Featured MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

God is ONLY perfect Being, as He existed ALONE from Eternity, created ALL other things, time/space/energy/matter etc, and he has Infinite virtues/attributes of power/wisdom/Holiness, etc!

 

No....we don't all think this....you are using terms like "maximal greatness"....and also suggesting that "perfection" implies "maximal greatness".... And the notion of a "most perfect being possible" is simply lost on most here. You are using terms that those who are not familiar with "Modal logic" simply don't use. Accept it, no one, other than yourself, and perhaps a limited few are even party to the notions suggested in "God and other minds"..."Warranted Christian Belief" and "Warrant and proper function".....and other Plantinga contributions....are even aware of. Terms like "haecceity".....and Theologians like Duns Scotus are un-heard of...You "kick against the pricks".

Those with whom you interract on this board have no basic concept of even basic logic.....You are trying to introduce modality and other higher forms of logic to them........I might love to do this on a p.m.....but to put it as Dante would:

"Abandon all hope Ye who enter here"...Few people can even speak this language you use....

I'll humor you for a second though...Yes...a perfect being is one who possesses "maximal greatness", and a "Maximally Great" being is one who exists necessarily. Any "necessary" being, which exists in all possible worlds is one who is "perfect" or who posseses "maximal greatness". His properties are not understood, however, to be "Platonic" ...in the sense that "properties" are in and of themselves necessary or a-se existent, but that God himself is the only and sum-total of all "maximally great" "being-ness" and nothing (including properties) exist outside of his own "essence". This would include any and all notions of "right" and "wrong".... Inasmuch as God is the Necessary and Maximally Great being, the Euthyphro Dilemma (for instance) is a false dichotomy in that...any notion of "rightness" or "wrongness" is necessarily entailed in the definition of the being whose "necessary" being or a-se existence is entailed....Thus, propositions like properties or (IMO) tautologies like a is not equal to not-a or Not a and b....are all necessary and out-flowing truths from the "maximally great" being we worship...

Yes, the Bible is quite correct...
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

The "Prime Directive" in the "Star-Trek" series is a marvelous beginning point to banter these ideas, but, these are not the discussions we have on BB though.....we are still stuck and spend the sum-total of our time on the idea of whether a "choice" is really a "choice"...and it's sad and yes, it's somewhat boring....:sleep:

 

God is simply God!

Not MOST anything, the only and absolute anything!

Don't let vain philosophies of men darken your understanding of the sacred texts, as ONLY the Bible tells us what God is really like!

 

[

Agreed, actually...and not for the same reasons you would agree to it, but, yes, I agree.

You aren't thinking sir....You just denied by this statement that you yourself exist.....(as you phrased it anyway) and thus, by extension, this conversation never occured.

"Vain": a term I will always guard against any "philosophies" of mine being.
"Philosophies": The Love of Wisdom...(by definition anyway) You are failing to realize that "Philosophy" is the mother of all knowledges and truths....Lemme explain something to you:

You assume that if something is "vain" than it is of no use or value....You would be correct.

You also believe that no knowledge about God is "vain" or of no value.

You believe, then, that any knowledge about God cannot be, by definition, "vain".

Thus, anything which helps you understand any truth about God is of value, and therefore not "vain".

Allow me then, to construct a simple logical syllogism to explain your own POV:

1.) Vain is properly defined as anything of no value
2.) Knowledge of God is the Ultimate form of knowledge man can attain
3.) From (1 and 2) no knowledge about God can properly be described as "vain"

4.) Philosophy is the discipline which helps us understand the nature of knowledge and reason.
5.) If knowledge and Reason has suggested that knowledge of God is of value, than any discipline which helps me understand it is worthwhile.
6.) Philosophy, then, has taught me how to differentiate between what is "vain" and what is of proper value.
7.) From premises 4,5 and 6....any Philosophy which helps me differentiate between that which is of no value and that which is of value is good.

8.) Paul was knowledgeable of varying "Philosophies"
9.) Paul warned against what he called "vain" Philosopies
10.) Probablistically, if Paul were to warn us against ALL Philosophies he woud have done so
11.) Paul warned us only against certain "types" of Philosophy
12.) Those Philosophies were any that he himself described as a Philosophy which:
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
13.) From 8-12...Any Philosophy which might increase the "knowledge" or "understanding" of God...as the Prophet Jeremiah States is "good":
Jer 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight, saith the LORD.

Therefore: From conclusions:
3.) no knowledge about God can properly be described as "vain"
7.) any Philosophy which helps me differentiate between that which is of no value and that which is of value is good.
and
13.) Any Philosophy which might increase the "knowledge" or "understanding" of God is good.
Thus:
Bad Philosophy is "bad" and "good" philosophy is "good"
Paul doesn't warn us against "Philosophy"...he warns us against "bad" Philosophy, just as C.S. Lewis does thousands of years later when he exhorts that:
"Good Philosphy must exist if only because bad Philosophy must be answered"

Your move.....

 

So you have thought up another screwy idea to deny the God of the Bible. It appears that you also are an apostate.

 

Very well said and not one misspelled word.:applause::applause:

 

OH....this is too juicy to ignore...Please tell us O.R.....what specific "idea" he has "thought up" which denies the God of the Bible...

Dear God....don't respond H.T....................Please...Just let him talk.

Let Old Regular please tell us, what Humble thinker has yet said which has "denied" the God of the Bible....Do tell. What accusation can you level specifically O.R.? To what statement do you object??????????? What definintive statement of "denial" has he made??? Are you there? What facet of "Maximal Greatness" of God do you dislike??? Oh, please answer....PLEASEEEE...I appeal on bended knee for your knowledge.....What did HT say about Maximal Greatness to which you object??? Please tell us all....For the love of all things Holy. I am desperate to hear you speak.

O.R: What specifically is it about H.T's describing God as the most perfect being possible to which you object?

Oh...Please answer this......PLEASE:tear:

Actually...do none of this...just please try for a second to explain to us what a "Maximally Great" being is...that would be sufficient. Please tell us what HumbleThinker means by a "Maximally Great" being....I'll even give you bonus points if you can explain how that relates to the Medieval Theologian Anselm.....A million extra points, actually, if you can explain how "Gaunillo's Island" is relevant......You are WAY out of your league...Go Away.

 

Well, he failed to use the assumed definite particle "the" when he described God as:

But who is counting...

 

If you cannot understand from reading the OP then anything I say would not penetrate your skull!

 

It was not lost on Yeshua1. He presented the only answer possible and expressed in words that even the most simple could understand. I will repeat it for your benefit.

Following are some appropriate Scripture for the benefit of those who think more highly of themselves than they should; for those who seem to be ignorant about the nature of God as revealed in Scripture!

John 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Exodus 3:14. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

1 Timothy 1:17. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Timothy 6:16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Revelation 1:8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:5. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

 

I admit...I simply don't understand the Op sir......Would you please explain it to us??? I don't understand it. You obviously are confident that you do...So will you explaiin what it means??? My "skull" as you state, is too impenatrably hard to understand it....but others...including lurkers might be edified by your explanation...Please, then, tell those lurkers and those of us so "hard-headed"....even if we won't accept what the OP meant? I actually thought I understood the OP......I should assume I was wrong then, what did the OP say?

Please tell us what is was about "HumbleThinker's" describing God as the "Maximally Great" being to which we should object???? I don't know...can you tell us????

 

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

Any list of properties/characteristics that I came up with would necessarily be accurate to the extent that I got them from God's own word...and inaccurate to the extent that I came up with them on my own...Therefore if my list was accurate, there would be no contrasts with the God of the Bible...if my list did contrast with the God of the Bible...it would only point to the deficiency of my list, that my concept of the perfect being did not fit the actuality of the perfect being...and I must keep in mind that there may be aspects of the character of God that I strive to understand from the bible that i might not always get completely right.

I might think the perfect being is a green Giraffe hitched to a hot-air balloon that flew around and dropped candy on me...I could believe that, but such a belief would be outside reality, and therefore useless to me...and in fact detrimental to me.

Conclusion: Whatever God IS is necessarily the perfect being...If I start to add what I think he should be (He should never let me get sick...He should command vegetarianism), then I am simply showing that I don't understand, or am unwilling to accept the perfect being as He is and does...thus revealing my own imperfection.

 

I fail to understand how people can embrace non-thinking and hold it valuable. Somehow our churches have taught many people that thinking through hard questions is contrary to scripture; somehow using the mind that God gave us is to be shunned. Yet it is our mind and our reason that are major distinctions between us and brute beasts. It never seems to occur to some that it is self-refuting to provide bible verses to reason with someone that they should not use reason. It is nonsense to argue that we should not use argument. In fact, any statement that has meaning, bible or otherwise, uses logic and reason. There is no value to being anti-intellectual.

As to the OP, I think the definition already given is fairly good; God without restrictions = infinite greatness. Via negativa.

HoS, keep trying, but be patient and don't offend. I've lately started to believe that our only hope of getting people in the church to reason through these things is to forget this generation and work on the next. This one is entrenched in anti-intellectualism, holding it valuable to not think through the questions. Meanwhile, since these things are not taught in the church, the few young people who think through them learn from the pagans. Agh!

 

And can also just use "I Am that I AM"

Think hard on that simple statement, as God wrapped up why He is God, and we are not!