God is an Impossibility

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.
:icon-rolleyes:

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.

Show me one absolute perfection that can exists in empirical reality?

You still don’t get it.
Your mass attraction is an empirical process and thus a relative perfection at most
.

I have stated relative perfection do exists in the empirical world but they are always conditional upon some conceptual framework or contexts.

Example, if you answered 50/50 questions correctly in an objective tests, that is a ‘perfect’ score, but it is a relative perfection as conditioned by the contexts of the test.
Athletes used to score perfect 7/7 in skating & diving, 10/10 in gymnastics and other sports but these ‘perfect’ scores are actually subjective, i.e. relative upon the framework of the judging process.

If you bring in any thing ‘perfect’ that is scientific, it is only conditioned [relative] to the human-made scientific framework and system.

Point it is impossible for an absolute perfection-in-itself to exists in reality independent of any human related conditions. [Kant]

A ‘perfect circle’ cannot exist physically, but such an ideal [though physically impossible] at least is related to a conceptual empirical reality, i.e. circles.

What is extreme with the “idea” [not even a concept] of a God is, it is an ideal that is not related to the empirical at all. The ideal of God has no grounding at all and is baseless. The ideal of God is an illusion based on primal reason [Kant] to deal [thus has utility] with an existential crisis.
The grounding of an absolute perfect God is merely based on an inherent psychological problem and can be cured psychologically. This is what the Buddhists did since 2500 years ago.

Yes, NO ideal [empirically related or non-empirical] can physically exists. The idea of God is imperatively the Mother of all ideals.

I repeat, the example above is based on scientific empirical observations, thus a relative perfection conditioned upon the human-mad scientific framework and method.

The idea of God is the ideal of all ideals, i.e. mother of all ideals.
As I had argued, the claim of an ideal God has to be absolutely perfect [ontological god] so that no others will have the opportunity to claim their God is more perfect.
In order not to settle for an inferior God to another, all theists [implicitly] by default will have to settle for an absolute perfect God [ontological] {P2}.

I’ll tell you what sort of ‘God’ is possible.
An anthropomorphic god is possible though of low probability.
It is possible a human-liked [empirical] god, the size of a billion stars, with very powerful energy could [very low probability] exists someway in the universe. Humans will think such a god is ‘perfect’ but it is only relatively perfect as other similar anthropomorphic gods can also exists elsewhere competing with one another, leading to infinite regression.
Would any theist proper accept an anthropomorphic god [‘man with beard in the sky’] in our current intellectual and spiritual conditions?

Thus my argument stands;
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

Re my reply to JSS above where I explained the difference between ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ perfection.

Perfection is never always absolute.

‘Perfection’ that are conditioned upon the empirical, e.g. perfect scores 100/100 on an objective tests, a perfect 4.0 GPA, 10/10 points in gymnastic performance, 7/7 in a diving competition, etc. are relative perfections.

As absolute perfection, is unconditional upon any human elements, e.g. perfect circle, triangle, square, etc. and the mother of all ideals or perfections, i.e. the absolutely perfect God [ontological].

But the properties of circles,triangles, squares are not the same in Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries … so they are “conditional upon human elements”. Call it a framework or context if you want.

Your division of perfection into relative and absolute is arbitrary. Upon reflection, it makes no sense.

That’s right. Words such as “highest” and “maximum” only make sense in relation to a finite set of values. And this finite set of values must be subjectively defined. The universe itself isn’t bounded. The universe can be “anything it wants to be”. As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. Any meaningful concept of the word “perfect” has to be relative to some subjectively defined boundaries. When I say “she’s a perfect woman” what I mean is that she has everything that I want in a woman. “Everything that I want in a woman” is a finite set of requirements that can be tested against reality (i.e. any particular woman.) When a woman fulfils every single requirement, I say she’s perfect. When she does not, I say she is not perfect. We can see that the ordinary use of the word “perfect” is not absolute as Mr. Alf declares.

What these people have trouble with is accepting that everything is relative to, or dependent upon, context and that nothing is absolute or independent from context. Decontextualization (or quite simply reductionism) is an epistemological process the purpose of which is to simplify information in order to digest/understand it.

Sounds like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Yours is a bad and shallow reflection.

There is a difference between a perfect score of 100/100 correct answers in objective test with 100 questions. This is possibility is expected and obvious with the testing conditions set by humans.

An absolute perfection which is empirical related, e.g. a perfect circle [Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries] is a deliberated standard of perfection that is not possible to exist physically.
In contrast, a relative perfection is possible in reality, e.g. scoring 100% in an objective tests, 7/7 in a diving competition, etc.

You are going to have to define “perfect” a lot better than you have. I would suggest that it means “an exact match to a reference”, but it’s your thesis.

‘Sounds like’ but not a true “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Not “an exact match to a reference.”

There is a range of meaning for ‘perfect.’

Definition of Perfect

1 a :being entirely without fault or defect :flawless a perfect diamond
b :satisfying all requirements :accurate
c :corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept a perfect gentleman
d :faithfully reproducing the original; specifically :letter-perfect
e :legally valid

2 :expert, proficient practice makes perfect

3 a :pure, total
b :lacking in no essential detail :complete
c obsolete :sane
d -:absolute, unequivocal enjoys perfect happiness
e -of an extreme kind :unmitigated a perfect brat an act of perfect foolishness

4 obsolete :mature

5 -of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or verbal that expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at a time spoken of

6 obsolete
a :certain, sure
b :contented, satisfied

7 of a musical interval :belonging to the consonances unison, fourth, fifth, and octave which retain their character when inverted and when raised or lowered by a half step become augmented or diminished

8 a :sexually mature and fully differentiated a perfect insect
b :having both stamens and pistils in the same flower a perfect flower

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect

What is applicable for my thesis for the meaning of ‘perfect’ is related those elements in bold above.
I have given examples of what is ‘relative perfection’ and ‘absolute perfection’.

Descartes described God as a ‘supremely perfect being’ and the term & meaning re ‘perfect’ is linked with God in the Bible bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/ … fection-Of - and implied in the Quran.

Those are the only ones that pertain to your thesis, and each of those means, “an exact match to a reference”.
[list]a) “without fault” means an exact match to an ideal
b) “satisfying all requirements” means an exact match to all requirements
c) “corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept” means an exact match to an ideal.
So you just like to disagree.

So a “perfect god” would be,
a) an exact match to a chosen ideal
b) an exact match to all listed requirements
c) an exact match to a chosen ideal
Since a and c are identical we really only have;
a) an exact match to a chosen ideal
b) an exact match to all listed requirements[/list:u]
So far in your arguments, you haven’t mentioned the exact ideal or listed any requirements that a god is to match other than to say that ideals can’t physically exist. So in effect, you are stating as premise that a god cannot exist.

You really don’t need to go through all of the “absolute vs relative perfect” confusion.

Our rebuttal has been to deny your premise that ideals cannot be physically real. You don’t like that, so you deny our denial.

And conflict lives eternal.

There is a definition of the ideal and a comparison to determine if something satisfies the definition. If it does meet it, then it’s perfect. If it falls short then it’s either flawed or it’s not related to the ideal at all.

That happens in both of the categories (relative and absolute) which you have created.

One could create an ideal which is not physically achievable … for example, an ideal cat which is immortal. Is such an ideal reasonable? I would say no. Once you start adding characteristics to the ideal, there seems to be no end to it.

Which brings me to this question : what are the characteristics of a perfect god?

Most of the quotes in the link don’t refer to perfection.

Ironically one of the quotes is :

Jesus telling people to be perfect. He saying that perfection is possible for humans in the same way that it is possible for the heavenly Father. :-k

It sounds like you are saying that theists who don’t accept your premise 2 are not proper/true theists.

Your premise 2:

There are also meaningless ideals that cannot be matched to any kind of experience that we can imagine. An example would be the ideal of perfect circles in the literal sense of the word. Can you describe for us the kind of experience that would match such an ideal?

First, we must establish whether the ideal of an immortal cat is a meaningful one or a meaningless one. Because it can be both. All depending on one’s intelligence.

If what is meant by the ideal of an immortal cat is an experience that suggests that the most likely state of this cat at every future point in time is that of being alive, then it is meaningful, and by that very fact, it is achievable even though the probability of being achieved can vary.

On the other hand, if what is meant by the ideal of an immortal cat is not some sort of experience from which we can predict that the cat that will be alive at every future point in time but the fact that the cat will remain alive for all eternity then the ideal isn’t merely physically unachievable, and by physically unachievable I mean that it is very unlikely that it will ever be met, but quite simply meaningless because no experience can ever match it (because it is independent from experience i.e. it is taken out of context.)

His point is that meaningless ideals cannot be physically real. In other words, ideals that are independent from experience. That’s the point you are missing. Again, because you’re a notorious moron.