What I want to know is how intelligence (i.e. thinking, reasoning, predicting, assuming, connecting, etc) works. That’s what I am discussing here. That’s where I disagree with JSS and many others on this forum. There are other disagreements too, such as those that have more to do with values and less to do with facts, but right now, my interest is in the mechanism, if there is one, by which intelligence works. If that is too confusing to you then I can only advise you to stay away from these discussions.
God being good is impossible.
It is litterally impossible to say an omnipotent all powerful God is good, when he sits and lets starving people die.
Like if you were in a basement, with 10 little children tied up in a rope being starved to death by some sadistic asshole, you’d undo the rope and feed them.
But nope, nope, not this God of mercy, not this god of “love”, he’s just gonna let them all suffer and rot, such a good guy he is.
You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between “Absolute Perfection” and “Relative Perfection” with examples given as you has quoted.
Your examples of water, molecules, trees, universe as whole, are empirical things and I agreed they can be perfect, but only relatively perfect as conditioned by context.
A drop of water is perfect if it has all the qualities of what is supposedly “water-ness” that water is H20 as conditioned by its relevant Scientific Principles.
However there is no such thing as a drop of water or even water in the absolutely perfect sense, i.e. water-in-itself [Kant] because it is conditioned by context, thus not absolutely perfect.
We cannot nail or pin down what exactly is water-in-itself, because a drop of water is also H2O, a bundle of atoms, electrons-proton, quarks, etc.
Point is, we can impose relative perfection on empirical things but no empirical things can be absolutely perfect.
It is a problem of semantics. By ‘general’, I meant all encompassing, generic, universally and applicable in all circumstances.
Thus whatever is said of a God, ultimately a God has to be absolutely perfect.
Not that I agree, but the typical response of any theist is ‘you cannot prove god or my greater god does not exist’.
This is how the ontological God is conceived, i.e. to take the dominating stance of the ontological God.
As such, Theist A is better of grabbing the Ontological God, i.e. “my God is one no greater can be conceived.” Once a theist grab the Ontological God, there is no way other theists can claim a greater God.
Therefore, to avoid believing in an inferior God, most theists in the know will settle for an Ontological God and this is monotheism.
In the case of an ontological God, it has to be absolutely perfect so that there is no greater perfect God than one’s own absolutely perfect God [100%]. When one’s God is an 100% absolutely perfect God, there is no more room for other theists to squeeze in to claim their God is more perfect than others.
A God by default [whether one is aware of it or not] will be an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
But as I had demonstrated, absolute perfection is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God is an impossibility in reality.
God can only be made possible in thought but never in reality.
It is only made possible in thought for a desperate psychological reason, i.e. to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
He did not misunderstand you.
And your pseudo-difference between “absolute perfection” and “relative perfection” is nonsense, because “absolute perfection” is a tautology, since perfection is always absolute, so “relative perfection” makes no sense, since perfection is always absolute, just perfect. Per definitionem.
On the contrary, I think that it is you who have missed points.
The point is that your blatant assertion is false. I just pointed out why it is false. You stated it as a premise to your argument. And that makes your argument untrue.
You are merely picking one ideal that cannot physically exist. I agree that the man-made idea of a “perfect circle” cannot physically exist. But God is not a circle.
Your assertion has been that NO ideal can physically exist. So it is irrelevant that there is one or even a million ideals that can’t physically exist. What is relevant is that there is at least one ideal that does physically exist. You pick the ones that don’t and then make a generalization fallacy to proclaim that none exist.
The idea that non-charged mass particles gravimetrically attract each other is a physically real perfection. And it is absolutely true in the sense that it is true in every case.
You choose perfect notions that cannot physically exist to say that no perfection can physically exist.
I choose one perfect notion (among many) that DOES physically exist to say that your assertion is false. QED.
Phyllo has made the same rebuttal.
There are no absolutes. So if perfection has any meaning, it must be the one according to which perfection is not absolute.
You are the one making no sense whatsoever.
No absolute can physically exist.
Noone cares that you DECLARE that there are absolutes that physically exist.
The things you cite as absolute, perfect, etc are none of that.
You are wrong.
You don’t even know the simplest basics.
-
“Perfection” means 100%, mathematically said. “Absolute” means 100%, mathematically said.
-
“Impossibility” has nothing to do with likelihood. It’s like JSS already said:
You don’t know what the words you are using mean.
This is typical of parrots i.e. people whose only contact with reality is through what other people say.
You are simply clueless about the manner in which reasoning functions.
What does 100% mean?
I will give you an example of when we say that an assumption has a probability value of 100%.
(Yes, it is a probability value, despite James’ attempts to negate that it is.)
Suppose that you have a billion observations of white swans and zero observations of black swans.
The number of any kind of swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of white swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of black swans we have observed is zero.
The ratio between the number of white swans (specifics) and the number of any kind of swans (generics) is exactly 1.
That’s what 100% means.
The ratio between the number of black swans and the number of any kind of swans is exactly 0.
That’s what 0% means.
On the other hand, if you had 800,000,000 observations of white swans and 200,000,000 observations of black swans the ratio would be different and as a consequence of that the probability that you will encounter a white swan in the future will no longer be 100% but 80%.
Probability, or certainty if you will, is a human measurement based on a limited set of data.
If you only have 10 observations of swans and if every single one is an observation of a white swan then you will be 100% sure that all swans are white.
But, if you had 100 observations of swans where 80 swans were white and 20 were black you’d have different expectations.
What I am trying to tell you is that even clueless people can be 100% sure about what’s true.
The most important thing is that just because every single swan in the past was white does not mean that every single swan in the future will also be white.
The future is under NO obligation to mimic the past.
If you are 100% certain that something will happen that does not mean that that something will happen.
Similarly, if you are 100% certain that something won’t happen that does not mean that that something won’t happen.
The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.
Perhaps if you repeat that to yourself in the mirror over and over and over, one day it will finally soak in.
Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.
Look, this is the only thing you can do: Personal attacks, ad homs, but no single argument.
We all know what “100%” means. We don’t need your stupid personal attacks in order to understand what “100%” means".
And by the way: JSS and others have already said what logic means. But you are merely asking:
Will you ever grasp what logic is?
His arguments have nothing to do with this thread.
It seems that he has inferiority complexes. Therefore he has to insult. No one of his posts lacks insults.
If Prismatic and other atheists want to say: “God does not exist”, why do they not do that instead of playing their stupid kind of language game?
That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it? I guess that you know why they don’t do it.
They confuse many things with their wishful thinking and ideological beliefs. So, why should they not generally confuse objectivity, logic, God with subjectivity, wishful thinking, ideological beliefs?
Perhaps you should focus on my arguments instead of narrowing your intention to my insults?
You deserve those insults, by the way.
It is pretty clear that you don’t know what “100%” means. If you did know what it means then you wouldn’t be denying the fact that “impossible” means nothing other than “extremely unlikely”.
James has no clue what logic is.
Don’t worry. I do know what logic is. Better than the two of you.
Of course they do. You are denying the premise that there is no such a thing as absolute perfection. I am affirming it.
You are one hell of a moron.
No. You are saying “what people mean when they say…”
And despite being wrong, it is irrelevant because what you expect and predict concerning what these people are saying is NOT what they are discussing in this thread.
As usual with you, you are guilty of your own accusations. You have (again) been unwittingly criticizing yourself with these posts.
The premise of this thread is that the concept of absolute perfection, and the concept of absolute in general, is meaningless.
That is what you’re denying and that is what I am trying to affirm.
You are a moron.
It is not “meaningless”. At least learn what the word “meaningless” means.
That’s what you should do. Remember, you are guilty of your own accusations.
Any word that does not have a reference to something that can be experienced, observed or measured is meaningless.
Simply thinking that the word you are using is meaningful does not make it meaningful.
“Absolute perfection” is otherwise described as “the highest point of perfection”.
It means that there is NO point of perfection higher than it in the entire universe.
How can you know for certain that there is no such a point?
Sure, you can think it’s highly improbable that there is such a point.
But to think that there is no such a point for certain?
Only if you think that the universe works according to your expectations.
Actually it does. And everyone ELSE knows that. But until you learn what the word means, you will remain in your tower of delusion.
I am aware of the fact that you deny the existence of meaningless words i.e. words that do not refer to something that can be experienced.
Elsewhere you said that in order to use a word in a sentence it must already be meaningful.
That makes me think you’re insane.
Who is this everyone else?
You mean morons who “think” in the same exact degenerate way that you do?
They are hardly everyone else.
According to you, a statement such as “the love in great respiration smells without presidential atoms regarding celebrities” is meaningful.
It’s just that you don’t understand what it means.
I am proud of your brilliant mind.
If you cannot tell us how we can experience perfect circles then the concept of perfect circles is meaningless.
That’s what it means for a word to be meaningless: it has no reference to something that can be experienced.
I can tell you how we can experience zombies even though we cannot experience them anywhere within the environment that we inhabit.
But noone can tell us how we can experience perfect circles or absolute perfection for the simple reason that these concepts are . . . meaningless.
Of course, you are used to these concepts so it takes a lot of effort on your part to realize and accept that they are meaningless.
A strong habit is difficult to overcome.
But that’s none of my business.
I don’t have such problems.