God & The Problem of Evil

Straw man!
You don’t seem to get my point and you are grumbling and shooting at straw-men.
I do not believe in Universals like Plato’s Forms.

Where did I argue there is such thing as ‘objective perfection’?

What I am stating is, theists will naturally end up claiming an ‘absolutely perfect God’ exists as real. There are theists who are claiming such a proposition, e.g. St. Anselm, Islam, and others.
I do not agree that such a thing as an ‘absolutely perfect God’ exists as real, that is why I am proving such a God is an impossibility.

What else could “absolute, unqualified perfection” mean?
Are you also confused as to what “objective” means??

Then argue against them that “absolutely perfect” is a non-sense ambiguous term.

The term “absolute, unqualified perfection” make logical sense via reason but as I had proven it cannot be real within empirical-rational reality.

Yes, the term “absolute, unqualified perfection” is nonsense, i.e. impossible within the empirical senses, i.e. sensibility + rationality. However the term is logically valid based on thoughts and reason alone

Why should I bother, that is your term, not mine.

When I argued an “absolutely perfect” is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality, it is implied it is a “non-sense” term as I had mentioned it is non-empirical [implied non-sensual] many times.

Then logically prove that the term is “logically valid”, because I don’t believe that it is.

As I has stated perfection with empirical elements are always qualified, i.e. qualified to certain conditions. A perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is qualified to those who set the question, the person who is marker, etc…

To claim a perfection that is not conditioned to any conditions at all, the appropriate term is to add “unqualified” to ‘perfection’, i.e. absolute perfection or absolutely perfect. In this sense it is obviously linguistically* logical and has been used by various theologians and accepted by many. QED.

  • definitely not mathematically logical.

I assume that you meant “qualified by certain empirical conditions”, which seems irrelevant to the issue, but of personal concern to you.

I believe that is the same as I defined “perfect” to be - suiting an ideal, in this case, the ideal of “100”.

And that is where you stepped into nonsense. First the “appropriate term” would by “unconditional perfection”, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is that the very idea of “perfect” already, inherently includes qualities or conditions that have to be met. If you took out ALL qualities, in what sense could anything be perfect? Perfect for what? Perfect in what way? 100% of what? You have removed anything for something to be perfect about.

It is like saying that item A is 100% pure black but item B is absolutely 100%.

You have two errors. First there is no difference between being 100% and being absolute. Several people have explained that to you several times. But in addition, you have a quality in the first case, being 100% black, but no quality at all in the second case, just 100%, not of anything, just 100%.

Being 100% of no particular quality is nonsense. It is not “absolute perfect”. If you are going to leave out the quality (or “condition”) then literally everything is perfect. Everything is 100% of whatever it is, absolutely perfect.

Ridiculous. So far, you have presented NO “logic” at all. You merely stated two assertions. Obviously you have no understanding of logic or reasoning. And your second assertion happens to be false.

There is nothing logically valid about making two assertions, even if they were true claims. Logic involves “because A-N is true, then X must be true”. A logical proof is an explanation of the consistency in thought and/or language such as to reveal that a conclusion must be true.

I’m sure you did demonstrate all of this. Care to do it again?

I remember you mentioned the impossibility of a perfect circle in the physical world–is this an example of what you mean?

See, here you seem to be switching back and forth between two different arguments. Your last argument was that God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition and politics, not some logical necessity. Here, you’re arguing that the existence of evil is incompatible with God’s perfection (which isn’t such a bad argument, but it gets sticky where defining evil, perfection, in what way God is perfect, etc. is concerned).

True, bringing in dictionary definitions is useful if you want to show that a particular definition you are using is indeed a commonly used definition. And I’ll agree that one meaning of ‘perfect’ is: absolute, total, unqualified. This is a useful definition when we want to say that the closer one gets to one end of a certain measure (for example, the less evil you cause, the more benevolent you are), the better. In that case, ‘perfect’ just means as close to that end as possible, which, if the measure in question has no limits, can mean infinite.

I’ve never heard these definitions of ‘concept’ and ‘idea’ before. We can work with these if they are your (or Kant’s) definitions, but I don’t think it makes a difference. We could just say: there are empirical concepts (drawn from the physical) and there are non-empirical concepts (abstractions). Your point is that non-empirical things (abstractions) don’t exist, therefore neither does God. Doesn’t matter what we call such non-empirical things.

But it is a different argument from that which you were making before. Before you were saying that a god must be perfect (at least in terms of omnipotence) otherwise a greater god would destroy it, so if it wasn’t perfect, it would not exist. Unless you’re arguing this: the idea of gods always evolves towards perfection (by way of competition and political motives on the part of believers), and certain kinds of perfection are only possible in terms of asbolutes or infinities; this places them in the camp of abstractions, which are impossible, therefore such gods cannot exist.

True, but the point is that the drive to prove one’s god to be perfect is not logic or reason but competition and politics. Therefore, it is not logically necessary that the gods be perfect, which is what I was getting at with the Hellenistic gods. Of course, I don’t believe in them, but there’s nothing logically wrong with saying that they need not be perfect in order to exist.

No, it would just mean an empirical god would be imperfect. Of course, this depends on how you’re measuring perfection. I agree that in a physical context, it makes little sense to say that measures like the quantity of matter or energy are infinit. What does it mean to be infinitely powerful though? Doesn’t it just mean capable of doing anything? ← I think this is impossible too but not because of the limitations on physical quantities, but because of how the laws of physics work. However, a concept like omni-benevolence might be possible. All that would mean is that the god in question has not a single manevolent bone in his body. I don’t see why that’s impossible.

Again, the Hellenic pantheon is a good example of the idea of imperfect gods (at least in terms of omnipotence), some of which are more powerful than others, who get along without the most powerful one necessarily destroying the less powerful ones.

I may be supporting your point, but I wasn’t exactly saying that such a god is impossible. I was saying that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence. I was arguing that attributing existence to God (as part of what it means for such a god to be “greater than which cannot be conceived”) only forces one to believe in such a god, but belief alone doesn’t prove existence.

Yep. And your point is that perfection in such a god can only amount to absolute or infinite qualities (omnipotence, for example), which is necessarily abstract, which therefore doesn’t exist. ← Is that right?

I believe that is the same as I defined “perfect” to be - suiting an ideal, in this case, the ideal of “100”.

Again I insist your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.

The term ‘absolute perfection’ is not mine but one that I inferred logically from the thoughts of theists and theologians.
The idea of the Ontological God, i.e. “God is a Being than which no greater can exists” represent an absolutely perfect God.
This ontological God is a result of a logical trend of progression in relation the idea [not concept] of a God because no theist would concede their God to be dominated by another God.

There is a range of perspectives and meaning for the term ‘perfection’ as qualified by various conditions.
To ensure God’s perfection is an unqualified one, theists need to insist their God is an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the Ontological God.
Who are you to decide otherwise for the theologians and the natural expectations of theists?

I agree theologians and theists can rationalize [purely] an absolutely perfect God but I am arguing such a God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.

I presume you meant,
It is like saying that item A is 100% pure black but item B is absolutely 100% pure black.

Note in the empirical world there is no possibility of 100% certainty.
Therefore ‘100% pure black’ is never a certainty and thus there are many other perspectives one can take ‘100% pure black’ to be as it depend on the criteria for ‘pure’ and ‘black’.
Is “pure” based on common observation, RGB codes, color wavelengths or what?
Pure black based on visual observations and confirmation by humans is obviously subjective so there can be disputes because humans has varied degree of color perception.
Thus to be more objective, can can determine pure blackness based on RGB codes or color wavelengths.
If color wavelength is the most objective, then we can say item B is absolutely 100% pure Black.
So there is a difference between 100% pure black and absolutely 100% pure black.
But as I had argued no matter how the term ‘absolute’ is used in the empirical world it is never unqualified.

However in the purely rational perspective, it is possible to used the term absolute in the sense of being unqualified or totally unconditional.
Now there is a difference between a ‘perfect God’ and an ‘absolutely perfect God.’
‘A perfect God’ is relative and has room to be dominated another more superior God.

As I had stated there is range of meanings and interpretations of ‘perfect’ by different people based on different criteria. Thus when someone claim their God to be perfect, another will claim his/her god is more perfect and so it goes on with other claims of greater perfection.
Therefore to ensure there no room for a more perfect God, the most effective theoretical term would be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. “a God than which no greater-perfect-God can be idealized.”

Get the point?
There is a refined difference between ‘a perfect God’ and ‘an absolute perfect God’!

Yes, the impossibility of an ideal-perfect circle.
Note a circle is an empirical concept but a theoretical ideal[perfect]-circle is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
God is not an empirical concept but a non-empirical abstract idea.

Yes there are two arguments which follows;

Argument 1
Absolute perfection is impossible - demonstrated.
God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition, politics, etc.
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Argument 2
God being absolutely perfect is driven by competition, politics, etc.
Absolutely perfect means absolute Good.
But evil exists
God is contradictory
Being contradictory, God [absolutely perfect] is an impossibility.

Actually my argument 1 is sufficient.
God is an impossibility so there no need to deliberate on God & The Problem of Evil.
This counter on a popular argument is just a additional reinforcement to justify why God is an impossibility.

The difference and nuance between a philosophical concept and a “philosophical idea” is very significant in a discussion of the idea of God, the independent Soul or the Whole Universe.
The point is abstractions can be related to

  1. empirical elements, e.g. beauty, love, etc. which is empirically possible or
  2. non-empirical elements like God, the independent Soul or the Whole Universe which is very distinct when attributed with the term ‘absolute’ or ‘unqualified’.

The drive to claim one’s god to be absolutely perfect is instinctual and inherent in human nature. As such is a logical necessity or rather a default.

Theists would not claim absolute perfection for their empirical-related god, e.g. monkey-liked[empirical] god [Hanuman]. There is no significant issue with empirical-liked gods where they can be accepted as imperfect.
The issue is with God in general which will gravitate ultimately towards an absolute perfect God naturally, inherently and be default as driven by instinct.

That is the point, as you said, the ontological argument does not prove God’s existence which support my argument.
My argument goes one step further, the ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God [by pure reason only] is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Yep, the idea of an absolutely perfect God is a non-empirical abstraction and it is impossible to exists within an empirical-rational reality.
It is like “OUGHT” purely by itself cannot exists within an “IS-OUGHT” reality.

For someone who has displayed such extreme lack of philosophical education (don’t even know what an ontology is), your opinion on that matter means bupkis.

As you are constantly doing, you presumed incorrectly. I even explained precisely why I meant exactly what I stated.

Note that such is your theory.

According to your own theory, you cannot be certain that your theory is certain.

The number one fundamental error that you have been making since the start of this is that;

If something cannot be empirically proven, it is impossible to exist.

You keep presuming that as priori in all of your arguments, yet it is nonsense.

You are always off track from my points and creating straw man.

I claimed;
If something cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

Rationally = reinforced with Philosophical-proper.

It is possible for a God to exists in the following restricted conditions;

  1. A God can exists based on pure thoughts and primal reason [kindergarten].
  2. A God can exists with a Morality framework,
  3. A God is real to a mental patient, schizophrenic, epileptic
  4. A God can be induced and experienced using hallucinogens and drugs.

BUT;
If God cannot be empirically-RATIONALLY proven, it is impossible for it to exist WITHIN AN EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL REALITY.

And by stating that YOU HAVE RATIONALLY ERRED in the exact way that I pointed out, REALLY.

And there is only one “REALITY”. It is certainly rational in the sense of being logical, but “empirical” is a subjective issue. To be empirical means that it can be seen, and certainly not all of reality can be seen.

Note my response to your very shallow and narrow philosophical views here.
viewtopic.php?p=2686305#p2686305

Nietzsche: “there is no truth, only perspectives”
neamathisi.com/new-learning/chap … y-of-truth

There are no facts, only interpretations.
from Nietzsche’s Nachlass, A. Danto translation

An absolutely one “Reality” is an impossibility.

Shows you how little Nietzsche actually knew, huh.

Yet another horribly naive presumption and preaching from the Prismatic pulpit.
:icon-rolleyes:

I would ask you to prove that, but … geeezzz… =;

Arminius wrote:

What do YOU mean by required?
What would make them require an evil God?
Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just explain that life at times just has no satisfactory, answerable questions as to why things happen though showing cause and effect in many cases may have just explained those things away?
Anyway, I wonder if any explanation would have sufficed?
We humans always need a scapegoat.

Those who wrote the OLd Testament - many during many centuries - had to find a “consensus”, and the consensus seemed to not allow another option than an evil god, a furious god.

Fear, angst, anxiety, awe, deep respect …

Yes, but not to them (at that time).

Yes, but not at that time (to them).

Instead of “we humans” I would say “a majority of the humans”.

Arminius,

Hmmm…I wonder why that would be? Instilling fear instead of love as a way to insure proper behavior?
Things still have not changed. Many Parents are still doing that to their children.

The OT God is also shown to be a loving, compassionate and forgiving God at the same time.
Perhaps the different writers of the OT perceived their God in different ways.
Perhaps those who were of a furious, unforgiving and judgmental nature, saw God in that way and those who were the opposite saw God in loving compassionate ways.
Who knows?
I think that for the most part, God is all about projection.

How can awe and deep respect conjure up an evil God?
Those emotions may cause one to desire to worship and to be faithful to their God but to instill a feeling of dread and fear?

I do not understand why. Although I do not believe anymore, subjectively speaking, I still see that there is much wisdom in the OT.
I suppose that a great deal of it WAS written as it was to inflict fear and to bring the people to their knees.
BUT I suppose that back then painting God as an evil one may have seemed to be the only way to get the people (not all of them) to live a moral purposeful life and to obey the Ten Commandments.

Well, perhaps I was wrong above. I think that for many of them a better more “realistic” explanation might have sufficed.
But then again, with the negative outlook, many may have simply said “What the hell! I’m going to be forever damned by God anyway.”

You have a point there. There are some who would probably never use others as scapegoats.

The use of others as “scapegoats” is part of an old strategy. In a more primitive way, “higher” animals also use others as “scapegoats”.

Does the author of the OP realize that “evil” is a metaphysical assumption that presumes a “good” against which it can be measured?