You are the one claiming that certain phenomena are perfect without explaining why
This isn’t my topic. That was a side rail question. We don’t really care about natural phenomena.
Again;
Do we have any scientific, “empirically-rational reality” Framework and System data that shows that light is propagating at the wrong speed?
We have absolutely no evidence that its speed is not absolutely perfect.
So we cannot claim that absolute perfection cannot happen.
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
I am not assigning anything. Prism is. Whatever Prism is using for his reference for perfect, so am I.
So far,
P1 in Prism’s effort to prove that God is impossible is not valid.
The proof is invalid.
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?
Biguous? Do you have any evidence that the speed of light is not absolutely perfect, flawed in some way?
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
That’s kind of silly. If you can’t measure perfection, then you can never say that anything is or is not perfect.
Are two photons of light traveling in the exact same vacuum traveling perfectly the same speed?
Everyone knows the speed of light in vacuum is absolute so there is no need to reference it as perfect too
Perfect is not actually a scientific term and I have never seen anyone describe c as perfect other than you
As this is going nowhere we shall have to agree to disagree and leave it at that as it is pointless to carry on
This thread has got nothing to do with the speed of light so we really should get back on to the actual topic
Why use the word “perfect” for anything at all?
What purpose does the word have?
Even when talking about God, it seems useless.
It is, but someone thought he could make a proof out of it.
Actually the Quran [core of Islam] claims Allah is the absolutely perfect being.
Islam claimed there is only one God, i.e. Allah who send messages through various prophets and messengers but all of God’s messages were corrupted and Islam is the only final true words of God.
The Quran [Allah’ word] asserted Allah is not the same as the Christian God which give birth to a son. In this sense Allah is more superior to Jesus’s Father [Christian’s God].
Allah in the Quran do agree the God portrayed in Judaism-as-it-is-Now is a corrupted God from the original God that send the original message to Abraham, Moses and others.
So from Islam’s perspective, The Abrahamic God of Christianity and Islam and Judaism are NOT the same.
I believe most Christians will not agree Allah as idealized in the Quran is not the same as Jesus’s Father.
In addition, each Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in general will claim the non-Abrahamic Gods are inferior to their respective Abrahamic God.
With all the differences and claims, each religion will try to ensure their God’s utmost integrity and ultimately reason will lead them to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect Being.
I agree, there are no natural phenomenon that is empirically based which can be asbsolutely perfect.
Absolute = totally unconditional.
Natural phenomena can only be realized within a conditional empirical-rational framework, e.g. Science.
The idea of God is a resultant of psychological impulses and primal reason [very crude logic] and God is not a natural thing. God is only a thought.
The difference between an idea and a thought befuddled.
I have not define absolutely perfect in this OP.
I have defined ‘absolute’ ‘perfect’ with explanations in this OP; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
Nope your definition of ‘absolute’ and ‘perfect’ is not the same as mine.
The speed of light, gravitation, momentum are all scientific terms with their associated theories.
These theories cannot be absolutely perfect because they are conditional upon the Scientific Framework which generate at best, polished conjectures [Popper]. Because they are conditional, they cannot be absolutely perfect [as defined].
Don’t get your point. Need more details.
If you are referring to my use of ‘idea’ it is with reference to ‘idea’ in the philosophical sense, i.e. Kantian.
Thought is a basic mental element.
A philosophical ‘idea’ is a thought that lacks empirical basis.
A philosophical ‘concept’ is a thought that has an empirical basis with intellectual consideration.
The glaring pathos comes out of his words, when his inferential logic tries to escape the frequently schematic populism of of show me proof, which escapes the deeper(est) recesses of the mind.
Which is only a conjecture on my part.
I agree with the above.
This is the point of consideration.
Because there is a psychological desperation of an existential dilemma, the more affected [like theists] idealized a God which ultimately must be ideal and unique which nothing can be compared to it. This is the ontological God, i.e. ‘a god than which no greater can exists’. This what the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others theists will claim for their God.
I have explained elsewhere why God ultimately must be absolutely perfect. In general is it re OP, no theist will naturally accept a God that is inferior to another God. Some nasty theists who believe their God is absolutely perfect and all powerful will be able to command the lesser God to kiss the ass of the superior God.
Therefore any theists who want to ensure their God will not in any inferior to kiss the ass of another God, will ultimately end up with an ontological God.
Agree in general with the points you raised.
I have highlighted the difference between ‘absolute perfection’ and ‘conditional perfection.’
The examples you gave are conditional perfection, e.g. a perfect score in an objective test, a perfect score 7/7 or 10/10 in a diving or gymnastic competition. Such conditional perfection are conditioned upon some agreed criteria within a group people.
Re the highlighted above.
The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason and cannot be a natural thing. Theists will claim God is a natural thing. If natural, then prove it naturally and this is not possible, i.e. impossible.
Those theists with higher intellectual capacity [more than the average, e.g. theologian philosophers] know God cannot meet natural expectation, that is why they concede it is by ‘faith.’
Without the natural means to prove God, these more intelligent theists push their limits of reason to establish an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God, e.g. St Anselm, Descartes and others.
I agree an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God seem reasonable and possible but only within thought and definitely not within an empirical-rational reality.
On closer scrutiny the argument for an absolutely perfect being is fallacious as it make a leap from infinite regression.
I wonder about the psychology behind repeatedly using the phrase “kiss the ass”.