PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.
As explained my P2 is based on the point that ultimately all claims of God is reducible to an absolutely perfect when theists are made aware their God is inferior to another.
For example the Quran claims Allah is an absolutely perfect God than which there is no greater. All other gods are slaves of Allah.
Will Christians accept their God is a slave of Allah?
I don’t believe Christians will accept their God is inferior to any God.
It is the same for other theists who will not accept their God as inferior to any other God from another religion.
Some theists like those in Hinduism believe is lesser Gods like monkey god [Hanuman] or elephant God [Ganesha] and many other lesser limited gods, but Hinduism has an overriding absolutely perfect Being, i.e. Brahman.
There are many primitives and tribal people who believe in their own version of God which is often limited. But when a comparison is made against the limited God with say an absolutely perfect being, they will often relent and convert to the absolutely perfect God of either Christianity or Islam or accept some other more powerful God and eventually to an absolutely perfect God.
My argument ‘God is an Impossibility’ will cover the majority 90% of theists who must believe in an absolutely perfect God.
But Even there are theists [not many] who insist on a lesser God [be vulnerable to be ridiculed by others], e.g. a bearded man in the sky which is empirically possible [albeit very slim], thus my argument do not apply, then the question is, produce the evidence of a bearded man in the sky - which most likely impossible.
Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another’s?
I am none the wiser but as this thread is about God and not phenomena I will leave it there
However I do not think the notion of absolute perfection can be applied to anything natural
But I’m kind of curious about in what sense the speed of light is NOT absolutely prefect. Has any experiment ever been performed that found the actual speed of light to be wrong?
Perfection requires a comparison between something and a standard.
If something is unique, then it’s possible to say that there is nothing with which it can be compared. Therefore every unique thing can be considered perfect.
Of course, it’s possible to set up an ideal which the unique thing should be. But where does that “should” come from? Ought the thing really be some other way than it actually is?
Everything in the universe can be considered unique and perfect.
If something is not unique, then it satisfies some definition. Any cat which meets the dictionary definition of “cat” can be considered perfect. The world is full of perfect cats and trees and flies …
The something may also be suitable for fulfilling a function or requirement. For example, a glass may be considered perfect for taking a drink of water - it’s flawless in doing so.
So again, this is a discussion about what a word means. It means slightly different stuff to different people and in different contexts.
You still have not explained what is so perfect about it in your opinion. Does the notion of perfection apply
to every phenomena or just the three you mentioned. Can you give any examples of imperfect phenomena
The speed of light in vacuum may be absolute but that does not mean that it is perfect too
The notion of perfection you are assigning to it is purely arbitrary and not really necessary
If something does in fact exist in a wholly determined universe, then anything that does in fact exist could not have existed in any other way. And that would include any exchanges we have here about perfection.
Or take living organisms that interact entirely in sync [instinctively] with the biological imperatives built into the evolution of life on earth. The lion may well not bring down the wildebeest but in what sense can we say it behaved imperfectly?
But once we shift gears from mindless matter to matter able to acquire some level of autonomy, perfection would seem to revolve around what we think that means in any particular context.
If I go bowling and, in a single game, roll 12 strikes in a row that is clearly perfection. If I am Don Larsen pitching in the World Series and no one on the opposing team gets on base in the nine inning game, I have pitched a “perfect game”.
Here you simply can’t perform better than perfection.
But, most crucially, it is able to be calculated objectively because it revolves around that which we all agree is perfection.
But how on earth would we even begin to establish that which constitutes perfection in God?
What are we all required to accept as the “rules” here? How do we calculate it other than by clumping together a collection of more or less academic premises and insisting perfection necessarily revolves around everyone accepting them?
My thinking – “proof” – about God and perfection…compared to yours?
It would be better to say that the speed of light in vacuum is absolutely consistent rather than absolutely
perfect because consistency can quite easily be measured whereas perfection can not be measured at all