God is an Impossibility

[phyllo]

Who would want to believe and worship a God who was lesser than ALL perfect, ALL omniscient, ALL omnipotent, ALL ubiquitous? et cetera.

Who could pray to a God in total faith, who was not absolute perfection, in times of chaos, great struggle, tragedy and pain?

Who could feel and receive the warmth, compassion, love and inner security needed in times of the above-mentioned if their belief was not absolute in these attributes of their God?

There is a difference between what people want and what there is.

A god may exist Who does not have the characteristics that have been attributed to Him/Her/It by theists.

Prismatic does not show that such a God does not exist.

Note I have shown 'God as what there is' [claimed by any theist] is moot and an impossibility to start with.
The anology to God exists is like '1 + 1 = 5' [decimal system].
So I don't even have to show God does not exist.

In a thread where you are supposedly proving that "God is an Impossibility", you "don't even have to show God does not exist"?

That's ridiculous.

[Serendipper]

I didn't know this was a topic of debate. If "absolute perfection" means "all-powerful", then it's contradictory since having the power of being big and small cannot exist in the same being. Every advantage has a disadvantage so there is no way of having all the advantages and none of the disadvantages just like you couldn't collect the head-side of coins while discarding the tail-sides.

I don't think that something being “all-powerful” is necessarily contradictory, as something can be “all powerful” and be big or small. Something not being big and small doesn't mean that it isn't "absolutely perfect", but I think that conclusion depends on what we perceive as something being "absolute perfection". Also, in terms of something being "all powerful" I don't agree that every advantage has a disadvantage, what would be the disadvantage of being “all powerful”?

Hmm... that is interesting lol Well, I wouldn't describe all-powerful as an advantage, but a collection of advantages. It's the box that contains all boxes, but doesn't contain itself because otherwise it would be a box with an inside, but no outside.

Statements concerning all things are illogical. If we say all things are moving, then there is no way to verify that since there is no still reference point by which to judge and it's therefore a meaningless statement.

Bruce Lee would say water is all-powerful because it conforms to any shape and can yield, but also crash. But earth can dam water and fire can boil it away. As soon as you claim an advantage, you've also claimed a disadvantage. White has the first move in chess, which is an advantage, but it's also a disadvantage. Throwing the first punch is an advantage, but also a disadvantage since you've committed to a strategy. To be all powerful would mean being able to throw the first punch without throwing the first punch. White could move first without black knowing what the move is. It's impossible.

Alan Watts related it to having full control of a woman by mixing up some potion that upon being exposed to it, women do whatever he says. So he says what good is that? It would be like a blowup doll and it is only that he doesn't have full control that a woman is enjoyable. So, the disadvantage of having all power is boredom and a ceasing of manifestation; one can only live if they lay some power down. God cannot be in control of everything or what sense would there be to having anything?

There are indeed two ways of speaking about perfection, depending how you define your terms.

I agree, and perhaps there are more than two, but not (I don't think) in the way that Prismatic has expounded. To my understanding if something is perfect, it describes the maximal state that something can achieve – the absolute. I understand that there is relative perfection, which means that the perfection being described is relative to a condition or relative to something else, but I don't make a distinction between “absolute perfection” and “perfection”, because perfection necessarily describes an absolute. So the term “absolute perfection” is the same as saying that there's an “absolute, absolute.” It implies that something can be “more perfect”, than perfect which doesn't seem correct to me. The term "absolute perfection" is used for emphasis, but to me it doesn't mean anything other than perfection.

Is the species of sharks absolutely perfect? Could you make a better shark? What is better? Let's say that better is being able to find food easier, well then it eats all its food and eventually starves. So if there is no way to improve upon the shark, isn't the shark absolutely perfect?

I posit there is nothing that is not empirical because all empiricism is conceptual. You aren't looking at a tree, but a concept in your mind that you think is a tree. Do you *see* what I mean? (By seeing what I mean, that is empirical observation according to myself and Goethe, apparently). Deduction and empiricism is the same thing. There is no such thing as a priori either.

I see what you mean, but IMV a tree is something which exists both outside of me, and as a concept in my mind. Why do you think there's no such thing as a priori?

Well, perhaps what I should have said is there is no difference between a priori and a posteriori and it's for the same reason there is no difference between deduction and empiricism.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and **deduction** from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or **empirical** evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There is nothing independent of experience since experience defines reality.

At the fundamental level there are only energy fields (gluon field, Higgs field, electric and magnetic fields and who knows what else.) There is no such thing as matter as such (Max Planck said "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such!")

In nature, there is no tree, just vibrations, oscillations of energy and a tree as a thing only exists because we call it into existence in our minds. In nature, there are no things, except the one big thing. The universe is a only atom... the a-tomos... the indivisible whole.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear the noise, does it make a sound? It will create a pressure wave through the air, but it takes ears and a brain to make sound and each organism will create the sound differently.

[phyllo]

Well, perhaps what I should have said is there is no difference between a priori and a posteriori and it's for the same reason there is no difference between deduction and empiricism.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and **deduction** from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or **empirical** evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There is nothing independent of experience since experience defines reality.

You are mistaken.

Taking mathematics as an example ... mathematics is pure manipulation of symbols based on specific rules. The symbols need not represent anything real nor do the rules. You do not need any experience with real objects (apples or sticks ,etc) to use a statement like 3+2=5 and to accept it as correct.

The same is true for statements like "all bachelors are unmarried". The words are merely symbols. You can use them in a syllogism without knowing what "bachelor" and "unmarried" means.
In fact, the purpose of syllogisms is to arrive at concluding statements which you have not experienced. If you had experienced it, then you would not need a syllogism.

[Serendipper]

Well, perhaps what I should have said is there is no difference between a priori and a posteriori and it's for the same reason there is no difference between deduction and empiricism.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and **deduction** from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or **empirical** evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There is nothing independent of experience since experience defines reality.

You are mistaken.

I don't think you've put the thought into that Goethe had. I can't make you *see* what you "choose" not to *see*. Ponder it some more. If Kant couldn't see it, it can't be easy, but I have faith in you.

You cannot have an experience which you have not experienced and that includes deduction and deduction is no different than observation since you observe what you deduce and your brain is an organ of observation.

Reality is the interaction between subject and object. Nothing is real until it is observed (where observation is not limited to optical). This was the principle underpinning of James' AO: if something has no affect, then it doesn't exist. Something can only be said to exist if it has affect on something else (subject/object).

Taking mathematics as an example ... mathematics is pure manipulation of symbols based on specific rules. The symbols need not represent anything real nor do the rules. You do not need any experience with real objects (apples or sticks ,etc) to use a statement like 3+2=5 and to accept it as correct.

I could say that apples and sticks do not exist except in your conceptualization of them or I could say that numbers do exist by your conceptualization of them. All you have to work with are concepts, whether it be a tree or a number, there is no difference.

The same is true for statements like "all bachelors are unmarried". The words are merely symbols.

They are symbols that inspire concepts like a tree inspires a concept of a tree.

You can use them in a syllogism without knowing what "bachelor" and "unmarried" means.

Can you make a syllogism out of "gehdjshk" and "fehsjue"?

In fact, the purpose of syllogisms is to arrive at concluding statements which you have not experienced.

And then suddenly you experience it. You never experience the grand canyon either until you experience it.

Ah, I see 2+2=4
Ah, I see a tree

No difference. Can you see what I'm saying?

[phyllo]

I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

[Serendipper]

I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

Dad? Is that you?

Yes, if you can't beat em, ignore em. Just don't talk and that way you can never be wrong. Congratulations! You've found a way to beat the game. Now what did you win?

You and the old man are cut from the same cloth: the risk of being wrong just isn't worth it because we must protect our preconceived notions at all cost! Never ever can we change our minds, learn, and move forward because we simply must be correct from birth, a priori! That's why knowledge progresses one funeral at a time

Ego

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

I can know by reason only and a priori that 1 + 1 = 5 is wrong.

“1+1 = 5” and “absolute perfection is impossible” are not within the same category of claims. The claim that 1+1 = 5 is incorrect, it would be seen as irrational and illogical to claim that it is. The claim that absolute perfection is impossible, is an assertion and must be proven in order to be a valid claim. The former claim is not debatable, the latter is.

1. Within the decimal system 1 + 1 = 5 is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
2. I have proven 'absolute perfection' is also an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Both 1 & 2 are of the same category in the sense they are provable by reason only without the need for empirical proofs and justification like in Science.

In addition you need to differentiate between absolute and relative perfection.

No, I don't. In reality, the term "perfection" describes an absolute.

I have argued on this many times.
There is relative perfection and absolute perfection.
Relative perfection like a perfection of 300 points in a ten-pin bowling game, 100% score in an objective test, scoring 100/10 in a sport, e.g. diving, are not 'absolute' because they are conditioned by criteria set by humans.
"Perfection" attributed to a God is absolute perfection, i.e. absolute = totally unconditional.
See the difference?

You are wrong here because you have failed to differentiate between "knowing" empirically and "knowing" rationally by reason only.

In either case, you cannot know that absolute perfection is an impossibility. Absolute perfection could exist and you're not aware of it.

Humans [subjects] cannot 'know' absolute perfection because whatever that can be known by humans cannot be [absolutely] absolute at all.
Note 'absolute' = totally unconditional.

1. My point is I don't have to know [empirically & rationally] everything to 'know' [by reason only].

2. Actually you have messed up everything with the term "knowing" because "knowing" is confined only to the empirical as knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs [JTB].

3. Proving by reason only is not precisely "knowing" it is actually theorizing.

If I am to take these three statements as being a true reflection of your thinking (which I have no reason not to), then by your own admission, you're arguing that reason does not allow us to claim something as knowledge, because only the empirical can be claimed as knowledge - proving things by reason is not precisely knowledge (whatever that means), it is theorising. If that is the case, then by your own argumentation, because your argument/syllogism is based upon reason and not anything empirical, you're only theorising that “God is impossible” and have not proven anything as knowledge, because to prove something as knowledge it has to be empirical.

'Knowledge' is a very loose term. A layperson will take it that any information/data generated by the brain and 'known' by the person is 'knowledge'.

Philosophically, I refer to 'knowledge' as within a continuum of information and thoughts from opinions, beliefs to knowledge. Knowledge in this case is objective knowledge, i.e. as justified true belief.

For anything to be knowledge it must be theorized [explicitly or implicitly] in stages from

1. opinion to
2. subjective belief [faith and conviction] then to be
3. justified [empirically and rationally] as true belief to be qualified as objective knowledge.

Yes, my syllogism 'God is an impossibility' is merely a theory based on sound reason. The point here is I am using higher refined reason-only to kill your reasoned-belief (stage 2) based on crude reason.
Thus your belief cannot proceed at all to stage 3, i.e. moot to be qualified to be justified as true beliefs empirically and rationally. Your idea of God is killed at state 2.
Therefore 'God exists' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

[Prismatic567]

Note I have shown 'God as what there is' [claimed by any theist] is moot and an impossibility to start with.
The anology to God exists is like '1 + 1 = 5' [decimal system].
So I don't even have to show God does not exist.

In a thread where you are supposedly proving that "God is an Impossibility", you "don't even have to show God does not exist"?

That's ridiculous.

We know via reason 'a square-circle is an impossibility' within an empirical-rational reality .
Therefore a square-circle is impossible to exist within an empirical-rational reality.
If that is the case, do I have to show a square-circle does not exist within an empirical-rational reality?

Thus that 'God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, is the same with the above situation. I don't have to show 'God does not exists' because it is impossible for a God to exists within an empirical-rational reality.

[Prismatic567]

Well, perhaps what I should have said is there is no difference between a priori and a posteriori and it's for the same reason there is no difference between deduction and empiricism.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and **deduction** from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or **empirical** evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There is nothing independent of experience since experience defines reality.

You are mistaken.

I don't think you've put the thought into that Goethe had. I can't make you *see* what you "choose" not to *see*. Ponder it some more. If Kant couldn't see it, it can't be easy, but I have faith in you.

What is that which Kant couldn't see?

You cannot have an experience which you have not experienced and that includes deduction and deduction is no different than observation since you observe what you deduce and your brain is an organ of observation.

I agree with the above.

There are two categories of experiences, i.e.;

1. Experiences during one's life time - individual and collective,

2. Evolutionary Experiences of mankind [collective] throughout history [millions of years] and embedded in the DNA and is passed on to the next generation. This will also include the collective experiences of living things from billions of years ago.

I have stated my syllogism is based purely on reason alone, but in a more refined sense, reason is ultimately traceable to experience, not a posteriori but the embedded experience re 2 above. Kant's Categories arise from such evolved experiences.

Note
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

[phyllo]

We know via reason 'a square-circle is an impossibility' within an empirical-rational reality .
Therefore a square-circle is impossible to exist within an empirical-rational reality.
If that is the case, do I have to show a square-circle does not exist within an empirical-rational reality?

Thus that 'God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, is the same with the above situation. I don't have to show 'God does not exists' because it is impossible for a God to exists within an empirical-rational reality.

Your square-circle example is irrelevant.

There is no logical contradiction in a god. Stop pretending that there is.

[Serendipper]

What is that which Kant couldn't see?

Well I don't really know if Kant could see that there is no actual distinction between a priori and posteriori, but wiki says "The Latin phrases a priori and a posteriori are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason", so I just assumed, since they are his terms, that he couldn't or otherwise didn't see the falsity of the differentiation.

I also don't see the value in creating the distinction, which seems to be nothing more than a source of bickering, as if we need another, about where on a slippery slope that a line belongs which divides such things as pri from post, life from non-life, right from wrong, which guns to ban, and what constitutes illegal speech.

You cannot have an experience which you have not experienced and that includes deduction and deduction is no different than observation since you observe what you deduce and your brain is an organ of observation.

I agree with the above.

There are two categories of experiences, i.e.;

1. Experiences during one's life time - individual and collective,

2. Evolutionary Experiences of mankind [collective] throughout history [millions of years] and embedded in the DNA and is passed on to the next generation. This will also include the collective experiences of living things from billions of years ago.

I have stated my syllogism is based purely on reason alone, but in a more refined sense, reason is ultimately traceable to experience, not a posteriori but the embedded experience re 2 above.

Yes and it is really by such evolutionary experiences that we experience empiricism and deduction because our brain and sense organs are themselves memory of that evolutionary experience, though I'm not sure if those experiences are the subject or object of observation. The evolutionary experiences comprise the brain which is a re-member-ance (as opposed to dismember) of those experiences which must be the subject that observes the inference and the empirical.

From Goethean Science:

Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something
complete were conveyed to us in sense experience. All drawing together, ordering, and grouping
of sense-perceptible facts would have no objective value. Knowing has meaning only if we do
not regard the configuration given to the senses as a finished one, if this configuration is for us a
half of something that bears within itself something still higher that, however, is no longer sense-perceptible.
There the human spirit steps in. It perceives that higher element. Therefore thinking
must also not be regarded as bringing something to the content of reality. It is no more and no
less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear
sounds, so thinking perceives ideas. Idealism is therefore quite compatible with the principle of
empirical research. The idea is not the content of subjective thinking, but rather the result of
research. Reality, insofar as we meet it with open senses, confronts us. It confronts us in a form
that we cannot regard as its true one; we first attain its true form when we bring our thinking
into flux. Knowing means: to add the perception of thinking to the half reality of sense
experience so that this picture of half reality becomes complete.

https://www.rsarchive.org/Books/Downloa ... iner-1.pdf

Kant refer to these are the Categories.

What does that mean?

Note
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

Interesting

[Prismatic567]

We know via reason 'a square-circle is an impossibility' within an empirical-rational reality .
Therefore a square-circle is impossible to exist within an empirical-rational reality.
If that is the case, do I have to show a square-circle does not exist within an empirical-rational reality?

Thus that 'God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, is the same with the above situation. I don't have to show 'God does not exists' because it is impossible for a God to exists within an empirical-rational reality.

Your square-circle example is irrelevant.

There is no logical contradiction in a god. Stop pretending that there is.

Obviously theists will claim there is no contradiction in a god within THEIR personal perspective. But being personal, that is very subjective.

Theists insist God is real within the empirical realm, i.e. can be communicated to and answer prayers.
Philosophically, in terms of reality there is a contradiction, i.e. a pure rational being cannot exist within an empirical realm.

[Prismatic567]

What is that which Kant couldn't see?

Well I don't really know if Kant could see that there is no actual distinction between a priori and posteriori, but wiki says "The Latin phrases a priori and a posteriori are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason", so I just assumed, since they are his terms, that he couldn't or otherwise didn't see the falsity of the differentiation.

I also don't see the value in creating the distinction, which seems to be nothing more than a source of bickering, as if we need another, about where on a slippery slope that a line belongs which divides such things as pri from post, life from non-life, right from wrong, which guns to ban, and what constitutes illegal speech.

According to Kant the differentiation is critical to understand the dichotomy between 'Empiricism' versus 'Rationalism'.
Note Hume's challenge, one cannot get an ought [from reasoning] from an "is" [empiricism].
Kant argued yes, we can but we need to differentiate and understand the a priori and a posteriori.

From Goethean Science:

Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something complete were conveyed to us in sense experience. All drawing together, ordering, and grouping of sense-perceptible facts would have no objective value. Knowing has meaning only if we do not regard the configuration given to the senses as a finished one, if this configuration is for us a half of something that bears within itself something still higher that, however, is no longer sense-perceptible.
There the human spirit steps in. It perceives that higher element. Therefore thinking
must also not be regarded as bringing something to the content of reality. It is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas. Idealism is therefore quite compatible with the principle of empirical research. The idea is not the content of subjective thinking, but rather the result of research. Reality, insofar as we meet it with open senses, confronts us. It confronts us in a form that we cannot regard as its true one; we first attain its true form when we bring our thinking into flux. Knowing means: to add the perception of thinking to the half reality of sense experience so that this picture of half reality becomes complete.

https://www.rsarchive.org/Books/Downloa ... iner-1.pdf

I agree with the following;
"Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something complete were conveyed to us in sense experience"
But further than that, we need to bring in the elements of a priori ideas and a posteriori knowledge. It is a long story to understand how Kant improved on the thoughts of Goethe.

Kant refer to these are the Categories.

What does that mean?

According to Kant, knowledge is not based purely on a posteriori experiences but are influenced by the Categories within the psyche of humans.
The Categories [Kant merely assumed they are there] are actually evolved pure concepts embedded in the brain from our ancestors and back to the first one cell living things.
The pure concept of 'Cause and Effect' is inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and embedded deep in the psyche. Why 'Cause and Effect' is so significant is because it has survival values thus is embedded deep in the brain.

[Fanman]

Pris,

1. Within the decimal system 1 + 1 = 5 is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
2. I have proven 'absolute perfection' is also an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Both 1 & 2 are of the same category in the sense they are provable by reason only without the need for empirical proofs and justification like in Science.

To be clear, are you claiming to have proven that absolute perfection is an impossibility as a priori knowledge?

"Perfection" attributed to a God is absolute perfection, i.e. absolute = totally unconditional.
See the difference?

“Perfection” necessarily describes something possessing qualities or fulfilling conditions that make what is being described as perfect, perfect. If God is absolutely perfect, it is so because there are qualities or conditions which make it absolutely perfect – like having all of the Omni's (which is a condition). Hence the term “unconditional absolute perfection” doesn't have any clear meaning. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "unconditional" as relating to perfection in more detail?

Humans [subjects] cannot 'know' absolute perfection because whatever that can be known by humans cannot be [absolutely] absolute at all.
Note 'absolute' = totally unconditional.

This assertion makes no sense based on what you've claimed. Why do you think that humans cannot know absolutes? And if that is what you think, why are you making absolute claims? The claim that “God is an impossibility” is absolute. If you cannot know absolutely, why are you making an absolute claim?

Again, could you please define what you mean by "totally unconditional".

Philosophically, I refer to 'knowledge' as within a continuum of information and thoughts from opinions, beliefs to knowledge. Knowledge in this case is objective knowledge, i.e. as justified true belief.

Again, as according to your argumentation, to have proven something as knowledge, it must be as you have defined here. However, your argument/syllogism doesn't conform to your own standard of what constitutes knowledge. Therefore, as according to your own standard, you haven't proven anything, because if something has been proven, it is necessarily knowledge.

For anything to be knowledge it must be theorized [explicitly or implicitly] in stages from 
1. opinion to 
2. subjective belief [faith and conviction] then to be
3. justified [empirically and rationally] as true belief to be qualified as objective knowledge.

Same as above.

Yes, my syllogism 'God is an impossibility' is merely a theory based on sound reason. The point here is I am using higher refined reason-only to kill your reasoned-belief (stage 2) based on crude reason. 
Thus your belief cannot proceed at all to stage 3, i.e. moot to be qualified to be justified as true beliefs empirically and rationally. Your idea of God is killed at state 2.
Therefore 'God exists' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

This seems like another straw man. 1. What “sound reason” is your theory/syllogism based upon? Your conclusion is based upon premises that cannot be proven (empirically) and that are not axiomatic. How does that constitute sound reason? 2. What is my idea of God? I never claimed that God exists. You're are again, refuting something that I haven't claimed.

Note, what is "higher refined reason"? I searched, but couldn't find any references explaining what it is.

[Fanman]

Serendipper,

Alan Watts related it to having full control of a woman by mixing up some potion that upon being exposed to it, women do whatever he says. So he says what good is that? It would be like a blowup doll and it is only that he doesn't have full control that a woman is enjoyable. So, the disadvantage of having all power is boredom and a ceasing of manifestation; one can only live if they lay some power down. God cannot be in control of everything or what sense would there be to having anything?

Hmm … I think that is a valid point, but it depends on if you think that having such power is an advantage or disadvantage. Some people may feel that having such power is an advantage.

Is the species of sharks absolutely perfect? Could you make a better shark? What is better? Let's say that better is being able to find food easier, well then it eats all its food and eventually starves. So if there is no way to improve upon the shark, isn't the shark absolutely perfect?

Its difficult to say. I think that sharks are relatively perfect killing machines, but I do not think that they cannot be improved upon in that respect. I don't know exactly how a shark could be better at what it does, but I see no reason to claim that a shark isn't perfect.

[phyllo]

Obviously theists will claim there is no contradiction in a god within THEIR personal perspective. But being personal, that is very subjective.

Try to just analyze the words that are written without trying to psychoanalyze or mind-read the writers.

If you look at the definition of "god", there is no logical contradiction. A god does not have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent or absolutely perfect. A god can be fallible and limited.

Theists insist God is real within the empirical realm, i.e. can be communicated to and answer prayers.

Yes. And many theists claim exactly that has happened to them.

Philosophically, in terms of reality there is a contradiction, i.e. a pure rational being cannot exist within an empirical realm.

You say that because you have loaded your definition of god with a bunch of superfluous characteristics.

[Serendipper]

According to Kant the differentiation is critical to understand the dichotomy between 'Empiricism' versus 'Rationalism'.
Note Hume's challenge, one cannot get an ought [from reasoning] from an "is" [empiricism].
Kant argued yes, we can but we need to differentiate and understand the a priori and a posteriori.

Thanks and I appreciate that clarifying information.

Obtaining reasoning from empiricism is a problem if one sees them as different just as how a cause causes an effect is a problem if one sees the cause and effect as distinct events. This seems to me an unnecessary problem. We cannot have a knower without a known nor a known without a knower; one doesn't engender the other, but they arise codependently and together constitute reality.

I agree with the following;
"Knowing would be an absolutely useless process if something complete were conveyed to us in sense experience"
But further than that, we need to bring in the elements of a priori ideas and a posteriori knowledge. It is a long story to understand how Kant improved on the thoughts of Goethe.

Goethe seems to be arguing that knowing/understanding/conceptualizing is half subject and half object, just as seeing is half the eye and half the scenery. If that is what Kant is ultimately arguing, then I suppose I agree; however his nomenclature and definitions obscure that realization.

Kant refer to these are the Categories.

What does that mean?

According to Kant, knowledge is not based purely on a posteriori experiences but are influenced by the Categories within the psyche of humans.
The Categories [Kant merely assumed they are there] are actually evolved pure concepts embedded in the brain from our ancestors and back to the first one cell living things.
The pure concept of 'Cause and Effect' is inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and embedded deep in the psyche. Why 'Cause and Effect' is so significant is because it has survival values thus is embedded deep in the brain.

Yes but not all brains can realize the a priori that other brains can which presents yet another slippery slope. Can a lizard grasp the concept of a quantity? But on the other hand plants can apparently perform complex calculations that estimate the amount of sugar that needs to be stored for the night until the sun is expected to rise the next morning. https://grist.org/living/plants-can-do-math/

Obviously a computer doesn't perform magic in computation, but is a series of switches that operate in a deterministic fashion like dominoes falling against each other. Likewise viewing a tree is a similar deterministic process of chemistry and is absolutely no different than the mathematical calculations performed by plants. The only way to have a REAL distinction between a priori and posteriori is to conjure magic and insist there is some aspect of humanity that is not native to this universe, otherwise it's all chemical bubblings and happenings within a continuum with no discontinuities.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper,

Alan Watts related it to having full control of a woman by mixing up some potion that upon being exposed to it, women do whatever he says. So he says what good is that? It would be like a blowup doll and it is only that he doesn't have full control that a woman is enjoyable. So, the disadvantage of having all power is boredom and a ceasing of manifestation; one can only live if they lay some power down. God cannot be in control of everything or what sense would there be to having anything?

Hmm … I think that is a valid point, but it depends on if you think that having such power is an advantage or disadvantage. Some people may feel that having such power is an advantage.

Well, it was just an analogy. The real problem is whether all-powerful is a power to be had. Is a tool shed itself a tool? I suppose we can say a garage contains all tools and the garage itself can be a tool to make money by repairing cars, but it's not an actual tool for repairing the car, but a tool to contain all the other tools (and shield from weather, thieves, etc).

A grocery store can contain all food, but the store is not itself food. Likewise all-powerful is just a container for all the powers.

If 100% power were a power to be had, then 0% power would also be a power to be had, but at the same time it's not and instead it's a condition void of power. So all-powerful is not itself a power, but a condition of having all the powers, which is just as impossible as having zero powers.

It's interesting to note that originally, superman was not intended to fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, but merely that he evolved on a planet with stronger gravity which gave him strong muscles and his eyes evolved in the light of a different star which allowed him to see x-rays. Hollywood embellished the natural into the supernatural because such powers of flight and lasers would require too much energy than what could be accounted for. Superman supposedly derived his energy from the yellow sun, but he was not green indicating chlorophyll, but white which reflects all the high-energy light.

In reality, a gorilla is a real superman since it has tremendous strength, but it also has a large gut and must spend all its day eating, which is a severe disadvantage. Lions and tigers are formidable opponents as well, but they can't tolerate heat because they can't sweat. The Cheetah cannot store fat (obviously or it wouldn't be able to run), so it must eat regularly. House cats are fantastic killing machines, but they can't fit into the holes that snakes can. Snakes, on the other hand, cannot run or jump to snatch a bird from the air.

There is no way, in reality, to have strength without an energy source (big gut and constant feeding or small gut and regular kills). You cannot fit into holes and also run down prey. You cannot have tough hide and also resist heat by sweating. There is no way to be an all-powerful animal.

Is the species of sharks absolutely perfect? Could you make a better shark? What is better? Let's say that better is being able to find food easier, well then it eats all its food and eventually starves. So if there is no way to improve upon the shark, isn't the shark absolutely perfect?

Its difficult to say. I think that sharks are relatively perfect killing machines, but I do not think that they cannot be improved upon in that respect. I don't know exactly how a shark could be better at what it does, but I see no reason to claim that a shark isn't perfect.

Sharks can be improved upon when their environment changes, but at this moment in time they can only be perfect or else they would not exist. In a jigsaw puzzle, each piece fits perfectly even though each piece is different. If one piece were a perfect square, then it would not fit in the puzzle.

FWD to 49:00

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

1. Within the decimal system 1 + 1 = 5 is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
2. I have proven 'absolute perfection' is also an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Both 1 & 2 are of the same category in the sense they are provable by reason only without the need for empirical proofs and justification like in Science.

To be clear, are you claiming to have proven that absolute perfection is an impossibility as a priori knowledge?

Yes, via reason only.

"Perfection" attributed to a God is absolute perfection, i.e. absolute = totally unconditional.
See the difference?

“Perfection” necessarily describes something possessing qualities or fulfilling conditions that make what is being described as perfect, perfect. If God is absolutely perfect, it is so because there are qualities or conditions which make it absolutely perfect – like having all of the Omni's (which is a condition). Hence the term “unconditional absolute perfection” doesn't have any clear meaning. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "unconditional" as relating to perfection in more detail?

You are confining 'perfection' to 'something' generally.
But the idea of God to theists is not merely something generally, rather God is unique and God is the only thing that is assigned absolute perfection, i.e. the perfection that is above all general perfections [relative].

"Conditional" mean 'whatever-is' is always related to something.
A creation is conditioned by a creator. [logic of causation]
But God as a creator cannot be conditioned by another creator. [claimed by theists]
Therefore God has to be totally unconditional.

Thus whatever perfection that is attributed to a God has to be totally unconditional, i.e. absolute perfection.

I used 'totally' to cover whatever perspective one can think of to counter the point.

Get it?

Humans [subjects] cannot 'know' absolute perfection because whatever that can be known by humans cannot be [absolutely] absolute at all.
Note 'absolute' = totally unconditional.

This assertion makes no sense based on what you've claimed. Why do you think that humans cannot know absolutes? And if that is what you think, why are you making absolute claims? The claim that “God is an impossibility” is absolute. If you cannot know absolutely, why are you making an absolute claim?

Again, could you please define what you mean by "totally unconditional".

Note, philosophically there is no absolute certainty - Wittgenstein.
But there is relative certainty, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 within the decimal system.

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Note my explanation of 'totally unconditional'.

Philosophically, I refer to 'knowledge' as within a continuum of information and thoughts from opinions, beliefs to knowledge. Knowledge in this case is objective knowledge, i.e. as justified true belief.

Again, as according to your argumentation, to have proven something as knowledge, it must be as you have defined here. However, your argument/syllogism doesn't conform to your own standard of what constitutes knowledge. Therefore, as according to your own standard, you haven't proven anything, because if something has been proven, it is necessarily knowledge.

I defined 'knowledge' as Justified True Belief within an empirical-rational reality.

My claim 'God is an impossibility' is a proof but it is a proof within the ambit and conditions of reason, higher reason. This is not 'knowledge' as defined above.
We can say we have knowledge of the proof by reason, but the proof itself in this case is not 'knowledge' in contrast to say a Scientific proof.

For anything to be knowledge it must be theorized [explicitly or implicitly] in stages from 
1. opinion to 
2. subjective belief [faith and conviction] then to be
3. justified [empirically and rationally] as true belief to be qualified as objective knowledge.

Same as above.

Same as the above re 'knowledge'.

Yes, my syllogism 'God is an impossibility' is merely a theory based on sound reason. The point here is I am using higher refined reason-only to kill your reasoned-belief (stage 2) based on crude reason. 
Thus your belief cannot proceed at all to stage 3, i.e. moot to be qualified to be justified as true beliefs empirically and rationally. Your idea of God is killed at state 2.
Therefore 'God exists' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

This seems like another straw man. 1. What “sound reason” is your theory/syllogism based upon? Your conclusion is based upon premises that cannot be proven (empirically) and that are not axiomatic. How does that constitute sound reason? 2. What is my idea of God? I never claimed that God exists. You're are again, refuting something that I haven't claimed.

Note, what is "higher refined reason"? I searched, but couldn't find any references explaining what it is.

That is another problem, i.e. you don't have strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge.

Note this for example;

Higher-order thinking, known as higher order thinking skills (HOTS), is a concept of education reform based on learning taxonomies (such as Bloom's taxonomy). The idea is that some types of learning require more cognitive processing than others, but also have more generalized benefits. In Bloom's taxonomy, for example, skills involving analysis, evaluation and synthesis (creation of new knowledge) are thought to be of a higher order, requiring different learning and teaching methods than the learning of facts and concepts.

Higher-order thinking involves the learning of complex judgmental skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. Higher-order thinking is more difficult to learn or teach but also more valuable because such skills are more likely to be usable in novel situations (i.e., situations other than those in which the skill was learned).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_thinking

There are many other levels of critical thinking.
Note also lateral thinking versus vertical thinking.

It is so evident, put the thinking abilities of ALL humans within the Normal Distribution, you will find there are people [of some percentile] with higher thinking abilities using their higher ability to reason in contrast the average and stupid people.

I never claimed that God exists.

You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;

1. 50% God does not exist.
2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim 'God exists' with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this 'God exists' probability of yours.

[Prismatic567]

According to Kant the differentiation is critical to understand the dichotomy between 'Empiricism' versus 'Rationalism'.
Note Hume's challenge, one cannot get an ought [from reasoning] from an "is" [empiricism].
Kant argued yes, we can but we need to differentiate and understand the a priori and a posteriori.

Thanks and I appreciate that clarifying information.

Obtaining reasoning from empiricism is a problem if one sees them as different just as how a cause causes an effect is a problem if one sees the cause and effect as distinct events. This seems to me an unnecessary problem. We cannot have a knower without a known nor a known without a knower; one doesn't engender the other, but they arise codependently and together constitute reality.

To understand the whole, one must understand the parts and their differences and how they are interdependent within the system.
Note for example Yin-Yang within the Tao, one must know understand the principles of each element. You can insist there is no difference between Yin and Yang.
It is the same Kant to differentiate between a priori and a posteriori and explain how they are interdependent with each other to enable knowledge to emerge. You have to read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] before you critique his views.

Kant refer to these are the Categories.

What does that mean?

According to Kant, knowledge is not based purely on a posteriori experiences but are influenced by the Categories within the psyche of humans.
The Categories [Kant merely assumed they are there] are actually evolved pure concepts embedded in the brain from our ancestors and back to the first one cell living things.
The pure concept of 'Cause and Effect' is inherited from our evolutionary ancestors and embedded deep in the psyche. Why 'Cause and Effect' is so significant is because it has survival values thus is embedded deep in the brain.

Yes but not all brains can realize the a priori that other brains can which presents yet another slippery slope. Can a lizard grasp the concept of a quantity? But on the other hand plants can apparently perform complex calculations that estimate the amount of sugar that needs to be stored for the night until the sun is expected to rise the next morning. https://grist.org/living/plants-can-do-math/

Obviously a computer doesn't perform magic in computation, but is a series of switches that operate in a deterministic fashion like dominoes falling against each other. Likewise viewing a tree is a similar deterministic process of chemistry and is absolutely no different than the mathematical calculations performed by plants.
The only way to have a REAL distinction between a priori and posteriori is to conjure magic and insist there is some aspect of humanity that is not native to this universe, otherwise it's all chemical bubblings and happenings within a continuum with no discontinuities.

Our concern here is with humans not lizards.

To understand why humans accept seeming blindly why 1 + 1 = 2 we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
To understand and resolve Hume's Problem of Induction, we need to understand and differentiate between a priori and a posteriori.
There are many other philosophical issues that require the differentiation between a priori and a posteriori.

[Fanman]

Pris,

Yes, via reason only.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify your position on that point. If that's what you think then fine, you think that you have reason to, but I disagree.

You are confining 'perfection' to 'something' generally.
But the idea of God to theists is not merely something generally, rather God is unique and God is the only thing that is assigned absolute perfection, i.e. the perfection that is above all general perfections [relative].

You misunderstand. I was initially making a general point about the term “perfection”. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically gave reference to God. Also, if you take the time to search different dictionaries, you'll find that the term “absolute perfection”, is only used for emphasis and that the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute. You won't find terms like “general perfections” and there's probably a valid reason for that.

If God is absolutely perfect, there is a reason that it is. "Reason" in this case denotes qualities or conditions. Therefore, the absolute perfection of God is conditional, because it's absolute perfection is contingent upon the qualities that it possesses.

"Conditional" mean 'whatever-is' is always related to something.
A creation is conditioned by a creator. [logic of causation]
But God as a creator cannot be conditioned by another creator. [claimed by theists]
Therefore God has to be totally unconditional.

Thus whatever perfection that is attributed to a God has to be totally unconditional, i.e. absolute perfection.

I used 'totally' to cover whatever perspective one can think of to counter the point.

Get it?

No, I don't. I searched, but found no definition of “conditional” or “unconditional” that matches your description or application of the terms. Perhaps, seeing as you have "strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge" you could provide a reference which supports your use and application of the terms?

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I searched, but couldn't find anything relating to "relative certainty". Perhaps you could explain what that term means? Based upon what I think you mean, there's an epistemological difference between "relative certainty" and "a priori knowledge". With a relative certainty, a change in circumstances could effect the certainty of what is being claimed or posited, but a priori knowledge, as far as I understand the term, is knowledge which is incontrovertible. Viz "All bachelors are unmarried".

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Which means that, whether you agree or not, you're claiming that your argument/syllogism is axiomatic.

Note, the term "highest" is unnecessary.

We can say we have knowledge of the proof by reason, but the proof itself in this case is not 'knowledge' in contrast to say a Scientific proof.

Hmm ... Do you mean in terms of certainty here?

Note my explanation of 'totally unconditional'.

Which I doesn't make any sense to me.

That is another problem, i.e. you don't have strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge.

This is a straw man. You specifically stated “higher refined reason” which is evidently not the same as “Higher-order thinking”, but since you are claiming that they are essentially the same in terms of reference, you are therefore claiming that you are using higher-order thinking; whilst stating that others are using "crude reasoning". I think, based upon the submitted arguments, that claim may be both an overestimation of your own ability, and an underestimation of others ability.

You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;
1. 50% God does not exist.
2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim 'God exists' with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this 'God exists' probability of yours.

That is very interesting. You are of course patently wrong, because I did not make a claim, neither is that an accurate reflection of my thinking. How are you going to use "high-order thinking" to demonstrate that you're right on this point? You are aware that someone actually has to make a claim before you can assert that they've made one? This is just a guess, which I find to be ironically, crude. It is very problematic to tell people specifically what they believe based upon your inferences, as you will arrive at confirmation bias.

[Prismatic567]

Pris,

Yes, via reason only.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify your position on that point. If that's what you think then fine, you think that you have reason to, but I disagree.

Disagree with the above or my conclusion in the syllogism?

You are confining 'perfection' to 'something' generally.
But the idea of God to theists is not merely something generally, rather God is unique and God is the only thing that is assigned absolute perfection, i.e. the perfection that is above all general perfections [relative].

You misunderstand. I was initially making a general point about the term “perfection”. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically gave reference to God. Also, if you take the time to search different dictionaries, you'll find that the term “absolute perfection”, is only used for emphasis and that the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute. You won't find terms like “general perfections” and there's probably a valid reason for that.

If God is absolutely perfect, there is a reason that it is. "Reason" in this case denotes qualities or conditions. Therefore, the absolute perfection of God is conditional, because it's absolute perfection is contingent upon the qualities that it possesses.

Note in this particular discussion, one really has to nit-pick and be very precise with the intended meaning.

When you qualify God as 'perfect' then you are implying God is a thing in general.
Whatever way you use perfection, the 'perfection' you [as theists insist] attribute to God has be unique.
The most appropriate term to describe God's perfection which is unique to God only is 'absolute perfection'.

What is intended here with the term 'absolute perfection' attributed to God is to ensure it has no link to its creation, i.e. theists do not want their God to be accused as being man-made, i.e. conditioned by humans plus being inferior in any way.

Qualities are only described by humans which is conditional, but God-by-itself is purely unconditional to anything else. God is totally unconditional - see dictionary meaning below, plus note that is what theists would expect their God to be.

"Conditional" mean 'whatever-is' is always related to something.
A creation is conditioned by a creator. [logic of causation]
But God as a creator cannot be conditioned by another creator. [claimed by theists]
Therefore God has to be totally unconditional.

Thus whatever perfection that is attributed to a God has to be totally unconditional, i.e. absolute perfection.

I used 'totally' to cover whatever perspective one can think of to counter the point.

Get it?

No, I don't. I searched, but found no definition of “conditional” or “unconditional” that matches your description or application of the terms. Perhaps, seeing as you have "strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge" you could provide a reference which supports your use and application of the terms?

I don't think you have searched enough.

Note point 15 of this link;
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
the absolute - something that is free from any restriction or condition.

That is the same as totally unconditional.

If you go down the link, British Dictionary definitions for absolute you will find this

noun (sometimes not capital)
1. (philosophy)
the ultimate basis of reality
that which is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete

Get it?

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I searched, but couldn't find anything relating to "relative certainty". Perhaps you could explain what that term means? Based upon what I think you mean, there's an epistemological difference between "relative certainty" and "a priori knowledge". With a relative certainty, a change in circumstances could effect the certainty of what is being claimed or posited, but a priori knowledge, as far as I understand the term, is knowledge which is incontrovertible. Viz "All bachelors are unmarried".

Relative certainty in this case is not related to 'a priori knowledge'.
Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.
1 + 1 = 2 is relative certain but only relative to the decimal system and not the binary or other counting system.

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason.

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Which means that, whether you agree or not, you're claiming that your argument/syllogism is axiomatic.

Note, the term "highest" is unnecessary.

Nope I did not claim it to be axiomatic.
The point is my proof stand by itself based on reason.

That is another problem, i.e. you don't have strong and sharp tools to reach wider and deeper knowledge.

This is a straw man. You specifically stated “higher refined reason” which is evidently not the same as “Higher-order thinking”, but since you are claiming that they are essentially the same in terms of reference, you are therefore claiming that you are using higher-order thinking; whilst stating that others are using "crude reasoning". I think, based upon the submitted arguments, that claim may be both an overestimation of your own ability, and an underestimation of others ability.

I am stating in the case of 'God exists' theists and agnostics are using "crude reasoning" to jump to the conclusion 'God exists' because they were compelled by some psychological impulses to do so.

One good example of crude reasoning in contrast to higher-reasoning is Hume's Problem of Cause and Effect. Common sense and crude reasoning conclude marble A knocked and caused marble B to move. Using a higher level of reasoning, Hume disagreed and assert the conclusion of cause and effect is due to psychology, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
Theists perceive creations and jump to the conclusion there must be an ultimate creator, i.e. God exists. This is crude reasoning driven by primal psychological impulses.

You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;
1. 50% God does not exist.
2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim 'God exists' with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this 'God exists' probability of yours.

That is very interesting. You are of course patently wrong, because I did not make a claim, neither is that an accurate reflection of my thinking. How are you going to use "high-order thinking" to demonstrate that you're right on this point? You are aware that someone actually has to make a claim before you can assert that they've made one? This is just a guess, which I find to be ironically, crude. It is very problematic to tell people specifically what they believe based upon your inferences, as you will arrive at confirmation bias.

May be yours is 95% God does not exist and 5% God exists.
In this case there is still that 5% of 'God exists' as a positive claim.

Note the theists' God exists is based on crude reasoning driven by psychology, i.e.
Creations perceived, cause and effect, therefore God exists.
Since the idea of God emerged there is no convincing proofs to support the idea God exists within an empirical rational reality.

On the other hand, I have used higher order thinking to show;

1. God is an impossibility - based on reason [higher] only
2. The idea of God can also emerge out of mental illness, brain damage, drugs, chemical, electronic wave stimulation, meditations, etc. - based on empirical evidence.
3. The idea of God is based on an existential crisis, thus psychological.
4. There are Eastern spirituality who recognized the fact of 3 and deal with it non-theistically.
5. The possibility of dealing with the existential crisis neurally and replacing theistic religions

You will note my higher order thinking is more sound than the theists' crude reasoning reinforced by faith.

[phyllo]

Prismatic wrote :
You are an agnostic, i.e. you believe the following;
1. 50% God does not exist.
2. 50% God exists

Thus you do claim 'God exists' with a 50% probability.
I was referring to this 'God exists' probability of yours.

Fanman wrote :
That is very interesting. You are of course patently wrong, because I did not make a claim, neither is that an accurate reflection of my thinking. How are you going to use "high-order thinking" to demonstrate that you're right on this point? You are aware that someone actually has to make a claim before you can assert that they've made one? This is just a guess, which I find to be ironically, crude. It is very problematic to tell people specifically what they believe based upon your inferences, as you will arrive at confirmation bias.

Prismatic wrote :
May be yours is 95% God does not exist and 5% God exists.
In this case there is still that 5% of 'God exists' as a positive claim.

Note the theists' God exists is based on crude reasoning driven by psychology, i.e.
Creations perceived, cause and effect, therefore God exists.
Since the idea of God emerged there is no convincing proofs to support the idea God exists within an empirical rational reality.

That is interesting because Prismatic's logic seems to be that if you find flaws in his syllogism, then it must be because you are a theist at least a little bit. If you were an atheist, then you would not see any flaws.

[Fanman]

Pris,

Note in this particular discussion, one really has to nit-pick and be very precise with the intended meaning.

When you qualify God as 'perfect' then you are implying God is a thing in general.
Whatever way you use perfection, the 'perfection' you [as theists insist] attribute to God has be unique.
The most appropriate term to describe God's perfection which is unique to God only is 'absolute perfection'.

What is intended here with the term 'absolute perfection' attributed to God is to ensure it has no link to its creation, i.e. theists do not want their God to be accused as being man-made, i.e. conditioned by humans plus being inferior in any way.

Qualities are only described by humans which is conditional, but God-by-itself is purely unconditional to anything else. God is totally unconditional - see dictionary meaning below, plus note that is what theists would expect their God to be.

You speak as though there are different rules of language that apply when discussing God. IMV, God is a thing amongst other things, so I see no need for the use of unique language when discussing it's attributes. I'll stick to what I stated re God's perfection.

I don't think you have searched enough.

Note point 15 of this link;
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
the absolute - something that is free from any restriction or condition.

That is the same as totally unconditional. 

If you go down the link, British Dictionary definitions for absolute you will find this
noun (sometimes not capital)
1. (philosophy)
the ultimate basis of reality
that which is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete

Get it?

Fair point. Hmm … No, I don't. I don't understand what “totally unconditioned” means. Perhaps you could provide an example of that term in use which isn't related to God? Not something that you think, but an actual quote. Then I might be able to understand what it means, implies and how it applies to your definition of God.

I noticed that the term “perfect” is listed amongst those things which are absolute from your quotation. Did you find any definitions of “perfect” that did not describe an absolute?

You stated, having claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge:

My claim “God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality” is a relative certainty, i.e. relative within the realm of the highest reason. 

I am relying on relative certainty, 1 + 1 = 5 is impossible conditioned within the decimal system of arithmetic.

Then you stated:

Relative certainty in this case is not related to 'a priori knowledge' [emphasis mine].
Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system.
1 + 1 = 2 is relative certain but only relative to the decimal system and not the binary or other counting system.

Which is contradictory.

Hence, whilst I may not be right, I will not accept this as a definition of "relative certainty", but thank you for attempting to explain. Also, 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 5, are axiomatic in the way that you've used them to make your points, not "relatively certainties".

One definition I found of relative was “1. having meaning or significance only in relation to something else; not absolute:” which seems to reflect what I stated. So I'll stick with my description of "relative certainty" until proven otherwise.

But note, I do agree with this to a degree: "Relative certainty is a certainty that is related to a framework or system."

Nope I did not claim it to be axiomatic.
The point is my proof stand by itself based on reason.

Wouldn't that mean that your argument/syllogism is self-evidently correct? You've claimed that your argument/syllogism is a priori knowledge. If that is the case then it is self-evident or IOW axiomatic. You said yourself that you are relying on an axiom (although you called it a relative certainty), 1+1 = 5 being self-evidently incorrect. What a priori knowledge is there that isn't axiomatic? “all bachelors are unmarried” is clearly axiomatic. Do you think that your argument/syllogism has a similar degree of veracity to “all bachelors are unmarried”?

I am stating in the case of 'God exists' theists and agnostics are using "crude reasoning" to jump to the conclusion 'God exists' because they were compelled by some psychological impulses to do so.

This is a matter of opinion.

May be yours is 95% God does not exist and 5% God exists.
In this case there is still that 5% of 'God exists' as a positive claim.

Wrong again in this respect. If someone believes that God is a possibility, you cannot attribute them with making a positive claim until they actually make one. A belief is not a claim. Not knowing if God exists, is not a belief, a negative claim or a positive claim. Agnosticism is not knowing.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about “higher order thinking” or “higher refined reason” if that is how you assess yourself then fine.

[Fanman]

phyllo,

That is interesting because Prismatic's logic seems to be that if you find flaws in his syllogism, then it must be because you are a theist at least a little bit. If you were an atheist, then you would not see any flaws.

I agree, and I would go a step further than that. Due to his claims about using “higher refined reason” and “higher order thinking” it would seem that if someone disagrees with him regardless of their world view, then not only are they incorrect, but their reasoning is also "crude". Hence it seems to me, that he has set an impossibly high standard for himself. Such that being wrong, has necessarily become his enemy.