Showing posts from August, 2012

The Paradox of Perfection - The Dilemma of Degrees of Perfection

Using Degrees of Perfection as a yard stick to prove the existence of God leads to the problem of the  Paradox of Perfection. This paradox has three parts. Part one is how the imperfect can only see the perfect imperfectly. Imperfect beings, in other words, are too imperfect to ever know, recognize, or even accurately judge something as completely perfect.  The second part begs the question, why would such a "perfect" God create such an incredibly "imperfect world,"? And the last part is how 'perfect perfection' necessarily implies the existence of its evil twin, 'perfect imperfection.' This second part illustrates how "perfection," ironically enough, sometimes breeds imperfection. And the last point demonstrates how the argument does not prove the existence of one god, but proves there is either no God or at least two gods or more.

 To understand how imperfect beings see the perfect imperfectly, we need look no …

Degrees of Perfection and the problem of Christ

In my previous post I wrote about a number of problems with the argument from, and thus the difficulties of applying a yardstick of, Degrees of Perfection (DOP). The argument assumes that "degrees of perfection" implies the existence of a "perfect being" that can be called God. This assumes, of course, that “degrees of perfection”  is not only objectively real, but culminates in the embodiment of God.  A question that the argument fails to answer, however, is why we must assume that “degrees of perfection” indicates a "perfect being" any more than degrees of temperature indicates a perfect temperature. 
The DOP argument assumes that, at some point, we can reach the ultimate perfection of God, or that perfection, by being infinite in degrees, should be called God. Either conclusion is problematic, however. If we say the DOP can reach an "ultimate perfection" then we are reducing an infinite God to some finite standard. On the other hand, if we s…

How Degrees of Perfection Disproves God

The Argument from Degrees of Perfection is an argument often used to try to logically "prove" the existence of God. The argument basically says "not all things in nature are equal, some are better, more perfect than others in many ways. But things can be compared only by a standard; "better" means closer to the best. More perfect means closer to absolutely perfect. Thus, if degrees of perfection are real, then perfection is real. And that is another name for God: a really perfect being."


The miracle of this argument is how it makes the invention of a human ideal a God, and then concludes that there must be a God or we could never have been clever enough to conceive of such a human ideal in the first place.

"Degrees of Perfection" are simply a measurement of human invention applied through our faulty and ever changing human perception. "Perfection" is often a subjective thing, the product of time, place, and audience. A perfect p…

An Atheist View of Miracles

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle," David Hume once wrote, "unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." The only way we can assuredly know that something is a genuine "miracle," in other words, is if we believe it would be an even greater miracle to discover that the person making the claim could either be wrong, or is in fact a liar.

Applying Hume's criticism, then, we see how the Christian simply assumes that it would have to be an even greater miracle to discover that the Bible was either wrong or lying, for example, than that Jesus actually rose from the dead or walked on water. In fact, the Christian even "believes" that it would be a far greater miracle still that such stories should be interpreted in a strictly metaphorical sense, than that such stories actually happened in a literal sense. Such assumptions, upon which the entire edifice…

Follow up on Fr. Barron and Ex Nihilo post

In my previous post about Fr. Barron and Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit, I commented that Fr. Barron's "God" was a contradiction to the rule Fr. Barron was using to prove the existence of God. Ex Nihilio Fit may not readily appear to be such a contradiction, but it is, and here's how.

On its face, it seems that God is not a contradiction at all, because since "nothing can come from nothing," the universe came from God, and God always was. Thus, there's no contradiction. Or so it would seem.  There is a hidden contradiction, however, in the idea that the universe came from God. That contradiction is this: If nothing can come from nothing, then the 'contra positive' of this statement is that everything comes from something. But Fr. Barron believes that God didn't come from something. And something that did not come from something contradicts the rule that "everything comes from something." Hence, the contradiction of accepting God as the auth…