Prism, this is the reference that you have given for “perfect”;
Note that there is no conditional, but there is a “description of an ideal”. So we are back to the fact that your definitions are screwy.
When I first explained that to you, you refused it, saying that such a definition involving an ideal is only “conditional”. And yet right there from your own reference, it clearly states “absolute”.
And as explained to you long ago, there is no “absolutely perfect” because that is redundant;
“absolutely conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal”.
Nor is there a “conditionally perfect” as that would be an oxymoron;
“conditionally conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal.”
But beyond that, the term “absolute perfection” has no descriptor or ideal mentioned. It is an incomplete thought. And thus certainly not a definition of anything.
So when you say, “P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”
You have made a nonsense statement (as was explanation to you from the beginning). It is like saying; “P1- Absolutely Larger than is impossible”
The first premise that you give is false “P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”
And even if it made sense, you would not be able to prove it to be true. It would still be an invalid premise.
[list]Thus your syllogism is INVALID.[/list:u]
And all of this was explained to you long ago. But now even YOU provided a correct definition which shows WHY you have been wrong this entire time.
[/quote]
You are trying to pull a fast one here.
I have highlighted your deception on this before.
Why are you relying on only one meaning when there are so many other meanings, some which are relevant to the point?
The highlighted meanings above are relevant to my use of ‘perfect’ in relation to God.
Explain what?
Where I disagreed is because you are off point like the above where you refer ‘perfect’ to ONLY one meaning.
As I had highlighted many times, perfection can be relative or absolute.
Relative perfection is like perfect score in diving, ten pin bowling, gymnastic and other expressions of ‘perfection’ that are conditioned to a set of criteria or framework.
As for God which is claimed to of the utmost, any perfection or overall perfection attributed to God cannot be the same as those attributed to humans [fallible and conditional] thus whatever is attributed to God has to be totally unconditional - absolute, thus God is absolutely perfect and I had explained why God must be absolutely perfect to avoid kissing the arse of another more inferior God.
Absolutely perfect is can only be thought of and reasoned using primal reasoning.
Because an absolutely perfect god can only be based on reason, it is impossible for the idea of absolutely perfect [which God must be] to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
What is wrong with this logic?
As argued above, what is wrong with this premise?
I have proven it to be rationally true by reason.
As I had defended above, I was not wrong but you were actually deceptive in ignoring the many other related and relevant meanings of ‘perfect’ above.
It is me who raised the argument and premises, so it is up to me to decide what are the relevant meanings re ‘perfect’ not you. You can critique my interpretation but as above your critique is way off and using deception.
Since ‘God is an impossibility’ as proven true based on reason, it is a moot and a non-starter even to be considered as a hypothesis for empirical-rational reality. Thus there is no need to prove God is true and real within empirical-rational reality.
You keep imagining your are right and on target to prove my premises are invalid, but based on the above you are way off point.
All of those defining clauses are meant to agree. Why are you leaving out the two that contradict your nonsense claim? You are trying to use a limited clause so as to deceive the reader into nonsense.
Again,
Your syllogism is a deception, invalid.
Apparently intentional now.
Again you are insulting your own intelligence.
Dictionaries provide a range of meanings to a word and some can related within a set and some can be totally contrasting and not related at all.
E.g. “Gay” which could mean
homosexuality or
being lively, joyful
Therefore for any meaning one has to choose those that are related my intended meaning.
Which two?
The highlighted ones in blue?
If so, not I did not leave them out in my earlier post, I did highlight them in bold.
As for the other meanings, they are not very relevant, e.g. 7 [umixed] and 9. But in this case, I can assign them to God in some ways without any contradiction.
Even if it is every one here [10+ or so posters] I am not bothered as long as my argument is rational and sound and has consensus [intersubjectively] within the greater philosophical community i.e. the giants and members of Western, Eastern, etc.
If Copernicus had succumbed to the ‘truths’ of the majority, we may still be believing the Sun physically revolves around the Earth.
And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.
A god that loves us and is really strong would be able to do a little materialization here and there, upgrade or heal a person, etc.
You don’t need to be all powerful to do that.
God and love are different things / paradigms.
I realize that, but:
Real things seem mostly provable. And if God is super real, he should be super provable, too.
I know miracles happen. But they aren’t exactly consistent or intelligible. A god that has limits, could do small miracles, while falling short to police the world and heal the sick. It’d be best if he prevented the creation of nuclear weapons, for example.
Indifferent means he doesn’t want worship or obedience, right?
no matter what we think or want, personally, im sure genetic modifications, and AI, will “play god”, while the gods of the masses, also allowed things like mass extinctions in earth’s history. People wont be protected, saved, etc. Why would god destroy or allow the destruction of the majority of all earth life’s species? If he or it made them in the first place. It is like a parent making a big family then gunning them all down one day.
This may not be worded perfectly, but, the message should be clear:
A good god creates a good world.
A bad god creates a world of death, suffering, and loss.
Note most of the points I made are supported by the giants of philosophy, i.e. Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Buddhism [other Eastern Religions] and others. These great philosophers has a large share of consensus with many people.
Note there are many strong atheists who just don’t give a damn and reject God’s existence outright as a ridiculous claim. We share the same views but I justified my claim and leaving no doubts via reason with arguments [OP].
Nope this view belong to a minority of agnostics.
The majority of theists believed it is “proven” [from their own experiences and other theists] God is very real ‘empirically’ to the extent God will listens and answers their prayers, and most of all will assure them of salvation with eternal life in a real heaven [up there, some with virgins].