Here is your supplied definition for "perfect"...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:53 am
conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type:
a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
- exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose:
a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings:
a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
accurate, exact, or correct in every detail:
a perfect copy.
thorough; complete; utter:
pure or unmixed:
He has perfect control over his followers.
expert; accomplished; proficient:
She will need a perfect driving teacher.
unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree:
The above meanings of 'perfect' will apply to God in various way but imperatively a perfect God is unqualified, absolute, ideal, absolutely good and the likes.
So your idea is that all Theists must believe God is "unmixed," "proficient," "extreme," "flawless" and "fitted for a purpose"? Because all of those terms are listed above, and you say they all apply.
I say they don't all apply. Theists do not use all the possible meanings of "perfect" to describe God. For example, they would be appalled at the idea that God could be defined as "perfect to be used" in some way, since God cannot be "used" for anyone's purposes. A term like "extreme" just wouldn't have any precise application here at all. And to say that God is "expert" is about as poor and anthropomorphized a way to put the situation as a person could find.
If I were cynical, I think I'd be inclined to suppose perhaps you never meant anything specific at all by the word "perfect." It looks to me like you just cut-and-pasted a dictionary definition, without giving it adequate critical reflection to apply it meaningfully to the present topic of what Theists actually believe.
In fact, I can see from the URL you gave that that is exactly what you did. (I'm surprised you didn't include the botanical and musical definitions as well, actually). I have to say, you're not understanding the analytical problem with throwing around a word like "perfect" so loosely. You make it very easy for critics to pick apart your P2. And if you see the other responses, you'll note that at least three others instantly noticed that particular flaw. So I'm not alone in seeing that.
I think there's good evidence that it's a real problem if you hope to convince anyone.
Descartes’ ontological argument
Yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with the Ontological argument. It's really Anselm's. Descartes came much later, and was derivative, but his formulation is not the only one. You should look into Plantinga's version of the OA, if you want to speak of what thinking Theists might actually say about it today.
Are you insisting your god is less than perfect [theologically and divinely]?
Well, to be honest, I can't even tell what you intend to mean by your use of the term "perfect." You've included a lot of irrelevant variant definitions in your own explanation. (Well, really, in your cut-and-paste).
The point is the opposition expect me to concede unconditionally.
If one is not convinced by my argument for whatever reasons, then it would be more appropriate to say 'agree to disagree' rather than insisting I concede and then lambast with ad hominens like;
Another angry atheist savage, trying to tell everyone how the world should be run...
I can and will debate him myself...we are stuck in the problems of this world because of people like him.
"Agree to disagree" should probably be reserved for when the other person has a point that has a chance of being right. But you are correct to say that any insult would be ad hominem
, and not legitimate. And he shouldn't have said that.
But are you suggesting nobody's actually addressed your P2? Because I certainly have, and have not resorted to insults of any kind, you'll note.
That is why I mentioned 'crutch' and it always happened [very common] the 'crutch' is subliminally sensed as being tugged.
Well, to be fair, that's also ad hominem
. And now I've addressed that particular fact three times, and each time pointed out that it doesn't support your argument, and potentially undermines your case.
As I said before, sometimes you've just got to realize when you ought to concede a point. Not every one is worth defending. The "crutch" idea would certainly be one of those. It's a manifest fallacy. Time to drop it.
Your P2 looks very suspect now, as well. But we won't be able to say for sure if you should drop it until we know what precisely you're wanting to say by the word "perfect" in this context.