Criticism Against Mormonism

[dh8d1]

Henry Hobo-Master

In what way?

I never said scientific proof.

Henry Hobo-Master

And what gives you any authority to claim that perfection means:

Quote:

A perfect being has zero motivation to create, therefore it cannot happen. It's logically unsound.

That's not the meaning of perfection. That's the logical valid argument FROM the meaning of perfection. The meaning of perfection requires completeness. Something incomplete cannot be perfect. THAT definition is from popular use (as all definitions are)

Henry Hobo-Master

In what ways can we determine what perfection is?

by defining it.

Henry Hobo-Master

How can you come to this conclusion through observation

I never said we could.

Henry Hobo-Master

I might have been trying to imply that "perfection" definition is subjective, but I hardly believe my response was completely fallacious.

It was. I was talking about the primarily used definitions. You were not. It was equivocation.

Henry Hobo-Master

-A clear definition and correct use of the word which is being "swapped".

The common consensus is clear: Something lacking is not perfect. Something incomplete is lacking. A completely perfect being has no motivation to create. Period. This is not rocket science, and you're dancing around it with equivocations on 'perfect.'
If you ask any, and I do mean ANY Christians why God created the world after he was perfect, they'd say "because he wanted to." This is literally nonsense, as a perfect being cannot have wants. Wants only exist to the imperfect. Wants only exist when you are INCOMPLETE. That's why it's a want - because you do not have something.

Henry Hobo-Master

And for this, you label it a fallacy. Bullshit.

No, I labeled it a fallacy because it's a fallacy. You know as well as I do that everybody doesn't think incomplete things are perfect. We've gone over it before.

Henry Hobo-Master

You have your opinion on what the definition of it is

Wrong. I have the common use of the word. I'm not giving an opinion, I'm giving the common definition of the word. This is not me making anything up, and you implying I am, or that this definition somehow relies on my personal subjectivity is literally dubious and dishonest.

Henry Hobo-Master

Also, Hasty Generalization fallacy.

No, actually, that's not. If you think that I was committing the hasty generalization fallacy because I was building on a foundation of pattern-recognition from your previous behavior, then you must think that all of science is from hasty generalization fallacies. LOL

You really do need to learn more about this.

Henry Hobo-Master

Often fallacies are associated with an extreme position

No they're not. They're associated with someone doing something incorrectly.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

dh8d1

Henry Hobo-Master

In what way?

I never said scientific proof.

I said proof is scarce. Then I clarified that I intended "proof" to be scientific proof, and reinstated that proof does exist outside of science. Hardly seems like I said anything fallacious when one brings this back into context.

If you were not talking about science or God, then I'm afraid I'm quite lost at what "proof" is relevant to such a topic of God. You yourself declared that "proof" makes something less bizarre. Are we not talking about physical proof then? Only logical proof?

Quote:

That's not the meaning of perfection. That's the logical valid argument FROM the meaning of perfection. The meaning of perfection requires completeness. Something incomplete cannot be perfect. THAT definition is from popular use (as all definitions are)

Did you read the source I gave you? Logical or not, the statement is not entirely truthful because of the facts regarding what "perfect" is and isn't'. Sure, it may be logical. But it is still "right for the wrong reasons".

Henry Hobo-Master

Quote:

How can you come to this conclusion through observation

I never said we could.

If one cannot observe it, then the theories regarding it cannot be tested. This doesn't seem very reliable. Nor does it seem reasonable. How can a person assert a theory to be true, without ever testing it?

I guess its not very scientific, or observable. What a pity.

Henry Hobo-Master

Quote:

I might have been trying to imply that "perfection" definition is subjective, but I hardly believe my response was completely fallacious.

It was. I was talking about the primarily used definitions. You were not. It was equivocation.

It is because you say it is. I was being very clear when I switched definitions. Its only a fallacy if I'm swapping definitions without clarifying, in order to prove I am more correct. I was not swapping out definitions in such a manner. I was hardly being dishonest. I wasn't even trying to assert that you were completely wrong.

It is a fallacy because you say so. That is a fallacy within itself, depending on the point of view.

Quote:

The common consensus is clear:
1. Something lacking is not perfect.
2. Something incomplete is lacking.
3. A completely perfect being has no motivation to create.

Sounds like an irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

Perfection is irrelevant to the "Completeness" of the being. Its possible that a being is only "perfect" by their law and nature, when they create. 3 is a conclusion that is irrelevant to the first 2 statements.

Quote:

If you ask any, and I do mean ANY Christians why God created the world after he was perfect, they'd say "because he wanted to." This is literally nonsense, as a perfect being cannot have wants.

If a person denies the existence of Obama, does that mean Obama must not exist?

Asking a Christian on why God exists is hardly a matter worth debating over. If there was a God that existed theoretically, then the opinion of a "Christian" could not change the existence of that God. The same principle is true for the analogy. The opinion of a single person, religion, or group of people, has no power to decide such matters of existence. This is not even an issue worth debating about. So lets stop talking about irrelevant things.

Quote:

Wants only exist to the imperfect. Wants only exist when you are INCOMPLETE. That's why it's a want - because you do not have something.

You said it yourself earlier. You did not claim to have observable data for this matter. Prove this without using your logic and false theories. Sounds pretty bizarre if you ask me.

Quote:

No, I labeled it a fallacy because it's a fallacy. You know as well as I do that everybody doesn't think incomplete things are perfect. We've gone over it before.

You are labeling it a fallacy because you like avoiding the holes in your theory. Your definition of perfection lacks an attribute. And its a paradox. A being can be perfect using different definitions.

A being with your definition, cannot exist. A being with a different definition could exist. If you want to keep your delusional view on what perfection is, then go right ahead. Your theory is not very common. Its best to stop criticizing others for different beliefs.

Quote:

Wrong. I have the common use of the word

Its not common. You are taking the word "perfect", and you are taking it out of context. "perfect" usually is combined with an attribute. You are using a strawman anyway. You are arguing for the sake of arguing anyway.

Quote:

I'm giving the common definition of the word

We looked at the definitions. You were not.

Quote:

No, actually, that's not. If you think that I was committing the hasty generalization fallacy because I was building on a foundation of pattern-recognition from your previous behavior, then you must think that all of science is from hasty generalization fallacies. LOL

Umm, this is kinda a long reach is it not? These two things are very different concepts, and is borderline irrelevant.

In conclusion, watch for strawmans and fallacies.

[dh8d1]

Henry Hobo-Master

Proofs do not exist in science.

Henry Hobo-Master

I said proof is scarce.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. 'Scarce' means there are some.

Henry Hobo-Master

facts regarding what "perfect" is and isn't'.

LOL... it's so sad you think that a definition of a word defined by a community is a fact.

Henry Hobo-Master

If one cannot observe it, then the theories regarding it cannot be tested.

Who is asserting a theory?

Henry Hobo-Master

I was being very clear when I switched definitions. Its only a fallacy if I'm swapping definitions without clarifying,

Nope.

Henry Hobo-Master

Quote:

The common consensus is clear:
1. Something lacking is not perfect.
2. Something incomplete is lacking.
3. A completely perfect being has no motivation to create.

Sounds like an irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

I never stated this as a premise-by-premise argument. Here, let me help you.
1) Something perfect is complete.
2) Something which has a want is not complete.
3) God wanted to create.
4) God is perfect
5) God is impossible, due to #2 following from #3 directly in conflict with #1 following from #4.

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

Henry Hobo-Master

If a person denies the existence of Obama, does that mean Obama must not exist?

If they define Obama as a perfect being which created, then their assertion of Obama does not exist.

Henry Hobo-Master

Prove this without using your logic

I'm giving you a logical conclusion, and you want me to prove it without using logic? wtf? Have you ever heard of deduction and inference, or are you completely uneducated on this subject of "how humans figure things out when they weren't there?"

Henry Hobo-Master

You are labeling it a fallacy because you like avoiding the holes in your theory

Oh, now you're a mind-reader. Well, I guess there's no point in arguing any further when you can tell me what I'm thinking.

Henry Hobo-Master

Your definition of perfection lacks an attribute. And its a paradox.

Yes, perfection is paradoxical, but I have no idea what this 'attribute' you say it lacks is. I freely admit that perfection is nonexistent, but I was playing the advocate and ignoring that tidbit while I argued that a perfect being even if existent couldn't create.

Henry Hobo-Master

A being can be perfect using different definitions.

And I could be a god using different definitions. That doesn't mean that people would think I am. STOP EQUIVOCATING.

Henry Hobo-Master

A being with your definition, cannot exist.

A being which is perfect cannot exist. I agree. Stop calling it "my" definition. It's dishonest to imply that what perfection is somehow changes due to my subjective interpretation. It doesn't.

Henry Hobo-Master

If you want to keep your delusional view on what perfection is, then go right ahead.

Delusional? Really? You're going to go that far after you've not only had numerous logical fallacies, and told me what my thoughts are, but also resigned that a perfect being can't exist anyway?

Henry Hobo-Master

You are taking the word "perfect", and you are taking it out of context.

Oh, the 'no true context' fallacy. Guess what? commonalities such as 'perfect things are always complete' do not change with context. Nice try.

Henry Hobo-Master

"perfect" usually is combined with an attribute.

Not with God. It's just "God is perfect."

Henry Hobo-Master

We looked at the definitions.

No, YOU looked at dictionaries which aren't authorities on what words should mean. I however continue to use the word as it's defined (you know, how the public uses it)

Henry Hobo-Master

Umm, this is kinda a long reach is it not? These two things are very different concepts, and is borderline irrelevant.

Nope. I noticed your pattern, recognized it would continue, and commented as such. Then you called it a hasty generalization. Using your application of that, it'd have to be what you consider science, too. Since, you know, noticing a pattern, and predicting an outcome are WITHIN SCIENCE.

Henry Hobo-Master

In conclusion, watch for strawmans and fallacies.

I'm always watching for your strawmans and fallacies. By the way, strawmans ARE fallacies. So far you haven't had many strawmans, but you've had quite a few fallacies.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

or even simpler:
1) God is perfect
2) perfect things are complete.
3) wants are due to incompleteness
4) therefore, God cannot have wants.

There we go.

The fallacy is then simply:

5) Therefore, God cannot create.

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

Both conclusions can be made.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

Both conclusions can be made.

Only one is correct.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

you spelled 'conclusion' incorrectly.

As befits an incorrect conclusion.
- razz

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

Both conclusions can be made.

Only one is correct.

One follows from the other. They're both correct.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

Both conclusions can be made.

Only one is correct.

One follows from the other. They're both correct.

Your original conclusion only follows from your later conclusion if 'all creation is intentional' is true - from which would follow the truth of either a) 'clouds have intent' or b) 'clouds do not create rain'.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

You keep using the wrong words.
The conclusion is definitely correct.
Intentional Creation of something can only stem from wants.

A change to your original conclusion, "a perfect thing with a mind would not create" - is it now complete?
- ninja

Both conclusions can be made.

Only one is correct.

One follows from the other. They're both correct.

Your original conclusion only follows from your later conclusion if 'all creation is intentional' is true - from which would follow the truth of either a) 'clouds have intent' or b) 'clouds do not create rain'.

Clouds are a false analogy. We have discussed this.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

Your original conclusion only follows from your later conclusion if 'all creation is intentional' is true - from which would follow the truth of either a) 'clouds have intent' or b) 'clouds do not create rain'.

Clouds are a false analogy. We have discussed this.

I'd tend to agree with you in accepting b); clouds don't create rain so much as rain is correlated with clouds at a specific temperature, etc.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

Your original conclusion only follows from your later conclusion if 'all creation is intentional' is true - from which would follow the truth of either a) 'clouds have intent' or b) 'clouds do not create rain'.

Clouds are a false analogy. We have discussed this.

I'd tend to agree with you in accepting b); clouds don't create rain so much as rain is correlated with clouds at a specific temperature, etc.

When you have a valid analogy, let me know.