richardhutnik said:
And it is also concievable that you subconsciously believe in God, but don't know it. If you want to argue that a theoretical construct is able to be superior at coming up with a system of ethics than a good creator who fully knows that which s/he created, then you need to show what that construct is. Don't go and say, "It is possible to be concieved", but then you don't show what it is. You are speculating about a construct that may or may not theoretically exist, that is somehow supposed to be your counterpoint, but it doesn't show up in the discussion. By the way, prove "Nothing is perfect". Maybe there is something that is perfect. We just don't know, just as you don't know if there is anything out there that could produce a superior ethics system to what is considered God by many. |
Define perfection. Usually when someone describes perfection there needs to be limits to define the context of perfection e.g. a perfect score in an exam. Just saying something is the perfect being or the perfect moral code/ethics system is still entirely subjective. Defining perfection in the terms discussed here is not possible as it will differ from peron to person (or whatever being/entity we're talking about).








