Maybe because my point wasn’t to prove the existence of God or whatever you think I should be backing up with evidence?
My point was to solve the “rock problem”.
An omnipotent being can lift rocks no problem.
Also, it can make itself weaker so that there are rocks it cannot lift.
The guy taking the opposite position can generate just as much babble about it as you can. None of the babble is about evidence … it’s an argument founded on the meaning of words.
That’s the essence of the problem.
Let’s assume that you see some evidence of God within the universe.
Then how do you know what the powers and limitations of God are?
Surely, there is not enough evidence to tell you the answer to that question.
Jesus or another prophet might tell you but what if they are wrong or bullshitting.
Note my argument;
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.
Since my argument is based on “absolute perfection” it is essential I differentiate it from relative perfection. I have given examples of relative perfection, e.g. a perfect score of 100% in an objective test, and the likes. Relative perfection relate to empirical things. Surely such a relative perfection is very different from the idea of an ideal perfect God [ontological].
Btw, you did agree [with exception of God] ideal cannot be exist physically, note below.
Re above, I explained there are two types of ideals,
- Empirical ideals - perfect circle
- Non-empirical ideals -
Non-empirical ideals has two categories, i.e.
- General non-empirical ideals - e.g. moral standards, the likes.
- Absolutely absolute non-empirical ideals, the mother of all ideals, i.e. God [ontological].
Note the central meaning of ‘perfect’ in my thesis is this sense;
3 a :pure, total
b :lacking in no essential detail :complete
c obsolete :sane
d -:absolute, unequivocal
e -of an extreme kind :unmitigated
Philosophically, [not general meaning] the perfect God is the absolutely absolute ontological God as proposed by St. Anselm and seconded by Descartes as the Supremely Perfect God, i.e.
“…God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.”
I presume you meant an exact match of reference to a referent which is full of controversies, e.g. correspondence theory of truth, no thing-in-itself as reference, etc.
In any case, at most, this [reference ↔ referent] is most relevant to elements of relative perfection and general ideals but not to a perfect God which is claimed to exists by theists [not me] and cannot be fully described by imperfect being. Imperfection cannot subsume perfection [as claimed] but possible the other way round.
This is why the ontological God was introduced to cover this weakness.
The definition of the ontological God is self-explanatory and implied a God standard of absolute perfection above all other types of perfections.
Note my argument is against the idea and existence of an ideal God which is real in reality as claimed by theists. You don’t seem to be in tune with this but is arguing with a straw man.
You confusion is you are not able to differentiate ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ perfection. In addition, the idea of God is a distinct type of absolutely absolute perfection, i.e. ontological.
Note my reply to JSS above which answers many of your questions above.
Note the point: imperfect humans cannot [subsume] fully describe a perfect God. Nonetheless a perfect [as defined] God is implied within an ontological God [St. Anselm, Descartes].
This is relative perfection.
Again this is relative perfection, i.e. relative to the measuring base, measuring tools and measuring units one use.
If one were to draw a circle on a piece of paper with a pencil, one can get measure a ‘perfect circle’ using a ruler and reading off the observed points. If the distance of all the points of the circle to its center [the radius] is constant then that would be a perfect circle relative to agreed procedures and standards of measurement. But this is merely a RELATIVE perfection because;
If one were to see the drawn circle enlarged using a microscope, one will see there are irregular points [pixels] distributed randomly rather than in a single line. In this case the distance to the center is not the same. Thus what is seemingly a perfect circle measured ordinarily is not a perfect circle when the ‘real’ line of the circle is enlarged.
Suppose one is able to mark the pixel on one single line to make the distance from the center the same for all the pixels, but it will be regular if we see the pixel using a electron microscope.
If we can go down to the molecular level and arrange the molecules, atoms, electrons (??) to maintain their equal distance from the circle to its center, there will be more difficulty when considered at the level of quarks and the wave function collapse factor. Btw, atoms, electrons, quarks, moves, thus that supposed perfect circle is changing all the time.
From the above, one will conclude there is no way one can measure and establish an absolute perfect circle, i.e. one that will not change and independent of measuring tools, units, etc.
This point is supported by the philosophical principles of no absolute thing-in-itself or perfect-circle-in-itself, i.e. re Kantian. Perhaps you do not understand [not necessary agree] Kant’s theories on this point.
Note our consistent rebuttal:
P1 is untrue, thus the argument is irrelevant.
We have given you examples of “absolute perfection”. We have discussed the definition of “perfection”, “absolute”, and “impossible”. You repeating your assertion isn’t changing any minds.
I think it was phyllo who pointed out the error in your thoughts on that distinction, although it was Alf who pointed out the redundancy. But let me reword it for you (not that it will help).
The concept of “perfect” requires a reference (or referent if you prefer). What you are describing as “relative” actually applies to ALL uses of the word because the word is describing the condition of something relative to that referent, always. Whether the referent is a mathematical ideal, a test score, or a physics principle is irrelevant. There is no “absolute perfect” that is any different than a “relative perfect” other than to claim that “relatively perfect” means “closer to perfect than something else”, but that is not as you have defined it.
Nah. You’re just stringing words together, “absolutely absolute non-empirical ideal” … give it a break.
I was really hoping that you were bright enough to see that “pure”, “total”, and “complete” were your RELATIVE (your “10/10”) and otherwise identical to “an exact match to a referent”.
Try to catch on.
“God is a being of which there is no greater that can be conceived” is a statement of “exact match to a referent.”
There is no controversy over what the word and concept means. Whether such a being can exist is what you are trying to debate. You stepped into the whole “correspondence theory” and “no thing-in-itself” issue as soon as you depended upon “perfect”, because it requires an inherent referent.
Nah. Your confusion is that you don’t understand what several of us have been telling you concerning what “perfect” means and thus end up making nonsense phrases like, “absolute perfect”, “relative perfect”, and “absolutely absolute perfect”.
It is you who obviously have trouble distinguishing a mathematical ideal from a physics principle. Mathematical ideals pertain to non-existent entities such as points, lines, and circles. So of course, those ideals are not going to be found in the physical universe. God is not a mathematical entity.
But principles (of which God is one, specifically the most fundamental, the “Prime Cause”), actually DO exist in the physical universe, such as gravitation, momentum, energy conservation, and so on.
YOU are making the strawman, apparently because you can’t distinguish mathematics from physics.
I am the one making a proposition.
Thus you need to understand [not necessary agree] my premises before you can even counter it.
As I had stated you have not understood my points re ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ perfection, where I have given examples.
It is obvious there is a difference between a perfect 100% 10/10 scores [empirical] and perfection related to God [ontological] (non-empirical].
The “exact match to a referent” is of secondary importance.
Point is without understanding my premises and the related terms you are insisting on your own interpretations of my views which is a straw man.
In addition while I am talking about an absolute God, i.e. an ontological perfect God, you are throwing in an empirical [gravitation, momentum, energy conservation] God which is not really a God per se.
Btw, do you understand the difference between the ‘empirical’ and Kant’s thing-in-itself which is related to the perfect ideal God I am presenting? If you do not understand this difference, you are arguing from ignorance regardless of Alf and Phyllo ‘agreeing’ with you.
Nah,
the referent is God, the being.
“no greater can be conceived” is equivalent to no greater perfection can be conceived, i.e. absolute perfection. Perfection is a quality of that referent, i.e. God.
The point here is theism in its highest principles is claiming a God with absolute perfection, i.e. no greater perfect being can be conceived.
Note your ‘first cause’ God is a low class god.
I have demonstrated ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility therefore God [at its highest idealization] is an impossibility.
You are merely demonstrating, much like Magnus, that your lust to persuade over shines your desire to be correct.
The problem with this definition is that the people doing the conceiving have limited knowledge and understanding. Therefore they cannot actually conceive a perfect God.
So this ontological God is not an “absolutely perfect” God in the sense that Prismatic is suggesting. Shouldn’t he be calling this God “relatively perfect”? You know, relative to human abilities. 
One has to buy into Kant’s theories in order for your argument to work?
It should stand independently.
I like to mix it up. Call it, say, a liberal thing.
Again, my frame of mind here revolves around the extent to which he can demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to agree with him. Not that “for all practical purposes” an agreement reduces social friction. For example, in order to reduce contention on this thread [if that is the goal], someone may desire that everyone agree that God is an impossibility.
And that happens. Everyone is in agreement that God is an impossibility. But: Is that the same thing as demonstrating that in fact this is true?
Is there an absolute/objective answer to the question, “is God an impossibility?”
Sure, there might be. And some of us here may have made up our minds one way or the other. All that is left then is either agreeing or not agreeing with their syllogistic assumptions regarding premises and conclusions.
But: My beef then revolves around the extent to which the argument/analysis is more or less a “world of words”.
God either becomes or does not become an impossibility because we either agree or do not agree with the definition/meaning of the words that comprise the argument/analysis itself.
Meanwhile no actual physical entity – a God, the God, my God – appears to have been demonstrated at all.
At least not to me.
Another general description. The same or different, in agreement or not in agreement, regarding what?
At KT that revolves around accepting that Satyr’s general description lectures are in sync with the most or the only rational understanding of the relationship between genes and memes. Thus in accepting his “theoretical” premises there, you accept his “theoretical” conclusion.
Okay, fine. But what does that have to do with resolving actual existential conflicts that revolve around value judgments that are not in sync “out in the world” that we live and interact in from day to day. In the No God world at KT.
“One of them” will either take the discussion there or he/she won’t.
And yet you react to that with another mouthful of “general descriptions”:
What on earth are you suggesting here? Pertaining to what particular context in which behaviors come into conflict? And how would we go about determining which opinion really is in sync with the most rational understanding of human interactions? And then with the most rational understanding of God?
I understand that. And, if God is not only a possibility but is actually an existing entity, it will work in sync with His will. And, further, if this God is omniscient that would seem to suggest this very exchange itself must [necessarily] be in sync with His will.
But: what “on earth” does that really mean?
Also, some are willing to take these entirely “epistemological contraptions” there and others are not.
But how have you really proven then that James is a “moron”, other than by insisting that the definition and the meaning that you give to the words comprising the argument/analysis itself, are by default, the starting point.
When words are defined and defended only by other words then, sure, words like “God” and “intelligence” become what you insist they are. But what is lacking however is an actual omniscient God [or mere mortal] able to confirm it.
Well, other than tautologically.
The “conceptualization” is based on crude logic and reason, and it is non-empirical. One can easily reason to the highest possibility on anything as long as it is not a contradiction. This statement is self-explanatory and can stand by itself.
The only problem is the proving with evidence of one’s thesis to be real.
Re the ontological God, the theist claims a 100% perfect God so there is no more room for any one to claim a more perfect god than 100%. This is an absolutely perfect God.
Thus to ensure one do not believe in a less perfect God, one will have to accept [by default] a 100% perfect God. This is how monotheism arose. Thus when any quality is attributed to a 100% perfect God, that quality has to be 100% as well, e.g. uncompromizable 100% omnipotence or omni-whatever.
The ontological god emerged from thoughts and reasoning and is claimed by theists [not me] to be absolutely perfect and independent of human conditions.
Yes, you are right, I would call the supposedly “absolutely perfect” ontological God as claimed by theists to be 'relatively perfect" because I understand and know it is conjured by theists [related] out of psychological reason.
But theists would disagree with me [call me a fool] and insist their “absolutely perfect” ontological God exists independently of humans, create humans and the universe. This is why my OP is arguing such a claim is false and that God is an impossibility to be real.
My argument is independent, i.e.
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.
I have provided the supporting details for each premise.
To understand P1 it would be easier if one can understand [not necessary agree] Kant’s idea of the thing-in-itself and God as a transcendental illusion.
I did not say one must ‘buy’ [agree with and accept] into Kant’s theories, I stated one need to understand but not necessary agree with Kant’s theories.
Note the point ‘understand but not necessary agree.’
People are different in general. They have different goals, they have different abilities, they have different experiences, they reach different conclusions, etc.
For example, you are different from KT folk in the sense that you hold opinions that they don’t.
What I am suggesting is that the defining feature of absolutists is their belief in infallible (i.e. absolutely true) opinions. The distinction between “those who know absolute truth” and “those who don’t” is merely a consequence of this belief in infallible opinions.
If God is absolutely perfect, and if absolute perfection is something that cannot be experienced, then God isn’t something that can be experienced.
This is how I interpret Prismatic’s syllogism.
However, if we redefine the concept of God so that it refers to a being that is not above everything that can possibly exist but merely far above humans as they existed at the time of their conception then God can exist i.e. his existence is possible.
There are no absolute answers. Regardless of what kind of question you are asking.
Maybe it is to you. But it does not appear to be the case to me.
That’s true. I personally won’t. Maybe someone else will?
That’s exactly why I am interested in the subject of intelligence (or more specifically, in the subject of reasoning.)
We can’t “prove” or “disprove” anything. What we can do is we can make inferences based on some finite set of observations.
I agree with you that there is no evidence of God. There is, however, plenty of evidence for intelligence. And my study of intelligence, contrary to what you’re trying to say here, is based on observations of how living organisms act. In other words, it’s grounded. It’s not just a fantasy or an empty word with no reference outside of my brain.
Generally,
The idea [not a concept] of a God is borne out of an inherent psychological desperation pulsating at the subliminal levels of the mind and this is reinforced by faith. Analogically this is like the control of “zombie parasites” over the minds of their hosts.
This belief in a God comes in degrees depending on the psychological theistic state of the person from being a dogmatic fundamentalist to an agnostic.
The point is once a belief in God provides a soothing relief to the related psychological angst it is difficult for theists to let go of theism and they will defend such a belief to the extreme most of even killing disbelievers when they feel their security of theism is threatened.
Because the psychological stakes are very high, theists will come with all sorts of defense arguments to justify God exists, but these arguments are all without substance and real groundings.
Because the idea of God is borne out of psychological desperation and conjured without evidence [except by faith], no one has ever been able to prove with evidence god exists as real.
The belief in a god out of psychological desperation has ‘evolved’ over the ages from an empirical related God [the bearded man in the sky] to the highest and greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] one can think of.
However the greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] is baseless and as the OP proved such a God relying on absolute perfection is an impossibility.
The only validity and utility for the idea of God is solely a psychological one and must be resolved on such a psychological basis. Since thousands of years ago, many [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and the likes] has resorted to its true nature, i.e. the psychological factor to deal with that associated inherent existential crisis.
That’s quite a rant. Are you sure that theists are the ones with the psychological issues?
I’ve played my part.
Exits, stage right.
It’s been the stereo-typical new-age, new-religion, fanatic, hypnotized programming from the start.
They can’t change their new-age programming (the very accusation they make of the other religious people).