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?
dictionary.com/browse/perfect
Perfect
adjective
- conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type:
a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.- excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.- exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose:
a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.- entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings:
a perfect apple; the perfect crime.- accurate, exact, or correct in every detail:
a perfect copy.- thorough; complete; utter:
perfect strangers.- pure or unmixed:
perfect yellow.- unqualified; absolute:
He has perfect control over his followers.- expert; accomplished; proficient:
She will need a perfect driving teacher.- unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree:
He made a perfect fool of himself.
The highlighted meanings above are relevant to my use of ‘perfect’ in relation to God.
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”.
Explain what?
Where I disagreed is because you are off point like the above where you refer ‘perfect’ to ONLY one meaning.
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.
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.
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”
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?
The first premise that you give is false
“P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”
As argued above, what is wrong with this premise?
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.
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.
Try again.