If God doesnt exist than explain this?

Question

A being that doubts is an imperfect being because a perfect being would have full knowledge, hence no need to doubt; therefore, I am an imperfect being.
Yet I could know that I am imperfect only by having the concept of perfection; therefore, I have the concept of perfection.
I could not have received the concept of perfection from something imperfect; therefore, my concept was not derived from myself.
Therefore, my concept of perfection was derived from something that is, in fact, perfect.
Only God is, in fact, perfect so I derived my concept of perfection from him; therefore, God exists

Sorry I don't take credit for this although I wish I could.
Rene Descartes the great philosopher came up with this.
A lot of atheists on here are a joke, this does not say anything that can be conceived exists. Read it again. I pray for you guys.

RENE DESCARTES CAME UP WITH THIS!!!!
I wish it was me, but it was him.
this thread just proves another point, that most atheist resort to personal attacks. Quit attacking me, I like the guy who basically Said Rene Descartes needs to take a philosophy class. Do you know who Rene Descartes was?

Answer 1

Very good critical rationale; view people can formulate such transitional thought. But you are correct. Imperfection cannot be gauged or defined without awareness of a greater “Perfection” (God), or "Paradise", the "State of Perfection" outside and beyond the “state of imperfection”.

Just because to the perception of the "imperfect" it "appears" that God (Perfection) is non existent, is not a valid criterion to conclude that God does not exist.

It is like a comparison between "light" and "darkness". Darkness is only “known" by its contrast to "light" allowing the observer to "gauge" the difference. But if people lived in perpetual darkness and did not "know" the "light", then to them "light" "appears NOT to exist, only perpetual darkness, which to them cannot be defined as "darkness" without the comparison of "light". So they would not "know" that they lived in darkness. Just as people are typically unaware that they are in a state of "imperfection", and know not of "Perfection" (God). Hence, "Light pierces the Darkness" requiring a "revelation of awareness" as you have demonstrated in your analogy, the "Aha!" of becoming aware of your current state that points to the existence of a Greater Other, the "Light of Perfection."

Answer 2

the concept of perfection is an abstraction based on our observation of "imperfect" things and events. it's not even a meaningful abstraction, as far as i can tell (it's too vague). i know that i'm imperfect in the sense that i am not omnipotent, because i do not succeed at everything that i try. it's no more necessary for the concept of perfection to have been conveyed by a perfect being than it is for the concept of force to have been conveyed by a forceful being. it is a word game, and pretty silly. and if descartes was here, i would tell him that - regardless of his other achievements. just because he made contributions to philosophy does not give all his ideas a free pass, sorry.

Answer 3

I suspect you think this is a formal argument?

lets dissect this shall we:

Perfection negates the existance of 'doubt'
'Doubt' indicates Imperfection
I doubt therefore I am Imperfect

I know I am imperfect because I have a concept about perfection
Therefore I have a concept of perfection

I have 'recceived' the concept of perfection from something
The concept of perfection can not have come from something imperfect
I am imperfect so it could not have come from me

I have received the concept of perfection from something perfect
Only God is perfect
Therefore God exists.



I am not even going to start to explain why this is the saddest excuse for a formal logical argument I may have ever seen? - and frankly if you cant understand why this is not a supprtable argument you probably need to keep away from sharp objects.

Using logical pseudo language does not cover up nonsense.

Answer 4

Trust me, you don't need to tell atheists that Descartes wrote this. However, he actually borrowed it from Anselm of Canterbury who first proposed it in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion.
It has been debunked successfully several times, most notably by David Hume who stated nothing could be proven to exist via an a priori argument.
"The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God. "
Your turn.

Answer 5

That's flawed. Something does not need to exist for you to derive your concept of it from. We can all conceive of unicorns but they don't exist.

All you have to do to have a concept of perfection is to have an imagination and to then imagine something without any flaws. Whether or not you're really even imagining anything without flaws is still subject to question- How clearly and totally are you envisioning perfection"? You vision of perfection is probably imperfect anyway.

Answer 6

ahhh umm... wait. you and descartes are wrong.

this I CAN take credit for.....

you see prefection is relative
who says what is perfect? HMM.... who says what i believe to be perfect?? you think killing babies is perfect?? no im sure you dont, but some people do!! and well what they think is perfect is in fact not perfect in your eyes. so you cant say that there is a universal level of perfection. so that means that we dont "receive the concept of perfection" because there is nothing specific to receive. perfection is in this sense relative, because we all have different views on it. and WE ALL DEVELOP OUR OWN view of perfection. it is therefore "derived" from our selves. and not received.

Answer 7

You do know that in most Judeo-Christian religions, thinking one knows perfection is a form of false pride, and therefore a sin!

In addition to other clear logic fallacies pointed out by other responses, your argument isn't even allowed within a religious context.

However, if one accepted your logic, it would also apply accurately to many other religious dieties, not just the God described in the bible. How do you explain your argument as applying uniquely to your God?

Answer 8

Magnets, because of the fact of what they are created from, generate a magnetic field. Magnetic fields are generated by way of the electromagnetic stress, between the 4 customary forces in physics. it rather is an identical ingredient that holds electrons onto atoms. timber have been given right here with the help of evolution. The bible became written with a pen. you have made 2 errors. First, you assumed no person ought to respond to those questions - in actuality the solutions are somewhat properly understood. 2nd, you resorted to call calling. in case you choose to be taken heavily, perchance you're able to placed greater concept into your questions, and attempt being somewhat greater civil.

Answer 9

This is a logical word game that crumbles under the mildest scrutiny.

I can conceive of a unicorn, does that mean that it must now exist in reality?


Actually man can not conceive of perfection, any more than he can conceive nothing or infinity. He can conceive of something really, really big, but that is not infinity. He can conceive of something much better than what he is, but that is not perfection.

Does that mean that God does not exist then?

Answer 10

The part where only a "god" can provide the concept of perfection doesn't hold water. Our minds can conceive, or imagine, lots of things that simply aren't possible.

There, i just conceived a purple fairy flying around the second moon of Jupiter. Since my mind conceived this, going by your logic, there must actually BE a purple fairy flying around the second moon of Jupiter.

Answer 11

Actually it predates Descartes. Anselm came up with the Ontological Argument first.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/anselm.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument