Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,
You claimed that;

Your "Ideas/thoughts are conceptualisations." is misleading you into rhetoric.
Thoughts can be conceptualized or idealized -two distinctly different elements.
Thus conceptualizations cannot be idealizations.
Transcendental ideas are idealizations not conceptualizations.

Prismatic,

Kant did not use the term 'conceptualization' I introduced that myself.

You introduced the term "conceptualization"?

Kant did not specifically state this, that is my point. You have interpreted this from your reading of Kant, and you should make that clear, rather than asserting that others are wrong as though it was a matter of fact, and not a matter of your interpretation. I'm not going to go into why I think you have interpreted what Kant said incorrectly as that would be like trying to climb Everest.

It is not wrong to use the the term 'conceptualizaton' in the context I have presented based on past posts and the quote above. It is just I have to explain the basis why I used the term.

As explained the term 'conceptualization' in this case refer to the inclusion of empirical concepts to differentiate from idealizations that do not include empirical concepts.
'Idealization' is also a term I introduced.

The point is there is a lot of deep nuances in the deeper layers when discussing Kant.

Principle of Charity needed in the above.

You are wrong in not differentiating empirical-concepts [conceptualization] from philosophical ideas [idealization]. That was my original point.

This differentiation is critical because;

1. empirical-concepts [conceptualization] lead to real empirical/physical things, while,
2. philosophical ideas [idealization] lead transcendental illusions, e.g. God, which is impossible to be real.

Kant's proof for 2 is very extensive, philosophically deep and very complicated to grasp.
If you want to understand it, you'll need to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

You are wrong in not differentiating empirical-concepts [conceptualization] from philosophical ideas [idealization]. That was my original point.

I don't think so. In terms of what Kant thinks about the these terms or the dictionary definitions of these terms? From my perspective idealisations are necessarily based upon concepts. When we idealise, we add attributes to concepts that may not necessarily be there. In my view, conceptualisations can be idealised, and idealisations can be conceptualised. As such you can claim that God is an idealisation or transcendental idea, but idealisations relating to God are based upon a concept or even many different concepts relating to empirical things.

This differentiation is critical because;
1. empirical-concepts [conceptualization] lead to real empirical/physical things, while,
2. philosophical ideas [idealization] lead transcendental illusions, e.g. God, which is impossible to be real.

You need reference(s) for this. Where does Kant make this exact demarcation? Also, I think it was me who introduced the term "conceptualisations" to this discussion.

Kant's proof for 2 is very extensive, philosophically deep and very complicated to grasp.
If you want to understand it, you'll need to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

It is your responsibility as the one making the claim to explain why this is the case. This strikes me as an equivocation to avoid the necessary fact that Kant does not claim, as you have;

Transcendental ideas are idealizations not conceptualizations.

You claimed this. And now you're telling me that I am wrong as though you are in possession of a fact, but it is just your interpretation. As I quoted Kant directly;

Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)

You cannot argue with this. I don't even know why you are trying to.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

You are wrong in not differentiating empirical-concepts [conceptualization] from philosophical ideas [idealization]. That was my original point.

I don't think so. In terms of what Kant thinks about the these terms or the dictionary definitions of these terms? From my perspective idealisations are necessarily based upon concepts. When we idealise, we add attributes to concepts that may not necessarily be there. In my view, conceptualisations can be idealised, and idealisations can be conceptualised. As such you can claim that God is an idealisation or transcendental idea, but idealisations relating to God are based upon a concept or even many different concepts relating to empirical things.

I mentioned there are loads of nuances which I am not going into.

Note the idealization of a "square-circle" is based on the concept of 'square' and 'circles' which individually can be empirical when observed.
But a "square-circle" as a contradiction is merely a thought which emerged from idealization of an illusion.
As such there is an algorithm* in the mind that twisted concepts into transcendental ideas.
In this case Kant used the terms 'pure concepts of the Understanding.'
*Note in B397 [quote above] Kant mentioned there a syllogism which distort logic.

"Conceptualization" [my term] is the establishment of empirical concepts that are can be empirically verified to be real. E.g. a square is an empirical concept that can be verified to be real when observed.

"Idealization" do rely on concept(s) [nb: nuance] that are abused and are not empirically possible, thus cannot be verified empirically to be real, e.g. square-circle.
The transcendental idea of God is an idealization from the abuse of various concepts [not empirical concepts], supreme creator who created the Universe and all things.

This differentiation is critical because;
1. empirical-concepts [conceptualization] lead to real empirical/physical things, while,
2. philosophical ideas [idealization] lead transcendental illusions, e.g. God, which is impossible to be real.

You need reference(s) for this. Where does Kant make this exact demarcation? Also, I think it was me who introduced the term "conceptualisations" to this discussion.

You will have to read up Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It took me 3 years full time to grasp the points reasonably. I am not going to try and waste time in explaining that to you in a forum like this.

It does not matter who introduced the term 'conceptualization' as long as both agree to what it means.
Actually I don't think it is you who coined the term 'conceptualization'. If so where? If you have done so, it would not be the same as what I intended the term to mean.

Kant's proof for 2 is very extensive, philosophically deep and very complicated to grasp.
If you want to understand it, you'll need to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

It is your responsibility as the one making the claim to explain why this is the case. This strikes me as an equivocation to avoid the necessary fact that Kant does not claim, as you have;

Transcendental ideas are idealizations not conceptualizations.

You claimed this. And now you're telling me that I am wrong as though you are in possession of a fact, but it is just your interpretation. As I quoted Kant directly;

Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)

You cannot argue with this. I don't even know why you are trying to.

I stand on my point, you will be lost in the above if you have not read Kant's CPR and understand it thoroughly.
Sounds like a cliche but the above is a serious especially with Kant's CPR.
To get an idea on this, note;

Why is Immanuel Kant considered to be the most difficult philosopher to understand?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Immanuel-K ... understand

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

As far as I'm aware. I introduced the term "conceptualisations" in this post (here). Therefrom, you introduced "idealisations".

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

As far as I'm aware. I introduced the term "conceptualisations" in this post (here). Therefrom, you introduced "idealisations".

Your reference is Nov11, However note in Nov 2 I stated the following which implied "conceptualization" from my perspective;

A thought can only be an imagination, if it can be imaged from possible images.
For a thing to be imaged and imagine, it has to be empirical and conceptualized.

A thought that cannot be imagined 'conceptualized' is an idea [note philosophical] like Plato's ideas, forms and universals.
viewtopic.php?p=2745155#p2745155

In any case, this is not a big issue.

To me, 'conceptualization' is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

'Idealization' is the abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding" leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

As far as I'm aware. I introduced the term "conceptualisations" in this post (here). Therefrom, you introduced "idealisations".

Your reference is Nov11, However note in Nov 2 I stated the following which implied "conceptualization" from my perspective;

A thought can only be an imagination, if it can be imaged from possible images.
For a thing to be imaged and imagine, it has to be empirical and conceptualized.

A thought that cannot be imagined 'conceptualized' is an idea [note philosophical] like Plato's ideas, forms and universals.
viewtopic.php?p=2745155#p2745155

In any case, this is not a big issue.

To me, 'conceptualization' is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

'Idealization' is the abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding" leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

There were no posts in this topic on the 2nd of November? I am claiming that I introduced the term in this topic and I'm speaking specifically about the term "conceptualisations." I didn't mean "conceptualised" as they have different meanings.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Note the idealization of a "square-circle" is based on the concept of 'square' and 'circles' which individually can be empirical when observed.
But a "square-circle" as a contradiction is merely a thought which emerged from idealization of an illusion.

A “square-circle” is a contradiction you've used as an analogy to demonstrate that something similarly contradictory is impossible. You compare a square circle to God, because you believe the possibility of God existing is the same as a square circle existing. Both of these propositions are based upon a concept, the concept of contradictions – which is what you're trying to show. Without a conceptual understanding of the variables involved, I don't believe that idealisation is possible, because idealisation is based upon concepts. If you don't believe me, check the dictionary. How do you interpret the quote I provided from Kant?

"Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)"

The transcendental idea of God is an idealization from the abuse of various concepts [not empirical concepts], supreme creator who created the Universe and all things.

I think that many aspects of God are based on empirical concepts – they are just taken to extreme ideals, i.e. God is not just perfect he is absolutely perfect. Perfection is a concept, but God is idealised as being absolutely perfect. Jesus was a man, but he was a perfect Godman. People are wise, but God has supreme wisdom. Human-beings love, but God's love is absolute - you see where I'm going? God is based upon empirical concepts taken to the extreme or absolute, that's why people can relate to God. If God wasn't given human or empirical attributes people wouldn't so easily connect with the idea. So if it was claimed as an analogy that God's anger is a fire, it would be the perfect or absolute fire. These are idealisations, and they are based upon empirical concepts.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Note the idealization of a "square-circle" is based on the concept of 'square' and 'circles' which individually can be empirical when observed.
But a "square-circle" as a contradiction is merely a thought which emerged from idealization of an illusion.

A “square-circle” is a contradiction you've used as an analogy to demonstrate that something similarly contradictory is impossible. You compare a square circle to God, because you believe the possibility of God existing is the same as a square circle existing. Both of these propositions are based upon a concept, the concept of contradictions – which is what you're trying to show. Without a conceptual understanding of the variables involved, I don't believe that idealisation is possible, because idealisation is based upon concepts. If you don't believe me, check the dictionary. How do you interpret the quote I provided from Kant?

You missed out my differentiation between idealization and conceptualization [my perspective[;

To me, 'conceptualization' is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

'Idealization' is the abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding" leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

Note "Idealization" is abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding."

The transcendental idea of God is an idealization from the abuse of various concepts [not empirical concepts], supreme creator who created the Universe and all things.

I think that many aspects of God are based on empirical concepts – they are just taken to extreme ideals, i.e. God is not just perfect he is absolutely perfect. Perfection is a concept, but God is idealised as being absolutely perfect.
Jesus was a man, but he was a perfect Godman. People are wise, but God has supreme wisdom. Human-beings love, but God's love is absolute - you see where I'm going? God is based upon empirical concepts taken to the extreme or absolute, that's why people can relate to God. If God wasn't given human or empirical attributes people wouldn't so easily connect with the idea. So if it was claimed as an analogy that God's anger is a fire, it would be the perfect or absolute fire. These are idealisations, and they are based upon empirical concepts.

Idealizations are not based on empirical concepts.
Note '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.

Perfection is a 'pure' concept but not an empirical concept.
God has to be absolutely perfect, which is based on a pure concept and an ideal [idea] which is impossible to be an empirical [as defined above] concept.

In the above case you have conflated pure concept [non-empirical] with empirical concept.
Any man [living person] as an empirical concept can be verified empirically but it is impossible to verify the pure concept [ideal] of Jesus-Godman.

[Prismatic567]

"Transcendental logic in Kant’s (no clearer) words is:
‘In the expectation that there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor of aesthetical origin)"

Where did you get the above quote from?
What is its reference in Kant's CPR.

OK I checked from Smith's translation, it is;

TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC pg 97
In the expectation, therefore, that there may perhaps be Concepts which relate a priori to Objects, not as Pure or Sensible Intuitions, but solely as acts of Pure Thought -- that is, as Concepts which are neither of Empirical nor of aesthetic Origin -- we form for ourselves by anticipation the idea of a Science of the Knowledge which belongs to Pure Understanding 3 and Reason, whereby we think Objects entirely a priori.

Such a Science, which should determine the Origin, the scope, and the Objective Validity of such Knowledge, would have to be called Transcendental Logic, because, unlike General Logic, which has to deal with both Empirical and Pure Knowledge of Reason, it [Transcendental Logic] concerns itself with the Laws of Understanding and of Reason solely in so far as they relate a priori to Objects.
A57 B81

Note your translation used 'conceptions' and Smith used 'concepts'.
I believe 'concepts' is the better word.

I don't see how your quote is effective in countering what I had stated.

Note the points;

1. -that there may perhaps be Concepts which relate a priori to Objects,
not as Pure or Sensible Intuitions,
2. -but solely as acts of Pure Thought -- that is, as Concepts which are neither of Empirical nor of aesthetic Origin

The above point 1 & 2 merely affirm what I have been stating, i.e. there are concepts [pure] which are non-empirical and are a priori.
I did not mention the term 'a priori' earlier, it implied transcendental re Critique of Knowledge.
"not as Pure or Sensible Intuitions" mean they are non-empirical concepts.
These non-empirical concepts as Pure Thoughts are then idealized as idealizations.


When one read Kant every significant variable in the sentence is a tip of an iceberg and one need to have a Kant Dictionary ready on hand.
As such when one comes across the term 'concepts' we need to differentiate between pure concepts and empirical-concepts.
This is why my inclination and perspective of the term 'conceptualization' is towards the empirical-concepts.

Generally I relate concepts as empirical until the need arise to differentiate between pure and empirical.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

You missed out my differentiation between idealization and conceptualization [my perspective[;
To me, 'conceptualization' is the use of concepts towards the empirical and possible to be verified empirically to be real.

'Idealization' is the abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding" leading to transcendental ideas [e.g. God] that cannot be verified empirically to be real.

Note "Idealization" is abuse of the "Pure Concepts of the Understanding."

Its your differentiation. I have already explained why I don't agree with it.

Perfection is a 'pure' concept but not an empirical concept.
God has to be absolutely perfect, which is based on a pure concept and an ideal [idea] which is impossible to be an empirical [as defined above] concept.

What is a “pure concept”? If someone scores 100/100 in a test, isn't that an empirical example of perfection?

In the above case you have conflated pure concept [non-empirical] with empirical concept.
Any man [living person] as an empirical concept can be verified empirically but it is impossible to verify the pure concept [ideal] of Jesus-Godman.

Reportedly, Jesus was experienced. He came to earth, interacted with people etc. As according to the Bible and what Christians believe, Jesus was empirical.

Re: Your post on following post on Kant, thank you for providing your interpretation, but I'm not going to discuss/debate this with you.

[Prismatic567]

Perfection is a 'pure' concept but not an empirical concept.
God has to be absolutely perfect, which is based on a pure concept and an ideal [idea] which is impossible to be an empirical [as defined above] concept.

What is a “pure concept”? If someone scores 100/100 in a test, isn't that an empirical example of perfection?

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'.

In the above case you have conflated pure concept [non-empirical] with empirical concept.
Any man [living person] as an empirical concept can be verified empirically but it is impossible to verify the pure concept [ideal] of Jesus-Godman.

Reportedly, Jesus was experienced. He came to earth, interacted with people etc. As according to the Bible and what Christians believe, Jesus was empirical.

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

The term “pure concept” is seemingly your term and interpretation. Kant did not state that perfection is a “pure concept”.

Yes, Jesus the physical man was empirical but not empirically perfect.
Do think Jesus was physically perfect?

I don't know, how could I know? I'm just saying, as according to the Bible.

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.

Christians who idealise Jesus will claim that he was perfect in every way, not just in those aspects which you mention.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

The term “pure concept” is seemingly your term and interpretation. Kant did not state that perfection is a “pure concept”.

Nope, not mine.
Kant used it 150 times in the CPR, e.g.

But since it is very tempting to use these Pure Modes of Knowledge of the Understanding and these Principles by themselves, and even beyond the Limits of Experience, which alone can yield the Matter (Objects) to which those Pure Concepts of Understanding can be applied,
the Understanding is led to incur the risk of making, with a mere show of rationality, a material use of its Pure and merely Formal Principles, and of passing Judgments
upon Objects without distinction -- upon Objects which are not Given to us, nay, perhaps cannot in any way be Given.
B88 - CPR

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.

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.

Christians who idealise Jesus will claim that he was perfect in every way, not just in those aspects which you mention.

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Nope, not mine.
Kant used it 150 times in the CPR, e.g.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

quoting, Prismatic,

But ultimately and philosophically, whatever is empirical is impossible to be absolutely perfect.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

Note this;

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Nope, not mine.
Kant used it 150 times in the CPR, e.g.

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.

Absolute perfection is not directly a pure concept. It is an idealization derived from pure concepts.

[Prismatic567]

quoting, Prismatic,

But ultimately and philosophically, whatever is empirical is impossible to be absolutely perfect.

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.

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;

1. Relative perfection
2. 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.

In idealist philosophy, the Absolute is "the sum of all being, actual and potential".[1] In monistic idealism, it serves as a concept for the "unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity.

According to Glyn Richards, the early texts of Hinduism state that the Brahman [God] or the nondual Brahman–Atman is the Absolute.
-wiki

Descartes defined God in term of supreme perfection;

Descartes' Fifth Meditation
Descartes states that because he cannot conceive of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God. The existence of God is what determines this. Descartes is not free to think of God without existence, for existence is a supreme perfection and God is a supreme being.
https://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1701645.html

[Fanman]

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.

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.

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?

[Prismatic567]

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.

Perceive = to come to an opinion about something, or have a belief about something:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/perceive

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

tNo, 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.

This is based upon how human-beings perceive perfection. What orher perspective can absolute perfection be viewed from?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic,

tNo, 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.

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.

[Fanman]

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

tNo, 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.

This is based upon how human-beings perceive perfection. What other perspective can absolute perfection be viewed from?

There are two perspectives human beings perceive things, i.e.

1. Relatively perfect
2. 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.