I meant ‘perfect’ in this case is a pure concept.
Note that is what Kant described above, i.e. a concept of pure thought without any empirical concept.
A score of 100/100 is an empirical perfection, not perfection in the absolute sense.
Note I stated God has to be absolutely perfect, which has no empirical elements.
I have highlighted this very clearly in the other thread ‘God is an impossibility’.
Yes, Jesus the physical man was empirical but not empirically perfect.
Do think Jesus was physically perfect?
What is perfect with Jesus is the mental and Spirit of Christ - the pure concept which is claimed to be still alive somewhere in heaven at present.
Nope, not mine.
Kant used it 150 times in the CPR, e.g.
It is these Pure Concepts that tempt theists to apply [abuse] them beyond the limits of Experience [the empirical] to impossible objects [things], i.e. “upon Objects which are not Given to us, nay, perhaps cannot in any way be Given” like the idea of God [a transcendental illusion].
Note the critical term ‘is Given’ i.e. objects are Given to us, i.e. it mean object emerged simultaneously in reality as opposed to being pre-existing in reality independent of humans.
There are other considerations re the Pure Concepts, but I will not go further into it to avoid more confusions.
Christians will claim Jesus is perfect in every way including the empirical without a second thought to it.
But ultimately and philosophically, whatever is empirical is impossible to be absolutely perfect.
Does your claim extend to all of reality? Are you claiming that in all of empirical reality, absolute perfection is an impossibility? I don’t think that philosophy can answer that question conclusively. My “instincts” tell me that this claim is infinitely regressive, or that it would be if I argue against it, but I can’t find a way to put it into words to explain why…
Maybe this is why; if I argue that absolute perfection is empirically possible, you will claim that it isn’t. However, given that there is no way to demonstrate either the positive or negative side of this claim, because we don’t know all of empirical reality, the argument is infinitely regressive. I think the correct term for the argument would be “circular”, but I am sure you get my drift.
So in the case of “absolute perfection being an impossibility”, logic is not going to present us with a conclusive answer.
Fair enough, it isn’t your term. I thought that you may have taken it from Kant, but I wasn’t sure. My point was that Kant did not claim that perfection was a pure concept - whereas you believe that it is.
Perfect to whom, for what purpose, in what context?
I have seen thousands of perfect, absolutely perfect trees. I could not even take in all their beauty. They could not be improved on, because any change would simply have been a different perfect tree.
Perfection, unless specified for some purpose, is a value judgment term. You cannot tell me what is not a perfect tree, for me.
Of course this use of the word perfection is no doubt part of this perfect God that must be omni everything…
because Prismatic says so.
But even in this small issue, Prismatic is just stating stuff without authority.
Perfect for what, to whom?
It is so odd that these abstract, soulless arguments are presented as if they have anything to do with reality, while playing the role of denying the existence of abstract things that are not empirical. These arguments are not empirical. Not in the sense that they are deduction at a useless level of abstraction, but in that they are contextless view from nowhere ideas strung together having nothing to do with any humans or anyone addressed here.
It’s like if a pocket calculator starting telling me what it is like to be alive.
P1. The empirical* is grounded on human observations and inferences.
P2. Humans are never perfect, especially absolutely perfect.
C3. Therefore the empirical cannot be absolutely perfect.
*Empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
-Wiki
Reality = empirical + philosophical
The question with reality is whether it is
-empirically verified or
-empirically possible.
If it not yet known, i.e. whatever that is speculated it must be empirically possible, i.e. contain empirical elements.
Therefore there cannot exists something more than what is reality other than whatever is empirically possible.
“Absolute perfection” [totally unconditional] by definition is not empirically laden, i.e. no conditional empirical elements.
Therefore absolute perfect is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
Note the term ‘philosophically’ in this case means using the finest polish to ensure everything necessary [critical review of knowledge] is taken into account.
Don’t condemn and insult others when you are the one who is ignorant of the relevant points.
I have already presented in the other thread, there are;
Relative perfection
Absolutely perfection
Relative perfections are conditional perfection.
E.g.
-a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is conditional upon the system which set the test.
-a perfect tree [or whatever] is declared by a person or group of people, thus conditioned upon imperfect humans.
-a perfect score of 10/10 in the sports of diving, gymnastics, dancing, etc. is conditioned to the human judges who are imperfect humans.
An absolute perfection is totally unconditionally upon nothing, e.g. God.
It is not me, but theists who insist their God is absolute and perfect, i.e. totally unconditional.
Descartes defined God in term of supreme perfection;
This would mean that all perfection is relative to human perception, and that even the perception of absolute perfection (which is an emphasis) was therefore also relative. Meaning that what you term as “absolute perfection”, because it is relative to human perfection, is, well, relative – no matter what quality we are discussing. And you have argued that relative perfection can exist.
In terms of what you’re arguing, it would mean that absolute perfection cannot exist, because humans cannot perceive it (which has not been a parameter of your argument), not because a maximally perfect being cannot exist.
Who’s philosophy defines reality? How would a philosophical consensus be reached?
Again, who’s philosophy? Who would be included in this critical review of knowledge? Don’t you think that selection for such a task would be impossible given the diverse nature of people’s views? How do you think a consensus would be reached?
Yes relative perfection can exists only when it is empirical and can be verified empirically.
A 100/100 score in objective test can be verified to answers to a set of question set by an examiner [one or group].
No, NOT all things-of-perfection are relative to human perception.
An absolute perfect God is claimed by theists to be totally unconditional, not relative.
Theists will claim God is on ITS own, not conditioned by anything else.
Such an entity of absolute perfection as claimed, i.e. God cannot exists as real.
You seem to have confused ‘perfection’ with ‘things-of-perfection’.
When I refer to absolute perfection, it is implied it is a quality of a thing.
Note.
P1. Things of absolute perfection [as perceived by humans] cannot exists as real.
P2. God [a thing as perceived by humans] is a maximally perfect being [absolutely perfect].
C3. Therefore God [as perceived by humans] cannot exists are real.
In Philosophy, logic, critical thinking, core principles and others[?] are generic for all dealing with Philosophy.
For example, when Hume demonstrated that ‘causality’ is not an absolute rule, but rather based on experiences of constant conjunction, customs and habits, there are no notable philosophers who had disputed his point.
If you review the philosophical approach, the generic tools has enable various philosophers to construct solid building with complex frameworks where the majority of philosophers would agree with.
Where there are disputes, they only effect a few core areas, e.g. some philosopher may prefer a different foundation or beams but the whole framework is considered sound by the majority of philosophers.
Because they are not “house of cards” even if the foundation is found to be false but because the framework is sound, it will not topple immediately but later.
One of the major disagreement on the foundation is the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical Anti-Realists. While they disagree on the foundation, they all agree with all other principles and theories of philosophy, etc. logic, rationality and critical thinking.
Therefore the final polish with philosophy will enable both parties to establish a solid framework where they agree on the majority of the structure and knowing systematically where their disagreements are.
Thus in the case, Science produces only crude empirically verified knowledge [albeit useful] but they are crude. As such this crude scientific knowledge need to be “polished” with the finest grains of philosophy for various more refine uses.
And further it is some theists. Who are talking about something that they think of as way beyond them. It is treating religious language as if it is mathematical language. It is treating common beliefs as if one can use them to rule out the existence of something, rather than as potential problems with the common beliefs.
And he is confused about the concept of perfection. Perfection is not a term that stands on its own.
It’s like ruling out quantum phenomena because of what most people believe matter must be like when they are speaking in emotional terms about it.
He’ll rule out the multiverse and infinity next, that these are not possible.
One of the issues is that Prismatic sees no problems or inadequacies with his own world view, but believes that he can, in totality, identify the problems and inadequacies in everyone elses (note the idiosyncratic “proper” qualification).
He seriously believes that his view is the prevailing one. He may claim that this isn’t the case, but his posts give him away. He seemingly doesn’t realise this either, so we have instances like the Russell quote and consistent ironies.
He believes that a philosophical consensus on what constitutes reality can be reached, seemingly by way of what he perceives as philosophical correctness. Yet he fails to see the arbitrary nature of such a conclusion or the sociopolitical nightmare that would involve.
There are two perspectives human beings perceive things, i.e.
Relatively perfect
Absolutely perfect
Whatever is perceived as perfection as in relatively perfect is a possibility to be real.
Whatever [e.g. God] is perceived as perfection in the absolutely perfect sense, is an impossibility to be real.
This is why we need to counter the theists that the God they perceived as absolutely perfect and real is not real, rather that God is a transcendental illusion.
The above are merely your complains and noises but have no argument of substance to counter my hypothesis.
“sociopolitical nightmare”??
Your thinking here is too impulsive, narrow and shallow.
Note my mission and vision is “Perpetual Peace” thus no room for sociopolitical nightmare.
What I had presented above is merely one hypothesis to be confirmed as a theory.
For this theory to contribute to perpetual peace, it has to be combined with loads of other theories [philosophical, etc.] to establish a model for implementation, e.g. Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to avoid any evil elements and other fields of knowledge.
The end results must be holistic and fool proof.
If the project is initiated now, it will probably take 75, 100 or 150 years to bear fruits in some degree of perpetual peace.
I don’t think that these statements are consistent. If perfection is observed by beings (humans) that are themselves imperfect, then their perceptions of absolute of perfection will be relative to their ability to observe perfection (which we must also bear in mind is subjective and intersubjective), which may be limited - meaning that they are not necessarily absolute. As such, what a human-being perceives or conceptualises as absolute perfection, is relative to what we are able to comprehend. So even though some theists claim that God is absolutely perfect, the reality is that such theist’s concept of God is the most perfect thing they can conceive of, not necessarily the actual absolute.
It is said ‘what is perceived’ [appearance] by human beings is not ‘the perceived’ [the real].
In common and scientific terms, it means the sense data of a table out there as perceived is not the-table-out-there.
But if you think deeply and reflect philosophically, the problem is there is no actual absolute table-out-there.
Note Russell’s philosophical reflection;
Appearance versus Reality
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Russell - Problem of Philosophy
The ultimate claim of the theists’ “real” God is the absolutely perfect God, yes that is their idealization, but the actual absolute God is an impossibility as demonstrated logically.
It is like [analogy] the conceptualization of the square-circle.
One can idealize a square-circle as a thought, but there cannot be an actual absolute square-circle out there!
Since whatever is perceives, conceptualize or idealize as God is impossible to be real and is relative to the person’s constitution, the idealization of an impossible-to-be-real-God must be reducible solely to the person, i.e. the person’s psychology.
The person’s psychology in this case of God and religion is reducible to the subconscious fear of death [as I had argued].
You have demonstrated that an or the actual absolute “God” / “being” cannot exist, on the basis of human comprehension? Which at the same time is only able to comprehend things which are relative to it’s own existence? So you can comprehend that an absolute being cannot (not you don’t think or don’t believe) exist by way of logic, absolutely? Do you understand what that would make you? Do you believe that logic can inform us about the nature of existence, absolutely? If you do then explain why/how the universe exists without encountering infinite regression.
If you were claiming that your argument makes the existence of God seem illogical then I could at least understand where you were coming from, even if I didn’t agree. But you are claiming that your logical argument has demonstrated that God’s existence is impossible, which I believe is a fallacy. Logic cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or some kind of absolute being, and there are reasons for that…
Also, you don’t seem to understand that the value of perfection is subjective. And that just because some theists claim that their God is perfect, this does not necessitate that it is. If you are claiming that absolute perfection cannot exist, you are only arguing against an ideal. The ideal certainly exists, but we have no way of knowing if the actual being does or does not.
This is meaningless. Perfection is an ideal or as KT said, a value judgement. A square circle is a contradiction.
