This is an argument I know a lot of theologians and philosophers have addressed but I wanted to see if /his/ has a good response:
>If God is perfect, then God cannot change, since any change would render him less than perfect
>All descriptions of God require a verb (usually "is" but also verbs like "loves" "creates" "reveals" etc.)
>All verbs carry with them a spatio-temporal component (Ex: God loves man)
>Therefore all descriptions of God are spatio-temporal
>Spatio-temporal descriptions imply change
>Therefore all descriptions of God posit a changing God, which we know God is not (since he would be less than perfect).
>Thus God cannot be described by men
>>1203831
> God cannot be described by men
This is a logical conclusion. You can't really define something absolute. You can describe it, but all of such descriptions wouldn't be accurate. Words are pointing nature of God but doesn't reflect him at all.
>>1203831
Sounds post-quasi-neo-Spinozian.
What response are you looking for? This is standard /his/ bait. Don't you have some input, OR are you simply SHITPOSTING and waiting for the fireworks? Seriously OP. Are you even able to formulate an opinion on this?
>>1203831
Easy counter argument.
1: Posit there exists a "god" (we shall ignore how you derived this but we'll use it as an axiom)
2: Give this god the property "Perfect" to indicate by some metric the maximal state of all parameters
A) Any change in "god" would render said object less than perfect
B) All descriptions of "god" involve some spatio-temporal change in god
Ergo; either god does not have the property perfect, or the descriptions are wrong.
If we take this to assert that both (A) and (B) are true then we reject the notion of logic and the form of this argument takes no meaning. At which point "proving using logic" that something "cannot be decribed with logic" is a non-statement as demonstrated below.
Posit that A = B
Posit that B = C
Enforce that C does not equal A
This does not prove that C is somehow magical and defies mathematics, it just means that one of your definitions is wrong.
>>1203831
We can create word games which deny logic. That is, in essence, a vague definition of "empty set".
"Name all numbers greater than 8 but less than 7."
That statement "exists" as a bag with no contents. It's not "nothing", but it's "something", with no apparent contents.
That is what your post is, a sort of logic word game using language. It going to happen many terms you try to pigeon-hole synonyms of "all" or "none" in the same bracket as something with limited value.
>>1204499
to add, it is declaring the false assessment there is value in the valueless.
"Name all opening moves in chess involving the king"
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"
"Can an all powerful force move an immovable object"
"Where do I throw a brick into infinity"
>>1203831
>since any change would render him less than perfect
Only if you take perfect to mean "finished" rather than "ideal" or " the best possible"
Surely it's more important in most characterisations of God for God to be the best possible than perfect.
One can think of lots of examples of things that are the best possible but can change while remaining the best possible.
