Prismatic,
This is based upon how human-beings perceive perfection. What orher perspective can absolute perfection be viewed from?
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.
KT,
Yes.
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.
Its like he sees words and concepts as numbers.
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.
Prismatic,
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].
Prismatic,
My point was specifically relating to the consistency of the two statements of yours I quoted. I currently have no wish debate your other ideas.
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.
And further they would have said, before qm, that something that was both a particle and a wave was not possible, until it was. They would have said that what is called superposition in qm was not possible. They would have said that Einstein’s ideas about relative space were not possible. And they did say this, until, years later, experimentation showed that these paradoxical, seemingly self-contradictory ideas in fact were the case. They thought that non-Euclidian geometry was something one could, as Prismatic idiosyncratically calls it, idealize, but not something that can be actual. But then it turns out some non-Euclidian geometries actually do describe reality better than Euclidian ones. He is treating current knowledge, current metaphysics, current models as final. That is anti-scientific.
Nope it is not on the basis of human comprehension.
My basis is, theists make a claim of God exists as real but my counter is God is impossible to be real right from the starting point.
Whatever exists as real has to be fundamentally logical.
Then it has to be verified empirically.
Then it has to be philosophically sound.
The known universe exists as verified by scientific methods.
Infinite regression is merely speculation and does nothing to the above nor does it contradict the known universe.
Logic cannot establish the existence of any real thing, but logic is a prerequisite to establish whether it is possible for any thing to exist as real. Then it is verified empirically and philosophically to confirm it is real.
For example a square-circle is a logical contradiction, thus impossible to exists as real.
Thus that is a non-starter [moot] in consideration whether a square circle is real or not.
If the existence of God is illogical from the start, then it is a confirmation the question of whether god exists or not is moot and a non-starter.
In this case, the hypothesis re whether God exists or not is void from the start.
If void from the start, it cannot proceed to be verified as a theory.
Nope “perfection” is a general term, perfection is only subjective when defined as subjective with the relevant context, e.g. the empirical relative perfection of a score of 100/100 in an objective tests.
What is defined as absolute perfection as attributable to a God is not subjective but based on reason itself.
Note I have argued the claim of God-as-real by theists is a contradiction, i.e.
a God [an illusion, impossible to be real] cannot be real. That is a contradiction.
Therefore theists are banking on a contradiction in insisting their God is real [listen and answer prayers, grant eternal life, etc].
Thus it is a non-starter for theists to claim God exists as real.
Theists are relying on faith to insist their God is real in the absence of proofs and justified reasons.
There is no way one can use faith to justify something is real empirically and philosophically.
I have offered a more feasibly hypothesis, i.e. the reason why the idealization of a God is due to psychology.
Prismatic,
What do you mean? Are you saying that you have not used human comprehension to create your argument?
On the basis of an ideal?
So you’re claiming that perfection is not an ideal or a value judgement?
Comprehension for humans is universal in all cases of human knowledge.
You made the following point;
You have demonstrated that an or the actual absolute “God” / “being” cannot exist, on the basis of human comprehension?
Since human comprehension is universal in knowledge claims, it is a irrelevant point in this case.
So,
My basis is, theists make a claim of God exists as real but my counter is God is impossible to be real right from the starting point which is based on arguments. The focus here is arguments not comprehension.
Yes on the basis of an ideal, i.e. absolute perfection and
more so, it void because it is a contradiction right from the start.
As mentioned ‘perfection’ can be relatively perfect or absolutely perfect.
Ideal [synonymous with perfect] can also be relatively ideal or absolutely ideal.
dictionary.com/browse/ideal?s=t
Relative empirical perfection is the same as relatively ideal. They are grounded on value judgment. If judge score a gymnast a perfect score 10/10, that is grounded on the subjective interpretation of the judge, thus a value judgment.
Absolute perfection or absolute ideal as attributed to a God is not a value judgement per se but rather by reasoning independent of one person’s judgment.
Absolute perfection is defined as totally unconditional.
This definition is not claimed by one person but based on group consensus and agreed by theists who make such a claim.
Note my argument the ultimate attribute of a God imperatively has to be that of an absolutely perfect God, there is no other that can qualify as the ultimate attribute.
Prismatic,
Logical arguments are necessarily based upon comprehension. You cannot separate them. You have claimed that your argument is perfect relative to logical frameworks, which means that you’re claiming, in this case, that your comprehension is perfect. That you have perfectly comprehended all the variables related to argument.
Absolute perfection is a contradiction? In all cases?
You have claimed that absolute perfection cannot exist. So contrary to what you say above, for you it cannot be.
I think this is actually the case. His arguments are on paper, on a screen. They are words. Etymologically ‘comprehend’ comes from the physical idea of gripping something, seizing it. We took this physical idea and moved it into a cognitive realm. Of course this doesn’t prove what the problem is, but it seems very telling to me. He is denying that he is perceiving anything, interacting with anything. Rather, his calculations on paper in the mind demonstrate what can and cannot be real. The left brain works with ideas that are ALREADY known to it. It cannot create and the primary perception, the seizing with the mind takes place in the right brain, first. He is not actually interacting with the world, he is moving ideas about on paper (in his mind) and thus he can take these syllogisms and apply them to the world, without fail. In a sense this is also a claim to be transcendent himself.
That there could not be a God that is not absolutely perfect is something he must deny. And ironically will do this on the basis of what Abrahamic religious people tend to say. Any language philosophy insights or psychological insights into why many people might say this, or a perception within the history of religion or comparative religion, these are all absent. If there is a God, that God must be this abstract mathematical perfection, and then this is impossible. And he will never, ever admit that this assumption might be fallacious EVEN though it is based on his interpretation of theists and who the ‘real’ theists are - to him - and the literalizing of poetic language. Not given to emotions himself, he cannot discern that these texts that are influenced by relational feelings and other emotions that arise when describing something or someone on has intense feelings about. He would put something like the Song of Solomon into a mathematical equation. It’s a form of autistic confusion. He might remind someone who is in love that his girlfriend is not perfect or the most beautiful woman in the world. Even in Perfect Being Theology there are a variety of interpetions, including where there is simply nothing greater than God, which is not the same thing as absolute perfection. Also that nothing greater than God can be conceived. So even within the current theological debates in one single theism, Christianity, in one sector of its theology, there is some fuzziness about all this. Let alone theism in general or even the deity presented in the Bible.
He takes the fundmentalist position as the correct one, ironically. And thus allows himself, like they do themselves, the right to say who is the real theist and who is not. He assumes that the popular way people defend perfection WHEN that issue is on the table, means that if there was a God, it must be like that. Mingling subjective ideas in some theists with factual evidence. Of course there are all sorts of clues, EVEN in fundamentalists that they have a more complex idea of God and that God is not perfect. But since he confuses minds with only what people say when directly making assertions
he gives himself the authority to say only THIS assertion of theirs is the real one.
He is taking so many liberties because he is not seizing, comprehending,
but rather interacting with ideas on paper. Where he is comfortable. This is not someone, I would guess, comfortable with social interaction or learning directly from people. It is precisely not comprehension.
A great read is The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, a 2009 book written by Iain McGilchrist, since updated, where he shows the different hows of how the two brain halves learn and think, and also the problems created by left brain thinking coming into dominance. It fits these patterns to a t. And it was lovely to see him, himself, without realizing how telling it is, deny comprehending but asserting that he is logically arguing. Because this is precisely what the left brain does and if it is not in balance with the right brain, it does it not only to its own detriment but leads to a lot of the problems we see in society now.
As a bit of a jump: Prismatic has spoken with a looking forward attitude to when we can find the anxiety neurons in the brain and take them out.
It’s this kind of linear approach, less aware of context, seeing the world in parts and organisms as modular that the left brain is good at. And yes, this approach can help create all sorts of useful things.
But it is also a limited view and a dangerous one. And because the left brain needs the right brain’s more direct contact with the outside world and comprehending, if it denies the role of the right brain, you end up with something really quite damaged and damaging. Something cut off.
Now Prismatic is just a guy writing in a philosophy forum read by just a few people.
But his style of thinking is similar to a style of thinking that is worldwide problematic right now.
Anything to do with knowledge requires comprehension.
It is like, to discuss any knowledge in English we need the English Alphabets.
What is the use on insisting on this fact?
What is critical are arguments themselves, not the alphabets.
In a way, yes, I have perfectly [not necessary 100 at all times] comprehended all the variables related to argument within the relevant framework, e.g. the logical framework.
Technically, the format of my argument is ‘relatively perfect.’
The relevance here is when ‘absolute perfection’ is claimed to be real as in ‘God [of absolute perfection] exists as real’.
Nah, I meant ‘perfection’ can be thought, discussed or presented as relatively perfect or absolutely perfect. The ‘be’ is not “be real.”
My point is absolute perfection attributed to anything cannot be real.
As stated above, ‘God [of absolute perfection] exists as real’ is an impossibility.
Anyone can proclaim ‘God is of absolute perfection’ but they cannot claim such a absolutely perfect God is real, to the extent of listening and answering prayers, created and sustaining the universe, can grant eternal life, is omni-whatever.
Prismatic,
Because, for some reason, you are separating logical arguments from comprehension.
Absolute perfection is a quality not a quantity, it is a subjective or intersubjective value judgement which relates to a perceived ideal. Therefore, the claim that something cannot be absolutely perfect is based upon your value judgement and decision not agree with the ideal. You cannot show that absolute perfection is not possible, you just don’t think it is.
Note one relatively perfect format of a syllogism is;
A is B
C is A
Therefore C is B
Yes, we need to comprehend the model and how it works.
But I am not interested in this level of comprehension.
What I am interested in the argument, i.e. whether the premises are true or not.
You are messing with the various terms and rhetorically jump to certain conclusion.
Nope, absolute perfection is an absolute quality based on reasoning, it is not subjective nor intersubjective.
Note I stated absolute perfection and absolute ideal are synonymous.
I have shown why absolute perfection cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
Note theists argue their God is of absolute perfection and is real empirically and philosophically.
I have proven why such a claim is a contradiction.
What is empirical cannot be absolutely perfect but only can be relatively perfect.
Just show me a clue, how ‘absolute perfection’ is possible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Or would never evaluate something as that, himself. Others might, and do, in fact, and they cannot compel him to evaluate anthing as that, but then he cannot compel them to stop considering something absolutely perfect. And again, I would like to stress, we don’t even need to look at deities or transcendent beings for this. One can find trees, our children, a lover, a sunset absolutely perfect. And if one wants to argue that one of these examples, in a specific case, was not absolutely perfect, then one would have to demonstrate that if some quality was changed in the specific example it would be better. But in the case of a tree or sunset, this would simply be another perfection. A different tree or sunset that is perfect. In the case of a human, SINCE we often include so called flaws as factors in the perfection, removing these so-called flaws would actually reduce the perfection.
There are a number of definitions of absolute in philosophy. And in relation to perfection some will argue that if something has a defect or flaw it cannot be absolutely perfect. The problem with this rule is that asymmetry can be argued to be more perfect. And that the specific contingent qualities of a thing or person ADD to the perfection and make it absolute.
The slight turn to a nose. The beauty mark. The slight difference in the shape of the eyes. Each of these can add positive qualities.
IOW the perfect face without any ‘flaws’ has a flaw. There is no perfect tension between the wonderful symmetry and other perfect qualities and something a little different, a little off when thought of in isolation, but in the whole makes the whole more perfect and thus absolute.
With a child or a lover or an experience the dynamism of what might be called flaws or defects actually adds…
and in fact most religious traditions have notions of this contingency in something that is precisely part of its perfection.
that it is a spiritual failing to think these kinds of flaws lead to something being less than absolutely perfect.
Prismatic,
What does this mean?
This is not correct. Perfection is subjective or intersubjective. You are arguing as though perfection is a quantity, because you want it to be, because you need it to be, but it isn’t. It is qualitative and necessarily subject to what people think/perceive.
No you haven’t. This is not mathematics, we are dealing with a perceived quality. Some theists believe that God is absolutely perfect. That is their value judgement, because for them he meets all of their ideals and because their scriptures say that he is. Those scriptures were written by people with a similar perception of God. The cause of God’s claimed perfection is human perception.
So that you can refute the existence of a subjective value judgement? You do realise that is just attempting to convince someone of your value judgements, not actually proving anything.
But maybe your view transcends these things.