Unless someone comes along and defines x as 3.8 instead. That’s what makes them assertions, in this case - there is no reason to believe your “definitions” are better than anyone elses. Besides, they don’t make much sense.
The statements don’t lead one to the other.
And a meaningless distinction is called a “nitpick”.
I did. An “aesthetic which edifies” is quite abstract.
You did :
We aren’t; we are physical ones. There’s no evidence that anything is “spiritual”.
Your “answer” made no sense; that’s not an answer.
I meant “we” as in "humans.
Hardly. There a lot of people who agree with me; every non-monotheist on Earth, to begin with.
[quote]
Please explain which premises you found to be arbitrary. Unless you meant the copulas, in which case I can only say that every definition is arbitrary. That’s what definitions are for: to orient us together in a mutual understanding of one another.[/quoet]
Then you are abusing that understanding, because the way you use definitions above is to stash away all the stuff you don’t actually want to discuss.
In that case there is nothing to debate. The assertion is similar to some fundamentalists’ claims reduting evolution; they explain away all the evidence in favor of evolution as created by God at the moment of creation some 4000 years ago (or, more hilariously, the devil–in order to steer us away from God).
“Perfect” is derived from the Latin word meaning “complete”. That which is perfect is complete in the sense that it is not lacking as to fulfillment of its purpose. It is difficult (I might even argue impossible) to conceive of perfection in tangible objects, and I agree it is most readily apparent in things like equations and spheres.
But I believe these items can be perfect not because they are simple but because they are abstract. A mathematical argument such as Wiles proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is certainly not simple, but I would argue (assuming it’s correct; has it been adequately accepted?) that it is perfect in fulfilling its purpose (i.e. proving x^n + y^n = z^n is not solvable in integers for n>2).
Many claim to know God in a personal way, and from this derive their faith in his goodness. However the point of my argument is that this is not necessary assuming the existence of God and the assuption of generally held beliefs about God (perfection, unity, etc.). Mine is a philosophical argument, not a religious one.
It would no doubt help here to put some kind of box around the term “evil”. My sense from this statement is that, for you, it is not just the opposite of good. However this thread is not about the nature of good and evil, so let’s just leave this for another time:-)
At the risk of jumping into an arguement and being completely outclassed, I have to chime in in regards to something that Der Trihs said.
This reminds me of something that comedian/actor Rowan Atkinson said during one of his stand-up specials. He’s wearing a red smoking jacket, red horns, and carrying a clipboard. Welcoming the new entrants to Hell. Taking roll.
At one point, he says, “Fornicators? My God, there are a lot of you[…]Christians? Christians? Are you here? Yes, I’m sorry…I’m afraid the Jews were right.”
