Fanman wrote:Prismatic,
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Reality = empirical + philosophical
The question with reality is whether it is
-empirically verified or
-empirically possible.
Who's philosophy defines reality? How would a philosophical consensus be reached?
Note the term 'philosophically' in this case means using the finest polish to ensure everything necessary [critical review of knowledge] is taken into account.
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?
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.