Pris,
You speak as though there are different rules of language that apply when discussing God. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I see no need for the use of unique language when discussing it’s attributes. I’ll stick to what I stated re God’s perfection.
Fair point. Hmm … No, I don’t. I don’t understand what “totally unconditioned” means. Perhaps you could provide an example of that term in use which isn’t related to God? Not something that you think, but an actual quote. Then I might be able to understand what it means, implies and how it applies to your definition of God.
I noticed that the term “perfect” is listed amongst those things which are absolute from your quotation. Did you find any definitions of “perfect” that did not describe an absolute?
You stated, having claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge:
Then you stated:
Which is contradictory.
Hence, whilst I may not be right, I will not accept this as a definition of “relative certainty”, but thank you for attempting to explain. Also, 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 5, are axiomatic in the way that you’ve used them to make your points, not “relatively certainties”.
One definition I found of relative was “1. having meaning or significance only in relation to something else; not absolute:” which seems to reflect what I stated. So I’ll stick with my description of “relative certainty” until proven otherwise.
But note, I do agree with this to a degree: “Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.”
Wouldn’t that mean that your argument/syllogism is self-evidently correct? You’ve claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge. If that is the case then it is self-evident or IOW axiomatic. You said yourself that you are relying on an axiom (although you called it a relative certainty), 1+1 = 5 being self-evidently incorrect. What a priori knowledge is there that isn’t axiomatic? “all bachelors are unmarried” is clearly axiomatic. Do you think that your argument/syllogism has a similar degree of veracity to “all bachelors are unmarried”?
This is a matter of opinion.
Wrong again in this respect. If someone believes that God is a possibility, you cannot attribute them with making a positive claim until they actually make one. A belief is not a claim. Not knowing if God exists, is not a belief, a negative claim or a positive claim. Agnosticism is not knowing.
I’m not going to get into a discussion about “higher order thinking” or “higher refined reason” if that is how you assess yourself then fine.