God is an Impossibility

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

  1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one’s answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another’s god. As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

So,
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

False for a variety of reasons, but let’s just pick one…

False. A convenient presumption for your bias, but hardly provable and certainly not an acceptable premise.

One of a great, great many “perfect” empirical existences is mass attraction. Mass attraction is very easily observable existence and empirically provable. Of course there are a great many others; speed of light, linear momentum, conservation of energy, centripetal momentum, … These are all 100% true to reality and indispensable to the construct of the universe = “perfect”.

You have missed my points.

Point is, if your “mass attraction” or whatever is empirically observable and based, it cannot be an absolute perfection [‘an ideal’ re Kant].

A perfect circle is not empirically based but conceived by means of reason, thus theoretical.
A perfect circle do not exists [is an impossibility] in empirical reality.

Other than by numbers, equations and computations, show me where can I find [observe] an absolutely perfect circle that exist empirically.

Maybe you mean perfection is an impossibility, or that you aren’t conceiving a version of perfection that meets the criteria for you to believe perfection to be possible.

This is just a roundabout version of the problem of evil.

That is my point.

Perfection is an impossibility,
God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Note I stated two types of perfection above, i.e. relative and absolute.
Relative perfection is possible in reality but not absolute perfect which is limited to reason and thoughts only.

A theist would not want a god that is less perfect, since in this case his/her god would be inferior to other gods which are more perfect or an ontological God, i.e. a god than which no greater perfection can be conceived.

Absolute perfection is an impossibility. Since God [by definition] imperatively must be absolutely perfect, therefore God is an impossibility.

It has no direct connection to the ‘problem of evil’ where God is supposedly omni-benevolent, thus an all-powerful God should not allow evil to happen. Yet, evil exists in reality.

Ultimately it is related because a perfect God would not allow imperfection, i.e. in this case evil to exists.
But ‘perfection’ is more general and extensive than the element of evil.

I believe my argument from ‘perfection’ is a very convincing one which is difficult to be countered by theists.

I don’t see how this argument applies to just a god. Seems like if it were true, then nothing could be perfect, then the word itself would be lacking any real referent. At best, you’re saying, “a god that has to be defined as perfect, and with perfect defined in this way would be impossible”.

The idea of God has to be perfect, else it is an inferior god. I believe the idea of god as perfect is implicit in the definition of God.

When a theist is made aware of the possibility their God is inferior to another’s God and given the reasoning they will definitely opt for the perfect God, given it is only a matter of thought and choice.

God has to be absolutely perfect and everything else need not be absolutely perfect.
Nb: everything can be relatively perfect, but this is not the topic.

On the question of real referent, there are no absolute independent referent.
Whatever referent is conditioned upon the subjects on an interdependent basis.
This is big another critical issue within the philosophical community between the Philosophical Realists and Philosophical anti-realists [my views]. Has to discuss this separately.

Yeah but if you’re saying perfection is unattainable/impossible or whatever, then how would there be a perfect god to be better than the other god that would end up with the inferiority complex?

You get what I’m saying? You can’t have it both ways, because if perfection is required, and impossible, then you’re just saying that nothing fits your definition. If you try and reinforce that definition as the correct one by pointing to a perfect god that would be better than another god, then you’ve contradicted yourself. You’re saying that a perfect god, or one that fits whatever definition of perfection is impossible, but still possible because to be inferior, something has to be superior, and in this case that superior thing would be a perfect god which you say can’t exist on the one hand, but then on the other hand you have part of your argument relying on its existence.

And about real referents…what about rigid designators? What about maximally specific propositions? At what point can we say that one object has been distinguished from others sufficiently? If the answer is never, then we’ve got a bigger problem than whether or not there’s a god and/or if its a perfect one. The problem with simply putting together a syllogism where perfection is concluded to be impossible is in that by making that universally the case, for the sake of argument even, you’ve made it impotent as a criticism for any given object which lacks perfection. Am I making sense here? It’s like…if we define asshole broadly enough to encompass everyone, then calling someone an asshole doesn’t really mean much. If we define perfection as impossible, then saying something isn’t perfect doesn’t amount to much of a criticism.

Zombies exist only theoretically. Perfect circles don’t. Perfect circles is a sequence of words without any meaning.

He’s speaking against absolute perfection.
An object is said to be absolutely perfect if there is no other object within all of the eternity more perfect than it.
Absolute perfection = the highest point of perfection.

He is not speaking against relative perfection.
An object is said to be relatively perfect if there is some other object that is less perfect than it.
For example, LeBron James is perfect in the sense that he’s a more perfect basketball player than most other people.
Relative perfection = a higher point of perfection.

The problem is the word “absolute” which is strictly speaking meaningless because it is all-exclusive.
You cannot point to a single person who is absolutely perfect in some regard because in order to know that someone is perfect in some regard you have to verify that there is no other person more perfect than him within the entire universe.

I would say that your conclusion is not mutually exclusive with the statement “God is a possibility”. God encompassing both the impossible and possible.

I think your premises and conclusions are good, we could just add a whole bunch more premises and conclusions that make the argument less significant.

It is not me who is claiming perfection. I am not claiming a perfect god exists.

It is the theists [based on their own reasoning] who claim their God exists and is perfect as an ontological God.

What I am countering is, on a finer scrutiny, their belief is false, i.e. a perfect God is an impossibility, because perfection is an impossibility.

That is what I am saying, perfect circles do not exist in the empirical world.
Perfect circle exists geometrically which is supported by definition, principle and computations.

That is my point.
It is the same for a perfect god, which is a sequence of words without any meaning and has no real corresponding referent.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

God a contradiction?
A contradiction is impossible. [if same sense, time and conditions]
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Alternatively God is only a possibility for believers to deal with desperate [subliminal] psychological impulses which are driven by an existential dilemma caused by “zombie parasites”.

Whichever way one define God, it will eventually lead to an ontological God which implicitly is perfect.
No genuine theist would settle for an imperfect God [weakling god compare to others] if s/he knows a perfect God or ‘perfection’ is easily available via mental choice.

Note the evolution of the idea of God, from natural elements to bearded-man-in-the-sky, cosmological god, pantheistic god and ultimately the ontological God [perfect].

Prismatic, you’re doing the old shift the burden of proof thing, which in another basic thing that people do with this debate. Problem is, I’m not sure who you’re countering because you started the thread and made these initial claims.

Are you saying because god can’t make a rock so heavy tjat he can’t move it, that there can’t be a god?

A god would only be impossible by human definition. Any god worth his/her salt woudn’t even pay attention to such a claim. Omnipotence is omnipotence and that is what makes a god a god.

BUT… All or nothing.
All and nothing
All is nothing
Repeat as meditation mantra or as a sleeping aid.

Not so.
I am not shifting the burden of proof at all.
Theists insist God exists as real, I am countering this claim with my syllogism above.

I am proving by sound logic why God is an impossibility.
Note my syllogism above and the related explanations for each premise.
Can you point to any flaws in my premises and syllogism.

The “… rock so heavy …” argument is merely playing with words and empirical elements. It does draw attention to the question of the existence of God but it is not sufficient nor very convincing. God is claimed to be beyond the empirical and is not effected by gravity in space, thus ‘heavy’ has no meaning for an ontological God.