I agree. But then I make a distinction between this and using the word “perfection” as it is said to be applicable to God. What God? And how do mere mortals [like you and I] go about the business of caculating the odds that He does in fact exist?
Thus:
Gods are believed to exist by some. By most. But in order to discuss His alleged perfection, there are folks like me who insist that His actually existence must be proven. Now, the fact that I don’t believe He does exist does not “settle it”. God is one possible explanation for All There Is. So, again, it really comes down to the extent to which those who do believe in God “in their head” are able to demonstrate to those who don’t believe it that He does in fact exist.
Unlike bowling a 1000 frame game perfectly which is an empirical possibility, the idea of God is non-empirical, it is not empirically possible. Thus there is no question of a possible God within empirical rational reality.
Way back in time some “primitives” invented bowling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling#Origins
Now, before it was invented, it was just an idea in someone’s head. But now it is an empirical reality.
Right?
With God there is the “idea” of His existence. And, sure, that seems rooted in part in human psychology. But noting this is not the same thing as demonstrating that He does not in fact exist. At least not from my frame of mind. Existence does seem to exist. And God is one possible explanation in contemplating its creation. At least until the child comes along and asks, “who created God?”
But, come on, who among us really fucking knows?! Your mind is either completely boggled trying to comprehend it all or you are somehow able to convince yourself that “in your head” you’ve got it all figured out.
And, sure, maybe you do. So, by all means, convince me.
And then this:
All this suggests [to me] is that even with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the rules of logic etc., there is still Hume’s own gap between a seemingly endless correlation of events/interactions and the exactitude embedded in an ontological understanding of cause and effect re a “complete and total” understanding of Existence itself.
Btw, there is no Gap at all in reference to Hume. Hume’s Problem of Induction is only in reference to Science, not Mathematics nor logic.
Okay, so what does this have to do with the OP? How are science and mathematics and logic intertwined in all of the various conflicted views of inferior/superior Gods as this relates to that which is of most interest to me here: How ought one to live?
How ought one to live morally, righteously, virtuously, progressively etc., in a world of conflicting goods?
For example there is a clear correlation between sexual copulation and pregnancy. There are all of the biological imperatives here that, one way or another, either are or are not in sync with science, mathematics and logic in an either/or world able to be understood precisely in terms of cause and effect.
But what is the precise correlation between copulation, pregnancy, abortion and morality? And how is the “progressive” understanding of this interwined [re cause and effect] in a complete, unequivical understanding of the role that science, mathematics and logic play here?