God & The Problem of Evil

And you still haven’t described what perfection (of any type) looks like.

How could you know?

I introduced the dictionary meaning of perfect and its range of meaning.

In addition I have introduced the following perspective of perfection which you responded as;
viewtopic.php?p=2684613#p2684613

  1. Empirically existing = observable.
  2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know.
  3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable.
  4. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (contradictory).

In the case of 1. Empirically existing = observable, we have example of a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test, a so-claimed perfect woman, etc.

In the case of 2. Empirically possible = might be observable for all we know, a perfect circle as observed where measurements conform to quality of a perfect circle.

In the case of 3. Empirically impossible = certainly never observable, an ideal perfect circle which can only exist in numbers and thought but never empirically.

  1. Non-empirical and impossible = never observable and logically impossible (e.g. contradictory or rationally impossible). This is the absolutely perfect God which can never be observable empirically and logically impossible to exists as real empirically and rationally. Such a God is a logical resultant to stop an infinite regression.

I have demonstrated why the idea of God must ultimately be an absolutely perfect God and not any other lesser God to avoid being dominated and having to kiss the ass on another greater or ontological God.

I have already covered the full range/continuum of ‘what is perfect’ from the empirical [qualified] to absolutely perfect [unqualified].
What views of ‘perfect’ can you present and argue against the above?

The dictionary merely says that “perfect” means “without flaw”. That is almost tautological because now we have to ask about what “without flaw” means. Flaw refers to a relative perspective. What is a flaw to one, might be a perfection to another. So you still haven’t actually answered that question in any meaningful way (but then neither do typical dictionaries, sooo … you have to do better than they).

The rest of that post is irrelevant.

Nature’s imperfection caused this perfect beauty…flawed but perfectly beautiful.

[tab]Perfection.jpg[/tab]

The above display your lack of intellectual integrity.

Note this dictionary;
google.com/search?rlz=1C1CH … Dictionary
google.com/search?rlz=1C1CH … bs=perfect

Are you still insisting on this;
JSS: The dictionary merely says that “perfect” means “without flaw”.

I have stated my use of ‘perfect’ in this OP refer to it relevant general meanings, e.g. conforming to all required elements, free from flaw PLUS
2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed;

In addition, see the meaning of ‘absolute’.
google.com/search?rlz=1C1CH … s=absolute

Absolute/absolutely perfect is really nothing more, at least to me, than a highly subjective wonderful, beautiful sense of qualia.

Objectively speaking, something which is absolute perfection is anything which normally functions well, for the most part, without SNAFU. :evilfun:

That’s debatable. It’s true that there are certain measures that not only can we determine empirically but it makes sense to say we got a “perfect” score, and then there are other measures which we can’t determine empirically and we can question whether it makes sense to have a “perfect score” (what does it really mean, for example, for a god to be omnipotent).

Still though, I don’t see why the definition of “perfection” must change in this case. It seems that “being the highest on such-and-such measure possible” works in both cases.

Resorting to dictionary definitions is kind of an amateurish move in philosophy–not necessarily invalid, but amateurish–dictionary definitions don’t determine the meanings of our words, rather they reflect them. We determine the meanings of our words–in conversations, in reading books, in observing the contexts in which they are used–and only afterwards do certain people take those meanings and write dictionaries. Bringing up dictionary definitions is useful if you think a person is misunderstanding the meaning of a word, but I find that most of the time, people just have their own meanings that aren’t necessarily shared by everyone.

You’re talking about the way concepts evolve, not what must be true of the concept. I agree that the concept of ‘god’ evolved along the lines you’ve described, but this is driven by competition and politics between two or more contending religious groups. They’re trying to out-argue or out-justify their competition. But that doesn’t make their arguments so. Imagine that Hellenism was the one true religion. The gods consist of Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Ares, etc. None of them are absolutely perfect in the sense that the Christian God is “omnipotent” but they are the real gods. Do you think different religious groups wouldn’t still try to out-argue and out-justify each other? Wouldn’t they still push their conception of their god towards being the ultimate, most powerful god there is?

So how are we defining an “empirical” God? Here, you seem to be saying if the god is anthropomorphic, then he is empirical. I take this to mean that if he has a physical body (which is what “created in our own image” implies), then he should be empirically observable. However, earlier you seemed to be defining empirical as measurable along some trait (like a test score) for which it is possible to measure the “highest” possible score. If a god has a physical body, he may be empirically observable, but he may still have non-empirical powers, like being all powerful, or all knowing, or all good, etc.

Well, in that case, here’s my definitive case against Anselm’s argument:

The Ontological argument for God’s existence

If you’re only point is that this is the way the concept of god naturally evolves, and is driven by competition and political motives, then I agree. But I don’t think it means that for a god to exist, it must have all these perfect characteristics.

Not sure if you are agree with me or otherwise.

There is a range of perspective to ‘perfection’ e.g. empirical, empirically possible, etc. which are subjective and open to various interpretations. This is why the term ‘absolutely perfect’ is introduced to reinforce this specific perfection as unique, unconditional which do not give any room for it to be outdone in any way. Such an absolutely perfect quality is attributed to God only.

In a way an absolutely perfect God is merely a shared-idea driven by psychology but impossible to exist as real in empirical-rational reality. There is no way it can be rationalized and justified empirically.

The word and concept “perfect” merely means “matching a chosen ideal”.

A “perfect God” is merely a God that matches in characteristic to whatever the valuer believes to be the Ideal, most preferred God, an “Ideal God”, whether that be most powerful, most wise, most beautiful, most dangerous, most irritating, whatever.

The word “perfect” is a RELATIVE term.
So this whole argument has been silly.

As I had stated there are various meanings and perspective to the term ‘perfect’.
In the case of empirical, ‘perfection’ is always relative and qualified to something. Empirical things cannot be absolutely perfect [I have demonstrated this].
In the case of the non-empirical, e.g. God can be assigned qualified perfection but the idea of perfection MUST [I had demonstrated why “MUST”] ultimately be absolute, i.e. unqualified, thus absolutely perfect.
Thus God must ultimately be absolutely and perfectly good, but the fact is evils exist, i.e. contradictory, and thus God is an impossibility.

Even with philosophy, we must start with the general understanding of the term and filter it for philosophical contexts.
Most of the replies, note especially JSS do not take into account [ignorant perhaps] of the other meaning of perfect as absolute, total, unqualified which is relevant to my argument.

One point is the ‘idea’ of God is not a ‘concept’ [Kant’s argument].
To differentiate, a ‘concept’ has an empirical base, e.g. table, apples, beauty, etc.
An ‘idea’ [philosophical sense] is a thought without any empirical qualities, e.g. eternal soul, God and the Whole-Universe. These are transcendental illusions.
Because philosophical ideas are not concepts, they cannot be held to be true as real [empirical-rational] at all.
This is why non-empirical philosophical ideas, e.g. God is impossible to real within an empirical-rational reality.

Zeus, and other Greek gods are not real per se, but if they are claimed to have an empirical base, then it is possible for them to be empirically real, but based on current knowledge the probability of them being real is 0.00…001%.
But as I had pointed out, the evolution of the ideas of God is inevitable leading to 5.4 billion out of 7+ billion people to a monotheistic God toward an absolutely perfect God.

Test scores are merely an example of what is empirical.
When a god is attributed with empirical qualities, such a God logically cannot be all powerful because there is always the possibility of another empirical God which is greater or another empirical God that created that empirical god. So an empirical god would definitely lead to an infinite regression.
To stop this infinite regression, the solution is to introduce the idea [not a concept] of ‘a God than which no greater can be idealized,’ which is proven to be impossible within an empirical-rational reality!

You are merely supporting my point.
I argued the idea of God MUST ultimately be an ontological God, an absolutely perfect God than which no God can be more perfect.
You are arguing such a God is in a way, impossible, which support my argument.

Note mine is, the idea of God naturally evolves and it is driven by desperate existential psychological motives.
This evolution is natural and ultimately the idea of a God must exists as an absolutely perfect God to avoid an infinite regression.
In addition no theist would accept their God be dominated by another and conceding their God will have to kiss the ass of [be owned by] another.

There is no such thing as an objective perfection for the same reason that there is no universal Northward. You are a flat-Earther trying to argue about why it is impossible for the ground to reach the infinitely deep bottom of the universe.

In short, you are “preaching out of school”, not knowing what it is that you are actually speaking about and thus making silly arguments, whether your intended conclusion is correct or not.

At least learn to properly define your significant words.

I agree with the above, but you persistently [despite highlighting to you many times] the other meaning of ‘perfect’ = absolute, unqualified, etc.

Are you even aware of this point I made. Tell me why this other meaning ‘perfect’ = absolute, unqualified, etc. is not relevant?

I have argued it is natural, the belief in the idea of God will gravitate to towards an absolutely perfect God, i.e. absolutely most preferred God, an absolutely unqualified “Ideal God”.

An example of this is St. Anselm’s Ontological God, i.e. God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.*
Philosophically ‘conceived’ is not the right word, should be ‘idealized’.
I have argued in an absolutely perfect is essential to stop any infinite regression counter thrown in by oppositions.

Did you not read:

There is no “absolute, unqualified perfection”. The term itself is incoherent. It is like say the “universal perfect length”. It simply doesn’t actually make any sense. But uneducated people can easily accept the idea of an actual, objective perfection, even though it is nonsense.

If you want to state and argue that “a perfect God is impossible” and base your arguement on the fact that perfection is relative, THEN you have a case. But it is nonsense to say that the absolute, unqualified (“objective”) perfect God must have these impossible characteristics, because your adjectives are incoherent (they don’t fit together).

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.