I have seen a few posts from Jonathan MS Pearce on Debunking Christianity in which he tries to use philosophy to disprove Christianity. I don't doubt that he is well educated in philosophy, but he does not seem to understand the Bible or what it says. His words are in black and my comments will be in red.
In another post
I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to
classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had
ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of
being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument
followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking
something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological
perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of
creating this world.
\ "Ontological Perfection" does not mean that there is a standard of perfection which God meets. Instead it means that the standard by which perfection is measured is the being of God. God does not have perfect qualities, God is perfection. Why does it follow that God created the world because of a need? The Bible does not say that God created the universe out of needing to fulfill something. I realize that some well-meaning Christian philosophy make the argument that the universe was created so that God could makehumans so that He could have loving relationships. It's a popular idea, but it's not in the Bible. God does not need us. Yes, He made us because He loves us but he does not need us to express his love. This is why God's Triune nature is such a major doctrine. The Being of God has three persons - eternal and equal - and any need is fulfilled and satisfied in God's own being. Jesus said
The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. - John 3:35
I won't take the time to demonstrate the reality of the Trinity, but it's essential given if you are going to argue from a Biblical perspective.
Now, this argument is all good and well, and it certainly assumes the
classical understanding of God in being ontologically perfect in every
way.Not exactly as he framed it. The Ontological Argument does not depend on God having made the universe out of need.
However, this post is going to look at the idea that any such
argument for or against God does not really get off the ground since it
is contingent upon the idea of perfection being logically coherent as an
intrinsic value and characteristic. This, I am afraid, is wrong. One
cannot make this assumption because perfection, as a stand-alone
conceptual characteristic to ascribe to anything, is nonsensical.
Strangely, I have to agree with him on this point because he is starting in the wrong place So far he has not defined what definition of perfection he is using. If you don't ground perfection in the being of God of course the argument (and all rationality) becomes nonsensical.
I can only understand perfect as a goal-directed adjective such that A
is perfect for B, or this catapult is perfect for getting this stone
over the wall in such and such a manner. Now, one could say that God is
perfect at being God, but this implies an infinite regress or
circularity. What does it really mean to say that God is perfect? Is he
perfect at getting a stone over the wall? Perfect at being loving,
merciful and just; at being prefect, designing and moral?
Aah...finally something of a definition for "perfection". It is not a Biblical definition. He gives what he understands "perfection" is and then just runs with it. Just because that is the way he understands what "perfection" is does not mean that is what the Bible is talking about. It's more than just being unable to fail at reaching a goal or being loving or merciful or being moral. A more accurate Biblical description that someone from his mindset might understand is this: God is unable to fail.
Even establishing what a prefect painting is, is an entirely subjective
process, depending upon personal tastes. And this applies to all sorts
of things such that perfection becomes either subjective or incoherent.
Being perfectly powerful and knowledgeable are admittedly simpler
proficiencies to hold, conceptually.
This is why God - due to who God is - is best to objectively and exhaustively define perfection. Not you. Not Pearce. And most certainly not me.
The other problem is that perfection of a being involves multiple
aspects such that, as the classic problem goes, God cannot be perfectly
just AND perfectly merciful since to be perfectly just assumes punishing
justly for a misdemeanour, and to be perfectly merciful assumes some
kind of leniency.
True if only you misdefine "justice" and "mercy". God's justice is perfectly satisfied and displayed in that most certainly all sin is atoned for because God the son paid the punishment for sin. God's mercy is perfect because He saved some from the penalty of our sins. God remainsin control because it's his choice about how much mercy we get.
With all of these characteristics which conflict, the theist retreats to
maximal perfection, a sort of optimal scenario given all of the nuances
and variables. But this becomes arbitrary and subjective. One more
ounce of mercy and one less ounce of justice might be perfect for a God
wanting to achieve A, but vice versa might be better for wanting to
Pearce is setting up a false dichotomy. It's not either mercy or justice. God is perfect because He is both. We are not.
Therefore, we need to establish, without circularity or incoherence,
what God is to be perfect FOR, before establishing whether God is or can
be perfect. To have a timeless God sitting there and label it as
perfect is, to me, meaningless (as a stand-alone descriptor).
Why? Pearce seems to be assuming that there are things that God is not perfect FOR. Understanding that there is nothing God is not perfect about in His being and actions would be an answer to the issues he is raising in this article.
therefore, given the subjective nature of appraisals of perfection, I
see any argument using the term perfection as incoherent.
Using his definition he is right. Too bad Pearce does not seem to realize that the Bible is not using his definitions.
Recently, I released an ebook called The Problem with "God",
which looks at the issues inherent with the nature of God seen in
classical theism: omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent. There are a whole
number of reasons why it is problematic. I have written a good deal on
this topic over many years of blogging, so thought I would put this to
good use and compile many of the posts, together with some original
material, into one easily digestible anthology at a reasonable price. I
also talk a little about Satan and hell, because these entities and
ideas, if existent, must make sense in light of a God who could get rid
of them with the omnipotent click of the fingers. This was another short
little hint of the issues apparent with this kind of God, and the idea
of a nemesis following on from my post last week.
I think reading, Pearce's ebook is a good idea because it will help understand where he is coming from. I fully disagree that the nature of God is programmatic or that there is contradiction with God's existence and the reality of Evil. I too have blogged on these issues and Christians have dealt with these issues for the last 2000 years. People like Pearce intrigue me because it's like they have never read/heard what Christians have already because they never interact with the answers and ideas that have already been given. I do plan to read his book. Maybe he will finally interact with the really good answers Christians have given or at the very least provide more entertaining faceplants and facepalms.
Here is a great example of new technology on YouTube. If you watch it on a PC, use the mouse to move the camera around to change the way you see the action. If you are on a mobile device, move the device around to see change the camera angle.
This article looks like it may come in handy. I came into a situation that requires 3 threads to run in a WCF webservice but they have to run one-at-a-time. I hope this works!
*Disclaimer - I realize that this should have gone on my other blog, but I'm putting it here today!
I really like the following article. Graphene seems like the stuff of comic books but it is a real material. The one thing I think the article is wrong about is the Tony did not say his new suit was entirely made of graphene. As I understood the reference it was just the faceplate that was made of graphene.If the entire suit was made of graphene, wouldn't the whole suit be transparent?