That’s not what I said. You are avoiding the question, because of what the answer implies.
My argument in the OP is,
God is an impossibility - to exists as real.
In this case, God is so real, God sent his messengers with holy words to people. In addition God listens and answers prayers, plus did and does whatever is real.
This is what is claimed for the ultimate Being of beings by Muslims, Christians and other theists.
Note, in the case of the Tao not to be spoken, it is merely a reasoned thought and not something that is claimed by Taoist to be real empirically and philosophically.
If you are not arguing for the existence of God, then you are not countering my argument, thus off topic.
Btw, you cannot simply throw in Heidegger’s ‘ontic versus ontological.’
You need to justify these term in an argument to counter my argument.
I did read Heidegger quite seriously but not as serious as my reading of Kant. So at present I don’t have very thorough grasp of Heidegger’s details. Nevertheless I am very familiar with the main themes of Heidegger.
The expression die ontologische Differenz was first introduced in 1927, to mark die distinction between (BEING (das) Sein) and beings or entities (das Seiende) (XXIV, 22).
‘Being and the structure of being lie beyond every entity and every feature of an entity diat diere can possibly be. Being is die transcendens pure and simple’ (BT, 38)
-Inwoood
While Heidegger claim his Being and Time is unique, generally Heidegger is no different from Kant, i.e.
Kant = Phenomena versus Noumena [aka thing-in-itself]
Heidegger = Ontic [Phenomena] versus Ontological [structure of being]
In both cases the phenomena and ontic are empirically verifiable, e.g. via Science.
For Kant, the Noumena aka thing-in-itself is merely a reasoned-thought and cannot be real.
If reified as real, then it is an illusion.
This illusion is useful for the purpose of practical reason or morality.
In Heidegger’s case, he never claimed the ontological is real.
If so, where did he state that?
If Heidegger insist his ‘ontological’ being is real, then he has to prove it.
At best, what is ontological Being of beings to Heidegger is merely a thought.
You can rely on this ‘thought’ for whatever reasons, but it cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
Note a critique on Heidegger;
According to Husserl, Being and Time claimed to deal with ontology but only did so in the first few pages of the book. Having nothing further to contribute to an ontology independent of human existence, Heidegger changed the topic to Dasein. Whereas Heidegger argued that the question of human existence is central to the pursuit of the question of being, Husserl criticized this as reducing phenomenology to “philosophical anthropology” and offering an abstract and incorrect portrait of the human being.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_He … criticisms
Heidegger was influenced by non-theistic Buddhism;
According to Reinhard May and Graham Parkes, Heidegger may have been influenced by Zen and Daoist texts.[38][39] Some of Martin Heidegger’s philosophical terms, such as Ab-grund (void), Das Nichts (the Nothing) and Dasein have been considered in light of Buddhist terms which express similar ideas such as Emptiness.[40][41] Heidegger wrote that: “As void [Ab-grund], Being ‘is’ at once the nothing [das Nichts] as well as the ground.”[42] Heidegger’s “Dialogue on Language”, has a Japanese friend (Tezuka Tomio) state that "to us [Japanese] emptiness is the loftiest name for what you mean to say with the word ‘Being’”[43] Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics has also been compared to Zen’s radical anti-metaphysical attitude.[43] William Barrett held that Heidegger’s philosophy was similar to Zen Buddhism and that Heidegger himself had confirmed this after reading the works of DT Suzuki.[43]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_ … #Heidegger
As such, Heidegger’s Being and Time is not likely to extend beyond to the idea of God. At most Heidegger Being-of-being could be Buddha Nature which is not theistic.
Theists are driven by terrible evolutionary forces to grasp at an idea of God based on faith to soothe their existential crisis.
This is why it is so common [very evident] for theists to eel [twist and turn] as driven by a defense mechanism to defend their stance to sustain the soothed state. This is evident by the irrational proof churned out by theists over the history of theism.
When they run out of of ideas in “eeling”, SOME will even kill others who threatened their soothed state of theism. This is so evident with laws on death for blasphemy and killing of innocents for merely critiquing the theists’s religion. [you can’t dispute this]
It give me no pleasure on the ‘eeling’ but they do generate eerie fears that such evil and violence can arise anywhere where there are theists.
Prismatic,
This doesn’t seem right to me. How can you simultaneously argue that absolute perfection is impossible and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect? In my view, it seems contradictory. If you believe that absolute perfection is impossible, you cannot then argue that God must be absolutely perfect, because you are appealing to a qualitative standard that you’re arguing cannot exist. Even if you’re arguing on the basis of what theists may claim, you still hold the position that absolute perfection is impossible (and that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect) – therefore in your view, an absolutely perfect God cannot exist (or is impossible), because absolute perfection is an impossibility. In this case, the statement “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” doesn’t make sense.
P2. God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect…so that Prismatic can take the next steps in his deduction.
As has been pointed out to Prismatic over and over, there are plenty of theists who do not believe God is absolutely perfect in some mathematical sense. In fact many have fallible Gods. And this even includes Abrahamic deities. The OT has a lot of subtext that we are dealing with a fallible deity with emotional swings who can experiment, get upset at what he creates, change his mind. The NT has Jesus doubting God on the cross. There is a wide tradition in Judaism which include complaining about God’s choices. There are gurus who get upset at God, one in particular who would run out of his quarters to yell at the sky when a favorite follower died. These were all monists. It gets even more clear with polytheists (which includ people who are also monotheists, a paradox I am sure is beyond Prismatic), indigenous people and all sort of modern outside-the-church theists.
Yes, many theists will say god is perfect. Though the actual texts and the mysterious tend to use poetic language, talk about unfathomable greatness, how far beyond us god is.
Just because many theists take this in mathematical terms - often when pressed by atheists, but also because of some idiotic theologians in the Middle ages - and we get these idiotic discussion of can God make a stone he cannot lift and all the other mathematical omni discussions which in the end Prismatics are a subset of, does not mean that a deity would have to be absolutely perfect…
nor does it give us the slightest idea
by
what
criteria
perfection
would be measured.
Since ‘being perfect’ is always perfect for someone or something. IOW it is contigent and subjective.
You are lost and got twisted in the above.
Here is a simple analogical example;
Say you claim;
A square-circle exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, a squared-circle MUST be of shape-X.
However I have demonstrated your imperative ‘shape-X’ is an impossibility.
Therefore a square-circle is an impossibility.
Applying the above to the idea of God;
Theists claim God exists as real, in addition,
Whatever the circumstances, God MUST be of absolutely perfect ontologically as per St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.
However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God as real is an impossibility.
Well you have proved it to yourself anyway. What if the picture is yet incomplete? This effigy can’t be.
Humbly there is no absolute certainty.
My argument is complete subject to the above humility.
I had not stopped with my ‘complete’ argument.
I had provided the explanation why theists resort to clinging to an idea of an impossible God, i.e. as driven by an existential crisis.
In practice, there are many who claimed to have had direct experiences with God, but they all have some kind of mental issue from mild to serious.
A direct experience with God can be induced with drugs, hallucinogens, and whatever the circumstances, etc.
In addition, Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies has identified the root cause of the idea of God and taken non-theistic strategies to deal with the root cause.
There are many other explanations on why theists resort to cling to a God as a security blanket.
Thus we should not ignore these alternative views to how the idea of God arose within human consciousness.
Not only that, the plus side to humanity is, with the explaining away of the idea of God and weaning-off theism [when alternaltives are available], humanity will be able to eliminate all forms of theistic-driven terrible evil and violent acts that had beset humanity ever since the idea of God emerged. [note >270 million non-believers killed in the name of an illusory God].
Prismatic,
Note that this idea has come from you, not me.
A “square-circle” does not have a shape, so it cannot be claimed that it MUST be a shape.
You have constructed and deconstructed your own idea here. No one has claimed that a square-circle has a shape. So I don’t think that it works as an analogy.
My point is, you have argued why God must be absolutely perfect, but it doesn’t make sense to argue both that God must be absolutely perfect and that absolute perfection is impossible.
If absolute perfection is impossible, why must God be absolutely perfect?
Theists can claim that God is absolutely perfect, but as we have discussed, this is a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement, not a fact or quantity that can be disproved.
There are problems with this claim. Don’t you see any?
A condition of life, what’s the crisis?
Yes, I get some sense we agreed on that.
And again I am in agreement that a lot of what humanity has done and continues to do in the name of a god is repugnant, and cause of great suffering. But that fault lies squarely on human shoulders. Those that would harm need no reason, but will use any reason for it’s political ends and as means. You are thinking rather simply minded, if you think humanity needs a theistic reason to have done what it has. It uses the convenient, and emotionally driven religious zeal is very convenient, but often religion has little to do with god actually. We all can’t even agree on what a god is. That’s a powerful political tool. A god didn’t give any part of this earth to any part of humanity. But as long as there has been violence it has involved control of territory. In the name of god is a lie used for that end. That is the god you have argued as impossible. And I agree, that god is impossible as real. I just think you’re tugging on the wrong end of the rope.
That is the point.
A “square-circle” is merely a thought and has no reality.
It is the same with, “absolute perfection” which is merely a thought and has no reality.
Thus my point is “absolute perfection” cannot be claimed to be true as real as claimed by the more advanced theists.
Note my point above.
Yes, in reality there is no shape to the square-circle, but someone [analogically] insist there is such a shape and explained it in various ways, e.g.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … le.svg.png
The analogy is someone has claimed a square-circle must have a shape-X, i.e. which is merely a thought but not possible in reality.
The point is theists claim their God is real and absolutely perfect.
Regardless whether you called that “a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” [I don’t agree on this], the point is such an absolutely perfect is impossible to be real.
Therefore there is no real absolutely perfect God who had sent prophets and messenger, created the universe, listens to and answers prayers.
In this case, there is no justified grounds for theists to claim it is a real God that commanded them to commit certain divine acts.
You got this wrong.
It is that theists claim their God is REAL and absolutely perfect that God is impossible to be real because ‘absolute perfection’ to be real is an impossibility.
What problem?
You have not presented any justified arguments at all.
What you have presented above is very convoluted, try present them more rigorously and logically.
I have discussed this at length elsewhere.
Don’t intend to do it here.
I see your thinking is more simply minded, narrower and shallower than mine.
The root cause of all religions is the existential crisis.
In the theistic religions, this is where theists are driven to seek the after-life and eternal life to soothe the terrible mental pains exuding SUBLIMINALLY from the existential crisis.
This potentially generate the most terrible evil and violent primal drive within SOME humans.
Note Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his son to God for his own personal selfish salvation.
So you can imagine what the rest of the theists will be willing to do for a God to ensure their personal selfish salvation.
What more when it is a God that commanded believers to war against and kill non-believers under vague conditions of threats. This is documented within the holy texts of the Quran as commands from Allah in exchange for a promise of eternal life in paradise. [Evidence available]
As such a percentile of Muslims (if 20% = a pool of 360 million) will zealously comply with this command to war and kill non-Muslims in order to be doubly assured of eternal life in paradise. This real consequence of evil and violence is so evident within the 1400 years history of Islam.
Yes, there will be political elements who will exploit the above, but these are secondary issues which must be addressed political.
We however cannot ignore the primary cause of these evil and violence, i.e. directly as commanded by a God.
Btw, read this carefully from the horses mouth, i.e. the primary reason why non-Muslims are killed is because they are disbelievers and their foreign policies or whatever is merely secondary or excuses;
The above points are supported by verses directly from the Quran.
I note you are merely waving your views without much depth on knowledge of religions and human nature.
Prismatic,
In my view, these examples are not the same category.
You have both claimed and argued why God must be absolutely perfect, whilst holding that absolute perfection is impossible. Therefore it is you who are giving shape to the square-circle.
No one has though, not in a geometrical sense. And I don’t believe that anyone would. Claiming that a square-circle has a shape and that God is absolutely perfect are not analogous in my view.
If perfection isn’t a “subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” then what do you think it is?
? You have argued both that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” and that “absolute perfection is impossible”. Now you’re shifting the burden to theists, as though the claim that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” isn’t yours, and a position that you haven’t held and defended?
If you don’t see any problems then fine. I won’t bother telling you what I think they are.
Who is the arbiter of what constitutes justification? The same person who believes this “However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.” and doesn’t see any problems with such a claim?
I think not.
You keep repeating this straw-man.
I Did NOT personally claim that God must be absolutely perfect.
I am presenting the point that the theists claimed their God is real and absolutely perfect and by implication MUST be absolutely perfect. I have explained why this is so in the OP and elsewhere.
An analogy is merely a clue to the point.
If you do not agree, we can forget about it.
I look at it this way.
Everything that is agreed upon by a group of people is inter-subjectively agreed.
A scientific fact is an inter-subjective judgment and this is empirically grounded.
Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.
When one claim absolute perfection [non-empirical] is real [empirical], that is a contradiction.
Thus the claim that God is real and absolutely perfect is a contradiction and an impossibility to be real.
It is not me who argued “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect.”
That is the theists’ claim, not mine.
The “imperatively MUST” is implied within ‘absolutely perfect’.
I will only respond to justified-counters, if not, I will not bother.
There are the normal attributes of what constitute justified-arguments.
The most convenient is using a syllogism or list of premises that are sequitor to the conclusion and each premises is reasonable and supported by evidence and proof.
Note an example my recent argument in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=2753767#p2753767
P1 A human woman is a real person who can be impregnated biologically.
P2 God is an impossibility to be real - see link below.
C3. Therefore a real woman getting pregnant by an impossible-to-be-real-God is an impossibility or oxymoron.
I always make it a point to present my main argument in a syllogism it provide some sort of structure to make it easier for others to counter and critique.
Prismatic,
You have claimed, argued and defended that position. This is evidenced when others have pointed out that God need not be absolutely perfect, but you have insisted that it must be.
So God MUST be absolutely perfect because some theists claim that it is?
The attribution of absolute perfection can be based upon empirical observation (things that we can observe through the senses), the judgement is qualitative and subjective. You don’t have to agree that something someone perceives as absolutely perfect is, but to claim it isn’t empirically grounded is in my view, incorrect.
You have. Not in the sense that you’re arguing God exists, but in relation to your argument.
You stated in the OP (and have subsequently argued);
This is your reasoning and your claim.
When you state “However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.”
What is the justification for this claim, as per your description of justified arguments?
An interesting retort, but you continue to miss a delicate point and pull on the wrong end of the rope.
It ain’t a gods fault, it’s humans that are to blame, and you continue to get the two confused.
Prismatic,
Hmm. If someone claims that something empirical is absolutely perfect; since you are claiming that to do so is necessarily a contradiction; by which law would you argue that it isn’t? Which law precludes absolute perfection from existing in reality? Note, I am not asking what you think here, but for the law which justifies your above claim.
Nope whatever is empirically grounded by default cannot be absolutely perfect.
I have already argued whatever is empirically grounded can ONLY be relatively perfect.
You are still insisting on your straw-man.
I never claimed “God imperatively must be absolutely perfect” - that is the theists’ claim.
Note this;
PI. [mine]: Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.
P2. [theists’]: God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C… Therefore God is an impossibility to be real
See the point?
You are stating a faultless-God exists as real without proofs?
Firstly, it is humans to be blamed for reifying God as real - when in fact the idea of God is merely a thought thus illusory -,
then secondly, theists commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of the illusory God.
Thus if we resolved and get rid of the first blame, i.e. wean theists off the belief in God, then there will be no more [ZERO!] God-driven evil and violent acts.
It is critical humanity should deal with God-driven evil and violent acts which is of all things is grounded merely on an illusion 
.
There will be other evil and violent acts from political, social, psychological, etc. basis which must be dealt with respectively within their specific context.
It is not a law, but the argument as follows;
- Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.
- As such, what is empirical is conditioned [related] by the human conditions.
- What is conditioned [related] cannot be absolutely perfect.
- Therefore whatever is empirical [conditioned/related] cannot be absolutely perfect.
The above is why scientists will NEVER claim their empirically-based theories are absolutely perfect.
Note the relevant meaning of ‘absolute’ for this case;
Absolute = viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
-Google dictionary
Just in case, empirical is;
Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
What is ‘absolutely -perfect’ is based on theory and pure logic.
That means that the object of observation could be absolutely perfect but the observer does not see it as absolutely perfect. The observation is faulty not the object.
Therefore God could be absolutely perfect.