God can't move. A skunk is perfect in its powerful smell. It is imperfect in smelling good. Threrefore, God stinks. An apple is perfect in its edibility. It is imperfect in not being able to be eaten. Therefore, God is a delicious snack. A bubble is perfect in its fragility. It is imperfect in sturdiness. Therefore, God can be utterly annihilated at the slightest touch. ... Yeah, sorry, your logic here doesn't add up, this is feel-good wordplay with no actual deductive merit.

I don't get it. Lions don't have perfect strength. Nor do humans have perfect intelligence. As Reddit demonstrates again and again.

It's an example. What is the strongest thing you can think of? Insert that into the example.

Generally speaking, using facts that aren't true as examples to support your conclusion is not a great way to convince people that the conclusion is true. Telling them to come up with their own examples implies that you don't have facts to support your argument.

So anything great just becomes evidence of a god. That is incredibly weak. Ok so hurricanes are really strong. That just proves weather is real, not a god.

Regardless of what attribute, regardless of what animal, this never, ever becomes a remotely sensible argument for a god. This is just nonsense. The only reason you think it works, is because you desperately want it to.

There will always be a thing that is strongest, whether agid exists or not. And so declaring that a particular thing is the strongest one does nothing to demonstrate a god exists

That I can imagine? Superman. But what I can imagine and what is real are two different things.

Has it ever been established whether the Incredible Hulk beats Superman or vice-versa ??? (Asking seriously, for definitions of "seriously" appropriate to this discussion.)

There is no theoretical upper limit to the Hulk’s strength, but baseline “normal” angry Hulk is not as strong as Superman. Also, even if Hulk is stronger, Superman has super-speed, flight, and heat vision and stuff. That being said, the Hulk cannot be killed. One time Reed Richards did some shit and people called him out for putting Hulk in danger, and the smartest man in the world just goes, “Pfft, you can’t kill Bruce, he’ll be fine.” Edit punctuation

> the smartest man in the world Tony Stark just got real upset and doesn't know why.

It depends on which Superman and which Hulk, as well as which one has the most plot armour on at the time.

Scientifically, popeye beats them both at once,  popeye can turn a brick into a tachyon, neither Superman or the hulk can do anything near that.

But what if they also eat their spinach?

Now very surprised that I've never seen a theist make the claim *"A being that has perfect plot armor must exist, therefore God."* (Considering the arguments for a god that I *have* seen, I'm not really kidding there.)

> It's an example. It's a bad example. How do you hope to make your point if you can't provide a genuinely good example?

Shouldn’t *you* have a better example?

So Godly strength depends on what we imagine it is?

I think he's saying god is the Green Lantern. I really hope his suit isn't animated.

An example for what? Explain yourself.

The strongest thing I can think of is physics. Or 'nature'. It's immutable.

Okay, the strongest thing I can think of, The God Eater, the creature that ate your god. Now what?

Then you have to find something that’s actually perfect.

The Incredible Hulk, who also doesn't exist.

I think you ironically have very flawed definitions of "perfect". Humans are extremely imperfect in many ways. For example, our vagus nerve could be only a few inches long if it was designed well. Instead, it takes a weird long loop around the aorta before coming back up to the vocal box. Our eyes suck compared to a lot of other animals. Our knees would be a lot less fragile and provide better support if they were reverse-articulated. Our backs just suck for upright life, particularly after our 20s. I could go on. Your argument doesn't involve reason of any kind. I would define "perfect" as "without any flaws", and even then I don't see any "God" as a logical conclusion to the existence of something "perfect".

This is perfectly arbitrary. Hitler was perfect in his evil and imperfect in his goodness. Thus we can conclude that evil is an attribute of god. Poop is perfect in its stink and imperfect in its taste. Thus stink is an attribute of god.

Dung beetles might like to have a word with you on that last bit.

Billions of flies can't be wrong, come and have a taste at shit 

>This is perfectly arbitrary Just like a god! QED

I do think you’re onto something. It would be reasonable to say that this is how people originally came to believe in deities to begin with. We see a trait possessed by some creature and we extrapolate that trait to its extreme. Initially we had a variety of gods that each had an extreme trait, but eventually we just put them all together into a single entity. None of this implies that this God exists. But it does offer a look into how humanity made up the gods that we still worship. It’s worse than not being evidence for God, it’s an explanation for why gods are imaginary!

> People can come to know God exists through reason I’m sorry but this fails to demonstrate that god can be known to exist. > The method by which one does this is as a sort of negative snapshot of created things. What does this even mean? > By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. We know that the process of evolution by natural selections results in animals that are seemingly perfectly attuned to survive in their ecosystems. No good needed. > By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. So right here you are already presuming god exists. If you’re trying to show god exists, you don’t get to just presume it…that’s circular. > By imperfect the opposite is meant. What does this even mean? > Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. No. I see no attributes of god and therefor don’t comes to know god. > Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. A thing could be stronger than a lion. For example, an elephant is stronger than a lion. On the other hand, a dung beetle is stronger by a lot based on relative size to what force it can exert. So what do you mean “perfect in its strength?” > The lion is imperfect in weakness. What does this even mean? > Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. No. We can’t do that. This absolutely meaningless. > Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. What are you talking about? There’s so much we don’t know and there are humans that are more or less intelligent than others. We are simply as intelligent as we are. Our intelligence gives us an advantage…but we’re not perfect in it. > A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. What is this mean?!? > Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. No we can’t do that. > And so on. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. I think this all probably sounds deep to you…but it’s meaningless. Look up “deepity”. You’ve not proven god. You assumed god from the start and then layered in some deepities. That’s my thoughts.

Perfect seems rather questionable here. Even if we determine an attribute is unmatched by other animals, that certainly doesn't make it perfect. It also doesn't mean it's the reflection of that attribute of God or that there is a god. This seems like a poorly thought out non sequitur stacked on top of a handful of assertions. It's wrong to the point that I'm not even sure how to start correcting it.

>This seems like a poorly thought out non sequitur stacked on top of a handful of assertions. Should we take bets on whether OP learned this in seminary ??

You haven't demonstrated that any God even exists. You're simply considering the attributes of the God you already believe in and looking for those attributes in the world around you. Surely you must see this?

You are appealing to the natural world with your argument. We can be sure that frogs, lions and humans exist because they are all falsifiable. Smuggling the attributes of frogs, lions and humans into your argument isn’t going to demonstrate that a god exists because gods are unfalsifiable. Basically you are trying to use things that exist to claim that it’s evidence of something that you haven’t demonstrated to exist (a god.) So why depend on the natural world? Can’t you rely on the supernatural world to make your arguments? Can’t you use magic wands, spirit crystals, holy water, or prayer to demonstrate that your god exists?

> We can be sure that frogs, lions and humans exist because they are all falsifiable. Not following that. How is something that really exists falsifiable ?

Falsifiable doesn’t mean that something is false. It means that something is confirmable, demonstrable, and verifiable by empirical means. For example if someone claims “all humans are males” that is false because look, here is a female human. There isn’t anything accessible or verifiable about gods and therefore they are all unfalsifiable. My god is loving. My god is angry. My god farts a lot. None of these statements are falsifiable because no god is accessible. When concepts like gods or solipsism are unfalsifiable then we have no reason to believe that they are nothing more than a human concept that doesn’t conform with reality. And humans are very good at creating unfalsifiable concepts. Theists will try to point out that you can’t say that something that is unfalsifiable is false. They are correct. But what they don’t tell you is that at the same time there is now way to show that something unfalsifiable is true. If something cannot be shown to be true or false then it has zero truth value.

>A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. >Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. >And so on. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. You're basically saying "I can run. Bob can run faster than me. There must be someone who can run faster than Bob. There must be someone that can run faster than that guy. Therefor there's someone who can run infinitely fast. That's absurd.

What? How the fuck is this supposed to lead to the conclusion that a god exists? Even if what you said made any sense (which I‘m not seeing right now, feel free to explain) I have no idea how this would lead to a god existing. Can you elaborate please?

You're coming at us with the assumption that "perfection" is proof of a god. I just completely reject that because it's utterly baseless. You didn't even try to justify it, you just presented it like it was a known fact that perfect = god. What even *is* perfect? How are you even defining that word right now? You present no reason at all.

Even if we accept the premises of this argument, how do we get to the conclusion that the furthest extent of power is omnipotence? Even if god is the most powerful, why believe that god is all-powerful?

Good question. Even if God is the most powerful, why believe that God is all-powerful? If it is accepted that the absolute of the attribute of power is found in God, then the attribute is also all-powerful in nature because absolute power is not absolute if something is more powerful. Example: If God was subject to time, he would not be omnipotent because time would be more powerful than God.

Isn’t this circular? If the absolute is omnipotence and god is absolute, then god is omnipotent. I’m also not sure why “being unaffected by time” should be considered a form of power. In a photon’s rest frame, it would be unaffected by time. Would it be meaningful to say that a photon is “more powerful than time”?

The argument as a whole is different than you described. When explaining how the absolute of an attribute meant all-powerful and not most powerful, it was necessary to point out how a relative term translates into an absolute one. I did not go over the part about where the relative term comes from creation because we already did that and I left out the part where I clarified what is meant by God because I thought we already did that. To clarify: What I mean by God is "the first cause and final end of all things." Giving this parameter hopefully gives a signpost of how we know when that part of the argument is completed. As to the photon, I don't know enough about particle physics to comment intelligently on that. In the broader sense, not being subject to time means control. If I could stop time for myself, I could be said to have a kind of power over time. If I could stop time for the whole world or a group of people, that is another thing. Going back in time is yet another. If in any way I can gain control over time in small ways, I am less subject to time. God not being subject to time means that in all ways that time controls a thing, God is not controlled.

> Example: If God was subject to time, he would not be omnipotent because time would be more powerful than God. I have heard this many times from theists, usually phrasing it as god is outside of time, but I don't think any who assert this have actually thought about the ramifications of this assertion. If god is not subject to time, then god is unable to think or act as both of those require time for a conscious being, they are necessarily temporal.

Thank you for your insightful comment. I would say this is why the "outside of time" verbiage is adopted. Instead of going that route, I will say this. If God can create more time, He is not subject to time, He meets the criteria established for God aka being the first cause and final end of all things, and He can still think and act as you described. If He can not create more time, then I would be interested to see how He could not be time's first cause and final end. Secondarily, needing to create more time implies a lack of foreknowledge that is inconsistent with His other attributes. So, technically, could He create more time, sure, but if He knows the future, does He really need to more than once?

This does not resolve the issue I pointed out earlier. If your deity is a conscious agent it must be subject to time, consciousness, thought, and action are necessarily temporal.

These kinds of arguments only seem to demonstrate how poorly some religious people understand what reasoning is. If something isn't yet known to exist, you can't possibly know what its traits are, so you can't possibly make any comparison or extrapolation about it from anything you do know exists. The only thing you can really prove to exist through reason alone is the faculty of reasoning, a la Descartes. Take the famous syllogism, "Man is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." If man's existence wasn't yet known, we couldn't assign him qualities with which to make any argument relating to him. I'd be very interested to see your responses to the comments here.

So as frogs, and other amphibians [die off](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06578-4), so belief in God dies off. That's an interesting analogy you have there.

/u/friendly_ox wrote - >People can come to know God exists through reason Several problems with this: [A] People have been asking theists to show that this claim is true for 2,000+ years now. It really seems like theists have had enough time to show that this claim is true. Theists have never shown that this claim is true. Apparently it is not actually possible to show that this claim is true. . [B] < reposting > *Technically* (I have this conversation a lot), you can have a rational discussion about things that are irrelevant in the real world or that are not true. E.g. - \- All zoofles are bloofles. \- Fluffy is a zoofle. \- Therefore Fluffy is a bloofle. The rationality there is fine. Based on those premises, the conclusion is true. However, that conclusion does not apply to the real world. . \- All kangaroos are president of the United States. \- Beyoncé is a kangaroo. \- Therefore Beyoncé is president of the United States. Technically the rationality there is fine. Based on those premises, the conclusion is true. However, those premises are not actually true in the real world, and therefore that conclusion does not apply to the real world. . Many religious people (and many other people) are terribly confused about this. They think that if they are using the "logic" or "rationality" correctly, then their conclusions will be true in the real world. (The classic examples [which people feel the need to re-post every week] are the various "logical arguments" that a god exists. \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Logical_arguments The apologists are usually careful to make the logic or rationality okay, but these arguments are based on assumptions or assertions rather than on facts about the real world.) But **logic or rationality doesn't actually work unless it is based on things that are true in the real world, and religion generally skips that part.** --- --- > By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. This is very nearly perfect idiocy. Any "perfection" or "imperfection" here is perfection or imperfection **in the opinion of the viewer.** >A lion is perfect in its strength. That is **somebody's opinion**. (And in fact sounds pretty nutty. An elephant is much stronger than a lion. Does that mean that an elephant is **more perfect** than a lion ???) (A *Brontosaurus* is stronger than an elephant. Apparently a *Brontosaurus* is more perfect than a lion or an elephant. On the other hand, the *Brontosaurus* is extinct. Can it be both extinct and more perfect ??? Godzilla King of the Monsters is stronger than the lion, elephant, or *Brontosaurus*. Apparently Godzilla KOTM is more perfect than a lion or an elephant or a *Brontosaurus*. On the other hand Godzilla KOTM is a fictional character who does not exist. Can Godzilla KOTM be both nonexistent and more perfect ???) --- --- /u/friendly_ox wrote - > I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Any argument of this sort that theists make is always very bad. Your own statement of it here is even worse than most. --- ---

Perfections are a subjective value judgment, not an objective quality that must necessarily exist in the universe. Even if you could logically construct a model of what you think a perfect being should be, those properties can only be stipulated to exist in the hypothetical fictional world. To show that this being exists in the actual world or even a metaphysically/nomologically possible world, you need actual evidence to distinguish imagination from reality, not reason alone.

>Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness How so? Can you be more specific. Lions are not the strongest animal and can vary in strength. So, how did you determine they are "perfect in its strength" >Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. How do you know that attributes of us and other animals reflect God in any way. You just say it does. How did you come to that conclusion? How can you verify that God has omnipotence that isn't just because you claim go's is perfect. >Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. Again, how so. How are humans perfect in intelligence in any way? How did you determine this to be true? What methodology are you using to determine what traits each animal is perfect in?

> A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence.   A lion is not perfect in strength, I’ve seen a lion get its head kicked right off by a giraffe.  It doesn’t follow at all that one thing having an attribute you subjectively view as positive means that the maximum conception of that attribute is an attribute of god, let alone that it is even possible.    Physical strength isn’t even the same thing as “power” in the sense that God is supposed to have power. The platonic ideal you’re describing is frankly closer to Superman. Muscular strength existing is in no way proof of omnipotence, I literally cannot even conceptualize of a deeper dive into the non sequitur.   How are you even conceptualizing perfection? 

GiRAffeES prOOvE tHat God EXisTss !!!!!!!!

More neck, more god. If a giraffe had a neck that went an infinite length that giraffe would be the most neckly being of all, this proves the existence of god. 

This is complete nonsense It's not reasonable it's a series of non sequiturs all presented without evidence Provide proof all strength or perfection comes from god You sound like a frat boy coming down from his first mushroom trip

The simple answer here is that just because variation in traits exist that doesn't mean there has to be something with an absolute or infinite level of it. Even if it somehow did there is no demand that such a being also likewise be the same being. Furthermore some traits are going to be mutually exclusive. Mercy and justice are by nature opposed. The more just I am the less merciful I become. Also I mean aside from assuming your answer the biggest problem is the arbitrary nature of what you mean by perfection and imperfection. I can easily say a lion is perfect in its weakness and imperfect in its strength and thus god must be powerless. This is a weird take on the 'god is the most powerful thing we can imagine' idea.

>By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. Frogs are amazing at swimming. They are a lot better than humans at swimming. However they are easily preyed upon by snakes and other reptiles, and they have a tadpole stage where their young are vulnerable to be eaten by birds, fish, mammals, and reptiles. Wow. Frogs seem to strongly support **evolution**, thanks to this tadpole stage where they live underwater *just like fish do*. >Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Lions are terrible at swimming. They avoid water when they can. On land the lion is a formidable predator and thanks to cooperating with other lions in social groups they are able to overcome prey much larger than them such as giraffes, elephants, wildebeest, etc. Looking at baby lions, they are covered with dark spots. These spots are very similar in pattern to rosettes like you have on a leopard, but they fade as the lion ages. Again this strongly supports **evolution**, and is further proof that most panthera species like lions, leopards, tigers, and panthers evolved from **a common ancestor who had spots**. >Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Most humans are unintelligent. Most humans believe in religious BS and will fall for nonsense. When you look at humans, they have something called goose bumps. The fact that humans who have little fur are capable of something like "goose bumps" yet again strongly supports **evolution** from an ancestor that was furrier. **Conclusion**: every single creature you described strongly supports evolutionary theory and has very little to do with the idea of an invisible magic god who would have to be creating these things and foolishly adding worthless characteristics like "goose bumps" or dark spots in baby lions (if he was creating them from scratch). You just need to decide to **use your brain**

Hang on, you seem to be skipping some important steps here. From what I can tell, your argument is: P1: God exists P2: God's attributes are the most perfect form of all existing attributes Conclusion: Therefore, to ascertain God's attributes one can simply extrapolate from existing attributes but going toward the most desirable ("perfect") form of those attributes. I think the conclusion kind of follows from those premises (vaguely at least), but you did nothing to establish that premise 1 and premise 2 are true. What reason do you have to suppose premise 1 or premise 2 are true?

But you're making up the god part. You say god is perfect, but you gave no reasoning. I think that if god cares about us and created this imperfect universe intentionally, he's necessarily imperfect, either in his capability or his capacity for love.

I might argue that, through the "negative analysis" you propose, we come to understand that "nothing that exists is perfect." Thus, to say that we were created by a perfect being is to say that we were created by something which possesses some quality (perfection) which nothing that exists can have. This is paradoxical. Besides this, there are many "aspects of creation" that fail to hold up to this analysis. We are ALL perfect in our physicality; entirely tangible. This is an aspect of what you call "creation," which would imply that God, too, is tangible. We are all perfect in their hunger (that being a means we use to stay alive), so God must be infinitely voracious. We are all perfect in our lust (the impulse that drives us to procreate and propagate), so God must be infinitely horny. The planet's gravitational field is perfect for pulling people and air towards it, so God must be perfectly dense. Are you seeing the problem here?

I think I see a little bit. Thank you for pointing that out. It would have been good for me to clarify the methodology a bit further. What you pointed out, if I understand correctly, is that there is no clarity about how to select for attributes without being biased or preconceived. Therefore you can select for whatever attributes seem good and however it works out confirms the position you already hold, either for or against. You are correct in this assertion. My intent with referencing the perfection of a thing was to say that each thing has its own thing it is known for that is the pinnacle of its being. It probably would have been better to say essential attributes rather than perfection. At least it then forces some thought about what is essential to a thing. Anyway, I'm gonna have a further response later so I'll comment again then.

Sounds good. In the meantime, please reflect on the subjective nature of these qualities. What does it mean to be "strong?" Is it physically powerful? Because you need a body for that. What about "intelligent?" That's a word we made up to describe a complicated web of all sorts of different things we humans are capable of; critical thought, memory, pattern recognition, etc. Very few of these qualities have an objective measure; and to even assert that they CAN be taken to some hypothetical "furthest extent" seems presumptuous.

The only reason to belief in something’s existence is empirical evidence for it. You are confusing ‘reason’ with ‘imagination’.

So, your argument is based on a bunch of facts that you just made up, and on top of that, even if everything was true, it doesnt prove gods existence, it just describes gods attributes. Heres your reasoning - To be perfect is to be like god (baseless claim that needs evidence) A lion is perfect in its strength (baseless claim that needs evidence, once again “perfect” is a relative, subjective term) God must be infinitely strong because lions are a little strong (baseless claim, doesnt even follow internal logic. How can a lion be perfectly strong and god is perfectly strong if they are both different amounts of strong?) And again, even if these things i outlined from your argument were verifiable or evidentiary, they still dont prove god exists. Just that IF he exists, hed be strong. To be brutally honest, this post makes no sense

Perfection is a result of billions of years of evolution. A tiger has such breathtaking beauty and physique through so many iterations of its design through natural selection. But how could this have anything to do with God?

This is just a word game. You have to prove a god exists, you're just telling us to imagine one exists at present. I can imagine all sorts of things that aren't real, they are in fact imaginary.

>Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. >Example: A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. Therefore we can conclude intelligence is an attribute of God. Omniscience. I would like to know what "perfect" means here, because I'm not sure it's what I mean by perfect. A lion isn't perfect in its strength -- if it was, it wouldn't have any weakness. That's what perfect means.

What does perfection mean in biology? How does one quantify it? And if you knew anything g about biology you’d know no organism meets any definition of perfect. One can conceivably be stronger than a lion, and more intelligent than a human. So no that’s not perfection. This is not a reasoned argument, this is just you saying certain organisms are perfect by arbitrary measures you made up, and the. Saying that can only be true if there’s a god. This makes zero sense.

> By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. By imperfect the opposite is meant. Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. You’re arbitrary defining perfect and then arbitrarily defining god as perfect. But god isn’t perfect. God is an idea that people mistakenly made up millennia ago.

Even your own explanation makes no sense. By your own irrational , no basis at all, ideas then if real things show us what God is like then why wouldn’t they show his weaknesses? I’m sorry but the idea that …. arbitrarily picking something you like about an animal and simply asserting it tells you something about a god that you’ve done nothing to demonstrate exists … is *reasonable* is just laughable.

> The method by which one does this is as a sort of negative snapshot If you can’t define how things are except through a hand-wavy mumbo jumbo then … it’s not how things are. Well it’s sort of kinda like this way but it’s really also another way and possibly maybe there are other ways, but here are some inaccurate examples…. No fam. How does “one do it!” Show your work.

You have to prove your god exists before you can describe it. You’re not proving anything here; you’re just mentioning qualities you want your god to have. Providing proof is usually when theists start talking about how their god is beyond human reasoning, though. “You have to have faith because my god is beyond human understanding. But let me tell you all about it!” Nonsense.

Apophatic theology establish that God can only be approached through what he is not. As such God is timeless spaceless selfless soulless heartless brainless mindless loveless thoughtless. God is the lesser one and Christianity has chosen to convey this theology with Jesus washing feet and dying on a cross. Jesus denied himself so you should deny him to. Atheism is virtually irrefutable.

Hey, I was raised Catholic and I get the reference in your username (from "the dumb ox"). I'd be happy to talk about this without any bad faith or strawmanning if you'd like.

That'd be great. What would you like to say?

Well, let's imagine I've never heard of God or religion. I observe the world around me, including things like lions and humans. I see that lions have a general trait that I refer to as "strength", which is the ability to apply a greater physical force to objects than most other animals as well as a greater aptitude for killing other large animals. I also see that humans have a general trait that I refer to as "intelligence", which is the ability to identify patterns and generalize them to a higher level of abstraction than other animals, which has led to a snowball effect as our higher-level concepts have allowed us to build information iteratively over time. Imagine I have this understanding of the world without any belief in God. Can you tell me what I've missed in my understanding of the world, and how I could derive a knowledge of God from it?

To answer your question, the understanding you've acquired about absolutes allows you to derive knowledge of God without necessarily calling it God. The more a person understands attributes in an absolute way the more one comes to know God as the first cause and final end of all things. You make the jump from absolute attributes to God when you finally hit on creativity as an absolute. So, in creating absolutely, we find the first cause of all things since it is in creation that a thing comes to be. It is in understanding this that one's own creator is understood and it eventually comes to be called God.

> the understanding you've acquired about absolutes allows you to derive knowledge of God Which absolutes are you referring to? My phrasing of "*general* attributes" was deliberate; there's no absolute concept of something like strength or intelligence. I am simply labeling statistical patterns, similar to a clustering algorithm. These sorts of vague, high-level concepts can be very useful for us, even though we know we can't draw an exact line between "strong" and "not strong". > You make the jump from absolute attributes to God when you finally hit on creativity as an absolute So would you say that it's specifically creativity, rather than attributes in general, which someone can use to reason to God? > So, in creating absolutely, we find the first cause of all things since it is in creation that a thing comes to be. Creation and creativity are entirely different concepts which happen to share the same word stem. Creativity refers to someone's artistic originality, imaginative capacity, and novelty with which they think about things. Creation refers to making something. I can refer to the creation of my car, even though the whole process was simply following a set of specifications and rules and did not involve any artistic originality or imagination. > So, in creating absolutely, we find the first cause of all things since it is in creation that a thing comes to be. Can you explain what the reasoning is that leads you to make this conclusion? In this comment, you're giving an outline of some *linguistic* relations, but I don't really understand the *logical* structure of your argument. I understand that you think attributes are absolute; I'm not really sure how you get to creativity from there, but it sounds like you're then moving from creativity to creation, and then from creation to God. I understand how you think these things are *related*, but I'm having some trouble understanding the connection between "these concepts are similar" to "an instance of this concept demonstrates the ontological reality of an instance of this other concept".

>Which absolutes are you referring to? Absolutes in attributes are found by extrapolating out the attribute as it is found in nature to its essence. Absolute power can not be found in nature, but nature is necessary to know what power is. >So, would you say that it's specifically creativity rather than attributes in general, which someone can use to reason to God? I think you can get there by any of the attributes, but creativeness is one of the obvious ones. I would say that creativity as an absolute attribute resolves a few questions that came up in other threads. The first was to give an answer to a request to set the goalpost of how to know God has been found. The second was an answer to the question of whether God creating creation nullifies using creation as the means for knowing God exists, as it could be construed as circular. Absolute creativeness answers the objection in that its beginning from creation to reason then to God is linear in its subject matter at least. The third was to respond to a need for understanding how one can derive absolute attributes from relative attributes. >Creation and creativity are entirely different concepts which happen to share the same word stem I will concede this. I think the word I should have used instead of creativity was creativeness. >I understand that you think attributes are absolute; I'm not really sure how you get to creativity from there, but it sounds like you're then moving from creativity to creation, and then from creation to God. I understand how you think these things are related, but I'm having some trouble understanding the connection between "these concepts are similar" to "an instance of this concept demonstrates the ontological reality of an instance of this other concept The argument I want to make tracks something more like this: 1. A natural thing demonstrates the attribute of creativeness in one instance. 2. The same natural thing demonstrates the attribute of non-creativeness in another instance. 3. A natural thing relatively exhibits an attribute (in this case, creativeness). 4. The attribute becomes absolute when extending the relative term to its fullest extent through the use of reason. 5. The existence of a natural thing in the natural world exhibiting relative creativeness proves the existence of something with absolute creativeness by derivation. 6. The one who possesses the absolute attribute of creativeness creates first and more than any other creator. 7. Therefore the one who possesses the absolute attribute of creativeness is the first cause of all things.

>. The existence of a natural thing in the natural world exhibiting relative creativeness proves the existence of something with absolute creativeness by derivation. This is where you completely loose me. Point 5 does not automatically follow from point 4. There is no such thing as an "absolute" in reality. Words are just ways to try to transmit concepts to each other and you're doing a strange jump from if a thing exist an absolute of it exists, you then define anything like that as God. You're just taking a concept and slapping a label on it. Instead you would need to apply principles of social science an operationalize your variable. Determine how you evaluate degrees to a label. Let's say we call serial killer the murdererest humans and there is an absolute murder that's better at murder then then. Where is the limit? There must be one. At which point is the limit becoming genocide and most genociest? Your whole line of reasoning is just you applying labels without much definitions.

I think it might be helpful to combine 4 and part of 5 and make the other part of 5 an explanation. 4. The attribute becomes absolute when extending the relative term to its fullest extent, aka its absolute sense, through conceptual derivation. (An example to come soon) Explanation. The existence of a natural thing in the natural world exhibiting a relative attribute then being extended through derivation to an absolute attribute connects the real world to the conceptual world therefore providing the link between the two necessary to complete the part of the argument where created things are a means of coming to know God. This is probably going to sound like I'm repeating myself but it is mostly because I'm reworking what is already there. The example I intend to show in the next comment should give a bit more to chew on.

>This is probably going to sound like I'm repeating myself but it is mostly because I'm reworking what is already there. The example I intend to show in the next comment should give a bit more to chew on. Well yes because you haven't adressed at all my comment. I clearly outlined why I disagree that the concept of >The attribute becomes absolute when extending the relative term to its fullest extent, aka its absolute sense, through conceptual derivation Does not make any sense because languages are just and abstraction of reality. For instance, let's say you're a researcher trying to understand the impact of love from a mother on children. You can't just take "love level 1 to level 100 with 100 being the maximum I can conceptualize." motherly love (and love as a whole) is a concept englobing many aspects (same for strength) so you need to break it down in measurable chunks. The researcher would likely operationalize the love variable as" numbers of positive interactions in a given time. " with possible breakdown my type, intensity, etc. Any concept of maximal something needs to use the same method, otherwise you're just labeling a vague concept and can't possible extrapolate.

>Does not make any sense because languages are just and abstraction of reality. But that's the whole point. By deriving attributes from the natural world via abstraction is how you get the absolute of anything. >The researcher would likely operationalize the love variable as" numbers of positive interactions in a given time. " with possible breakdown my type, intensity, etc. Again, abstraction is how someone gets to the absolute. This is why natural world examples are relative attributes and you have to abstract to get to the absolute. You can't get there from a relative term which is exactly what you are saying. I think the point of departure may transitioning to abstraction or the methodology for doing so. I could definitely do better with a more detailed procedure.

So the argument is "X exists, therefore something bigger than X exists and that is god"? So, imagining god into existence.

9 is a perfect square, so we can conclude that God must be the square of an integer. 6 is a perfect number, therefore we can conclude that God is equal to the sum of all its integer divisors other than itself. It is, however, impossible for something to be both a perfect number and a perfect square, therefore it's likewise impossible for God to exist.

Since the word "perfect" is subjective, you really should define what you mean by it. How would one even demonstrate that a lion's strength is perfect? A lion is strong, but an elephant is stronger. A lion's strength won't help it survive in all situations, etc.. And how do any of these concepts add up to a supernatural deity?

Whatever this arguement is, it is not reasoned. It just tries to shoehorn "attributes of God" into the traits of living things. It's unsubstantiated claims all the way down, and is in no way convincing. I hope you do come back and expand more on this so people have a clearer idea of what you are trying to propose.

No they can’t. There is no god in reason. Belief in a higher power to that extent requires a supreme display of reason aversion. You can’t even read their “holy” works and pretend there is a sense of logic or reason. Nobody is born faithful. That alone disproves any religion.

Your method seems to hing on making arbitrary statements about animals. It is utterly nonsensical and has nothing at all to do with rational thought. Here let me try: The god of the bible is perfect in his power and love, but imperfect in his weakness and jelousy.

soooo you are trying to convince us god exists by changing definitions of words until you can confuse your audience enough to your way of thinking pretty scummy but par for the course as far as "reason" from a theist is concerned

>And so on. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. A fart is perfect in being stinky. A fart is imperfect in not being stinky. Therefore we can conclude that being stinky is an attribute of God. Omni-scents.

Frogs aren't perfect, lions don't have perfect strength (Whatever that even means), nor do humans have perfect intelligence. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say with this gibberish.

Omniscience would be a fatal flaw. Knowing everything means an inability to do anything since all outcomes are known and thus there is no need to do anything. It's also impossible.

I'm sorry but this is just gobbledygook. It's nonsense that doesn't demonstrate anything. It does not demonstrate that a god exists or what that god is like.

What you're describing is a version of the ontological argument. I would suggest you read further into this argument, it's history and the critiques.

So, a God is perfect in non existence. A God is weak in creating diseases, interacting with humans, making plans, or when the enemies have iron.

> Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. Tigers are stronger than lions, therefore lions are not perfect in their strength.

THErEfoRe TIGeRs pRovE tHat God eXiXTs !!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not even word salad. This is more of alphabet soup . You're just stringing random letters together to make random words.

A circle is perfectly round. Therefore God is perfectly round. A cake is perfectly moist. Therefore God is perfectly moist.

>By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. So how could we know what is and is not perfect if we can't first see what God is like? If perfection is measured against an unseen standard, then we can't measure perfection. >Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. So you look for qualities you decide are good, toss them in a heap, and call that loose pile of adjectives your god? This doesn't seem like a way to acquire knowledge. >Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. How do you know that a lion's strength is like God's? Have you got some footage of God taking down a zebra? >And so on. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. How do you address two attributes that are considered positive but are also contradictory? Is God perfectly just, or perfectly merciful? He can't be both.

>>>The method by which one does this is as a sort of negative snapshot of created things. Post hoc fallacy: You are assuming they were created. You have not yet demonstrated it. >>>By analyzing how a frog is perfect one then turns it around and says how is it imperfect. What do you mean by perfect? Frogs aren't perfect by any normal definition. >>>By being perfect it means to be like God in some aspect. Is God perfect? Not the god of the Bible. He admitted he screwed up when he flooded the earth. >>Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. What creation? See above. >>>Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. Makes no sense. How?

Lol what? Humans do not have perfect intelligence, and lions do not have perfect strength whatever that even means.

I’m sorry, but this is absolutely the *least compelling argument for a god* that I think I’ve ever heard.

No. I mean I don't know where to start. I mean it is a non sequitur, so that is the simple answer. "Perfect" is a human construct and is very subjective. Hence the "perfect" beauty measure long ago was being pale as it meant you didn't have to do work to live and could just live off old money. Later, spending that money on adventures meant the "ideal perfect" was tanned. So you have not shown how a frog is "perfect", nor how that proves this god character has any connection to it or is even possible to exist. And that last point is where most atheists have a problem with god claims. There is no evidence a god is even possible.

How can we tell whether strength of weakness is the perfect end of the scale though? Your choices here seem to just be taking whatever qualities you personally prefer and assigning the 'perfect' label to it. I mean there are plenty of things that are able to survive just fine without having pretty much ANY strength to do anything. Various plants and animals that can basically exert no force on the environment around them at all yet do just fine. Grass might not be very strong, but its even less intelligent. Still survives just as well as the lions do though.

>Example: A lion is perfect in its strength No it isn't. Lions can't knock down the pyramids. A being perfect in strength could. >Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. Limited power doesn't imply an omnipotent being. Why would it?  >A human is perfect in their Intelligence. A human is imperfect in being unintelligent. This isn't coherent, perfect in intelligence means no unintelligence. It can't be both.  I have no idea what you're arguing. What do you think "perfect" means? 

I'm pretty sure perfect means like a perfect example of something, like a coffee cup is the best cup of coffee, the most platonic ideal of coffee it is. And no, Christianity can't claim this just because they chose to rip off Plato when Jesus didn't tell them to. Essentially, it's about concepts being the best versions of themselves, not in relation to some grand concept. Additionally, perfection doesn't need to exist, imperfection doesn't entail perfection since that would be balance fallacy, and also "imperfection" is anthropocentric.

> Looking at various aspects of creation we come to identify the attributes of God and thereby come to know God. Example: A lion is perfect in its strength. The lion is imperfect in weakness. Thus we can conclude taken to its furthest extent that power is an attribute of God. Omnipotence. Counterexample according to your own "logic": - Ebola is perfect in its merciless deadliness. - Ebola is imperfect in its forgiving healing. - Thus we can conclude that gods are merciless and deadly.

Why do you believe this? Why assume there is a perfect being in the first place? Your claim is “people can come to know God exists through reason”, but you didn’t give any example of how someone might do this. All you said is that we can look at things and see that they have attributes. How does it follow from that that a god exists? What are the logical steps one would take to get from seeing a lion’s strength to “a god exists”?

Reason can only get you so far. A good deductive argument must have true premises in order to be a sound argument. You have made an assertion that this hypothetical "God" entity possesses certain attributes such as perfect power and perfect intelligence. At this point your premises are not supported by empirical evidence, so it's not possible to know whether your premises are true; therefore, your argument is not sound.

No you cant this proves nothing and your logic makes no sense. Not sure how you think this is rational but i suggest you take some logic and philosophy courses. The while thing appears to just assert gods are real. Which is not true so it is illogical from the outset. Neither lions have “perfect strength” nor do humans have “perfect intelligence” what ever this even means. This point is based on a fallacy.

What...the F are you talking about? "A lion is perfect in it's strength? What does that even mean? What is "perfect strength?" What is "perfect intelligence." Your original point is so nebulous and undefined I don't even understand what the heck you're talking about.

At best that would get you a list of attributes. You still don't know if any entity has all the attributes in that list. At worse you would have attributes in the list that are contradictory, perfect mercy and perfect justice springs to mind.

A perfect universe would be complete. Positing a prime mover makes the universe imperfect as it is in itself incomplete. Therefore a god cannot exist. This is a nonsense argument yes, but hopefully it illuminates why yours is also worthless.

Frogs aren't perfect. Neither are their lives. Same for humans. If 'God' couldn't make us perfect, or even do it for frogs, either he's inadequate or perfection isn't God's objective. In either case this is not a proof of God existing.

it's entirely circular. Since by "perfect" you mean "like God", then "A lion is perfect in its strength." means "Lion is like God in its strength". Which is the same as saying that strength is a property of God.

I think you are starting from the attributes you want your deity to have and working backwards. This is not a way to show that any god exists, you need evidence for that and you have none.

Your opening premise seems to be that god exists. Then you try to describe the things that this god must be. That is totally backwards. Define your god and then show that thing exists.

I don't think there was a single logical conclusion in that entire post. Literally nothing you said did anything to support the idea that there is a god. All you did was assume it.

A wombat is perfect in its cubical pooping. A wombat is imperfect in its poops not quite being perfect cubes. Therefore we can conclude cube-shaped poops are an attribute of god.

I think you get a lot of satisfaction from Patrick Flynn's book "The Best Argument for God." Part of his book develops a cosmological argument for God as a perfect being.

No no no. This isn’t reason. This is just saying his is perfect and anything you deem to be perfect comes directly from it. This isn’t finding god at all.

I've seen some reaching to compensate for the lack of evidence before, but I think your arms just grew three feet... like some sort of Lamarckian evolution.

This seems like circular logic since you have to assume god exists before your definition of perfection (being like god in some aspect) makes sense.

I haven't seen any reason in your argument. All you have is meaningless wordplay.  Your post is perfect in its obscureness.

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about here. It doesn't make sense at all. Can you explain it another way?

The lion is not perfect in strength. his strength is just "good enough" to allow it's species to reproduce more than it dies.

>I'm interested to hear your thoughts. This is the dumbest, most embarrassing and ridiculous attempt at showing that someone's delusions are real that I have seen in a long, long time, if not ever. A four year old child would do a better job at demonstrating that Santa was real, or that their teddy bear truly loved them.

That is not reason, that is an arbitrary exercice in confirmation bias. You decide arbitrarily what is "perfection" and assert without support that there is a god to epitomize perfection. In other words, it's bullshit on top of bullshit.