Instead of “but” you should use the term “my”. So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Even if what you’re saying is reasonable. Also, I’m not fully able to make sense of what you’re saying, but it seems as though 2 through to 4 are all “laws”.
Which scientists? This would imply that there is a law. There is no such law I’ve heard of. This is again, your reasoning. Couldn’t the case be that the term “absolutely perfect”, is just not scientific?
How could you know whether or not the being purported to be God (which one?) has ever been an object or entity of observation?
Laws are more official, e.g. Newton’s Law, etc.
The above are generally accepted statements, e.g.
“Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.”
I have already provided the definition for the term ‘empirical’ and this is recognized within philosophy.
So you are really weird in questioning me on this;
“So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Also, I’m not fully able to make sense of what you’re saying …”
You are ignorant of this norm and how Science works?
It is the standard approach [scientific method] to Science that scientific theories cannot be “absolutely perfect.”
Note in one case, Karl Popper stated, scientific theories are at best polished conjecturals and no scientist would dispute that.
I am asking a question?
If any one were to insist God is an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation, then bring the argument and justifications or better, the evidence.
Hmm. Given that what I stated can actually be read. Questioning you on what specifically?
If you alter the text, context, meaning and application of what people say, it can seem weird. Wasn’t that your intention though, in doing so? To make it seem as though I had questioned the nature of empiricism?
In this case, I believe that the paragraph I wrote has to be read as a whole to convey its meaning. If you take parts out of it or put it in a different context, it doesn’t function as I intended.
I believe that the implication of my awareness, was shown when I stated that the term “absolute perfection” is unscientific.
I don’t think it was unreasonable to infer that your question was rhetorical. Given that you’ve argued that it is impossible for God to exist.
I don’t understand why you would attempt to claim that this isn’t your reasoning/argument?
I have read your arguments for why God must be absolutely perfect. You have even argued against the idea that God doesn’t have to be absolutely perfect. So what are you now saying, that God doesn’t have to be absolutely perfect?
How ironic that you say “See the point?” when you have apparently missed some fundamental ones.
If it is theists claim that God must be absolute perfect, as you have claimed, purely upon the basis of what they believe - without any evidence or justification. Why does this preclude a God from existing which does not fulfil those theists criteria/beliefs? There is no actual necessity for God to be absolutely perfect.
Strangely, it seems as though for your argument to work as you intend, absolute perfection must actually be an impossibility and God must actually be absolutely perfect. I don’t think that you can escape this contradictory aspect of you argument.
If P1 is true, how can P2 be true? And if P2 is true, how can P1 be true?
Many theists have stated that they have seen and/or talked to God. And then there are aspects of the world/universe which are seen as evidence of God or perhaps God itself.
Growth, decay and disintegration can be seen as an absolutely perfect existence for an apple … a life cycle … a journey … a process.
Why not? Why should an absolutely perfect apple be completely static? It wouldn’t even be an apple in that case … it would be some kind of statue of an apple.
Solid response. One could think of God, in this case, as analogous to other minds. We see the bodies but assume there are other minds. We can’t know everything about them. We must infer a lot through what we can see, when we can see it. We will never know the whole.
Growth, decay and disintegration can be seen as an absolutely perfect existence for an apple … a life cycle … a journey … a process.
Why not? Why should an absolutely perfect apple be completely static? It wouldn’t even be an apple in that case … it would be some kind of statue of an apple.
[/quote]
Exactly. He is using HIS model of perfection, what is perfect to him, to decide if the apple is perfect or not. If apples did not rot they would not be food for insects, nutrition in the soil. Why should perfection not be a cycle of change and even a change in cycles. Further his view of the apple is time bound, as a human. If time is really the fourth dimension, then in fact all stages of the apple exist, and exist permanently in that block universe. And of course, perfect for what? for whom? Things can only be perfect in a context/relationship. Just as things can only be good in context or bad in context or relationship.
I have done that many times and argued over it many times, note St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
The whole syllogism is my reasoning, not every premise.
P2 is a claim by theists [St. Anselm, Descartes], not me.
I have also explained why P2 has to be so.
The above is your strawman.
I have never intended absolute perfection must actually be an impossibility.
My P1 is stated as it is justified.
Show again using my premises where is the contradiction?
Many of those who seriously claim they have had seen God are mental cases, had brain damage, took drug/hallucinogens.
There are tons of such evidence to support the above
Note here is one video where I often linked,
You need to understand the evolution of the idea of God since the idea emerged from the primitive god to the ontological absolutely perfect God together with the psychological elements of the existential crisis.
I am explaining the theists’ claim in greater detail along with the above point, i.e. the evolution of the idea of God.
As stated, my argument is presented as it is and I do not want to add the term ‘actual’ as a confusion.
Note my argument is actually argued, but that the thesis ‘God is an impossibility to be real’ need not be attributed with ‘actual’. The “idea of God exists as real”
is merely moot and a non-starter.
For example I do not have to state my argument that ‘1 + 1 = 5 is false’, is actual
It is difficult to leave points like this hanging…
In my view, this is completely irrelevant to what I stated. My point was that it was your argument, and not something that St Anselm or Descartes argued. If it is, you have yet to demonstrate that.
You have attempted to explain your view of theists claims. One of those views, as you have argued, is that God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect. You have most recently stated in relation to this view “I have also explained why P2 has to be so.” Which emphasises and alludes to what you’ve previously stated regarding this point. This simply cannot be disputed.
Hmm. You have repeatedly claimed to have demonstrated that God is an impossibility. This would mean that you have in actuality done so; due to the use of the term “demonstrated”. You are now changing the parameters of you claim to “the thesis ‘God is an impossibility to be real’” without explaining why you’ve altered your claim?
Based upon your idea, that the idea of absolute perfection is impossible? When did the idea of absolute perfection become impossible?
Are you saying that your argument is equivalent to this? Because is seems as though you’re saying that the actuality of 1 + 1 = 5 being false, is a given.
It is very relevant and you cannot bang on your ignorance of such events.
I have already explained St Anselm, Descartes and others of the likes position on the ontological God. I have already done this a few times and I am not going to go through that again.
You need to understand it is because of your resistance [naturally] that I have to waste loads of time in much repetitions.
For you, I can present P2 as
“P2. God is absolutely perfect”
as claimed by the more advanced theologians.
In this case, the premise is still valid.
Generally, the term ‘perfect’ or ‘absolute’ alone is sufficient for the point. I had emphasized the premise with ‘absolutely-perfect’, ‘imperatively-MUST’ which are repetitive terms but in my case, it is necessary to drive home the point.
Yours above is a mess. You are fussing unnecessarily.
It is a fact I have actually presented, demonstrated, show, and the likes, my argument ‘God is an impossibility to be real’.
There is nothing wrong in saying, it is my thesis [theoretical] ‘God is an impossibility to be real.’
Thesis: a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: Dictionary.Com
I have already explained this many times. I am not wasting my time repeating it.
It is not given per se.
It is false within the common subject of Arithmetic.
My argument that ‘It is possible God exists’ is a moot, i.e. a non-starter just like claiming ‘1 + 1= 5’ within Arithmetic or a square-circle exists within Geometry, is moot.
Hmm. I asked you for the quotes of St Anselm and Descartes arguing what you had, which I believe is reasonable, because you claimed they had. You’ve refused to provide the quotes, and the thrust of your explanation for not doing so it is that I am ignorant and somehow at fault?
This is the second time you’ve taken this approach when I’ve asked you for evidence. The first time, you naturally get the benefit of the doubt. But this time, until proven otherwise, I am going to assume that neither St Anselm or Descartes, can be quoted as arguing what you have.
You have emphasised “[to be real]”. This is a claim of actuality, but you previously stated “I have never intended absolute perfection must actually be an impossibility.” In this case your claims are not consistent.
Your P1 broadly states “absolute perfection is impossible”. There is no distinction of whether you’re referring to reality/actuality, or whether you mean the idea/notion. So which is it?
If 1 + 1 = 5 is false within arithmetic and a square-circle is moot within geometry, what is “it is possible God exists” moot/false in?
I know I have done so in the past, not going to keep repeating them.
You can read up St. Anselm, Descartes and others on their claims of their ontological God as perfect, absolute, supreme, than which no greater can exists. This can be easily referenced from the internet via google, etc.
In the OP, the P1 is the simplified version.
Later in the post, I explained P2 should be; P1 God is an impossibility to be real.
The reason is God is a possibility as a thought and for moral reason, thus I made it more precise by addition ‘to be real’ to the extend of God being able to listen and answering prayers.
Within Metaphysics, Ontology, Empiricism and Reality.
Meanwhile, God is a possibility and necessity within Morality for Kant [not me] but such a God is not real.
If God is not absolutely perfect, then P1 has no relevance to it’s existence. And if God is absolutely perfect, as you have (let’s be honest) argued it must be, then absolute perfection is possible. This is what I find contradictory.
If theists claim that God is absolutely perfect based upon their value judgements, how are we to attribute reality to their claim, a claim that we have no way of knowing the validity of, and then claim that the reality we attribute is impossible?
What I mean, is how can we both affirm their subjective claim of absolute perfection, by saying “P2 must be so”, and then deny it by saying that their claim is impossible after we have affirmed it? If our view is that God must be absolutely perfect, then how can we claim that it is purely the theists view?
So the question is, are you claiming that God does or does not have to be absolutely perfect?
Also, you stated that “Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.”
If you believe that this is the case, how could you prove that the inter-subjective judgement of absolute perfection was not an actuality (or fact) in any and all cases, without referring to your own subjective value judgements? In short, to claim that “absolute perfection is impossible to real”, you would have to be able to identify even the minutest imperfection in everything real. And even if you could do that, the observed imperfections would be based upon your subjective judgements. It is very problematic.
I wonder how personal a beef with a god can get. Stop worrying about what other’s define as a god. They’re inaccurate, and if you’re only beef is with someone elses inaccuracies, then think about it for yourself. It’s getting old, yammering on about someone else’s gods. Let’s talk some about the one that you think fucked you. Absolutely, not just JTB’d. That’s a rabbit hole.
