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.

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.

But is it possible to be better than God?
And how can what is created be on the same level as that which created?

One experiences circles all the time. It’s easy to draw one with a compass.

Whether you judge it to be perfect or not, depends on the measuring tools that you have available and the purpose of the circle.

What does it mean to be better? What does it mean for a god to be perfect?

If you don’t specify any characteristics, what meaning do ‘perfect’ and ‘better’ have?

I asked you to describe to me the kind of experience that would match the ideal of perfect circle in the literal sense of the word.
That’s not what you did. What you did is you described a regular circle which can only be perfect in the relative sense of the word (i.e. perfect in relation to one’s needs.)

A physical shape is said to be a perfect circle if every single point on its boundary that can be identified at every viewing distance is the same distance from some fixed point.

If the best measurement system shows that all distances from the center are the same, then it’s a perfect circle.

On a practical level this reduces to the best available measurement system.

On another practical level it reduces to acceptable tolerances.

You are dribbling.
The point is that whether a circle is perfect or not is dependent on our needs.
It is our needs that determine which measurement system is good enough.
Which means that the best one that is available may not be good enough.
You might need a better one which would motivate you to create one.

It means that He’s omniscient (i.e. knows everything) and omnipotent (i.e. can do anything.)
It’s a well known fact.
To be better than God means to know more than Him and to do more than Him.
But this is a contradiction because He already knows everything there is to know and he can already do anything that can be done.
But I guess you can just keep disagreeing in the same way that James does: