Logically rationalize God

[Metamorph]

That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.

[Investigator]

That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.

Hmm your doubt for the validity of my argument based on the reasons you have put forward suggests a sense of impracticality within yourself. I believe unintuitive philosophical arguments may sound witty at first, but prove have very little application. Why do I say this? Let's go to the thought bubble:

A man shows up and he says that there will be a huge battle in your homeland. He then asks you if you want to be bestowed enough power to protect you and your love ones at no cost at all to you. He also says without this power, many of your love ones will die. Assuming that you believe the man's offer, would you take the power? Most people would say yes. This is a sign of a priori assessment of power as a positive trait to have. Though I am not sure if you are going to be convinced by signs. Consider it valid posteriori knowledge.

Now, I understand the point that you're making with regard to the the time contingency of the quality of perfection. But you fail to understand that timelessness is a property that can be assigned to an object or property. In fact, most people fail to understand is that the cardinality of the set of properties that can assigned to an object is at least similar to that of a countable set. Now what if we added continuity to our properties (i.e X is Y times more intelligent than Z) then the cardinality would be that of the real numbers. If we were to do that, it would be very hard to contest Descartes's argument. So in regards to your gingko leaves, the object's properties are not timeless, so this will affect the quality of the leaf. This is why we alter the definition of good every time we jump from object to object especially when we take time into account. However, to be a perfect being, you must have good traits in all areas (this is insight into Godel's ontological argument) all the time. I don't know what you think of Kant, but he also thought that you couldn't ever assess temporal objects if you did not have some notion of space and time.

Hmm... As for your body argument. I am not completely sure what your getting at. Is a puppet a part of his master? Would a proxy be considered a part of the entity they are standing in for? For example, Athleticism is a property you assign to my body, not myself.

Maybe read into Godel, you might be more satisfied with his rigor.