From my point of view though, the critical point revolves around distinguishing between perfection we can point to empirically in the world around us, and perfection that is sheer speculation regarding an entity that one merely has faith in the existence of.
Or defines into existence. Or infers into existence by way of an intellectual contraption.
Then it’s back to this:
Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.
Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that “I” too am no less the embodiment of this gap.
How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?
I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?
And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?
Note I mentioned Russell’s there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a “certain” answers to any question - note Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’.
Yes, and this is applicable to each and everyone of us, each and every time we speculate about these things. The limitations of philosophy [and even of science so far] seems of paramount importance here.
There’s human knowledge able to be verified; and then there’s conjecture. Conjecture embedded in the unknown unknowns.
I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].
Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.
Okay, but this doesn’t make the gap go away. There either is or there is not an “ultimate limit” of knowledge. And that either is or is not within reach of the human species here on earth.
How is it not reasonable then to set up the problem in this manner?
On the other hand, in my view, there are any number of objectivists who “solve” the problem by concocting one or another “world of words”; one or another set of intellectual assumptions. Here what is said to be true basically revolves around the definition and the meaning that they give to the words themselves.
Then others are invited up into the clouds to debate these definitions.
I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.
Okay, but: I have no idea how “for all practical purposes” this is relevant to either the dilemma that I am faced with on this side of the grave or the obliteration of “I” on the other side of it.
How is this sort of “salvation” relevant to the conflicting goods embedded in the issues I raise or to death itself?
And however theists debate the superiority of the Gods, they all have to eventually get around to the part about immortality and salvation. If only because that is basically religion in a nutshell.