Ultimately whatever God is presented in pantheism, that God has to be an entity, i.e. a Being with agency. The fundamental basis of the God of pantheism I argued is psychological albeit of a lesser degree compared to the common theists. When we push the pantheists for their ultimate meaning it [Being with agency] will be reduced to an absolutely perfect Being/God.
Some pantheist who do not dig deeper compare their God to something like “energy” [Physics] (which is pervasive and has potential) or they are hoping scientists will discover some physical empirical elements that they can equate with their intended God.
Because such a God is affixed with an empirical foundation, it will succumb to infinite regression.
In this case, the only way out of infinite regression is to resort to the non-scientific and reason out [without evidence] an absolutely perfect God, which inevitably must be absolutely good, thus no evil. Since evil exists, God is an impossibility to be real.
As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.
This is very limited!
An Ontological God which is absolutely perfect [complete, total and unqualified] will have the ‘highest’ control which no higher control can be conceived. This statement reflect completeness and absoluteness so that there is no room at all for any ‘smart alec wannabe’ to argue for.
Beside to assign God with only the quality of “control” is again limited. In this case, it can mean in control of absolute evil.
Throughout history, the various ideas of God had been countered and bashed by smarter and smarter rational non-theistic critical thinkers which impinge on the psychological security and comfort of the theists,
Thus the term ‘absolutely perfect God’ [ontological] is coined [by the smarter theologians] with the coverage there is absolutely no possibility of any room for anyone to counter it in whatever ways. But they are ignorant of the catch that turn around to kick their ass.
The reality is the idea of God is fundamentally driven by psychological factors where even rubbish [by pure reason] can soothe the existential crisis, so what we have is GIGO.
Whatever ideas of God are presented it eventually MUST end up with an absolutely perfect God due to GIGO. This argument is also presented by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Presumptuous, childlike, and the exact opposite of the situation (typical for you).
I said nothing about me knowing, only that you obviously do not, and could not know.
Any ignorant ass can claim that everyone else is ignorant. Such is the way of ignorance - not knowing, but being stupid enough to presume anyway.
You have proven yourself on many occasion to the be “philosophically naive” person that you accuse others of being (also very typical of the naive and ignorant postmodern children).
Logic is currently beyond you, so any argument with you is pretty pointlessly like arguing with a dog or cat.
Gyahd. You really can’t even see that what you proclaimed and what I proclaimed are the same damn thing?!?!?
Geeezz…
How can my definition be the same as yours when you stated;
I would not accept a limited point like “God has highest control” especially when I have introduced the concept of “absolute perfect God” which you had condemned.
I have just referred to the topic of this (your!) thread: God & The Problem of Evil (see above).
False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!
The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.
No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).
And I know that you are going to go on with it.
Q.E.D.:
False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!
The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call “non-empirical”.
Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.
You are saying (in your signature) that you are “a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious”; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:
The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and mostly is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.
I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.
My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.
Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God.
The NT is not explicit in stating God is an absolutely perfect God but the greater theologian thinkers are naturally refining the idea of God as an absolutely perfect God. Note St. Anselm’s and Descartes’ presentation of the ontological God.
The path towards an ultimate absolutely perfect God is inherent in the idea of God as driven by a very primal existential impulse as it is only rational no theists will accept their God to be inferior to the God of others.
My argument is based on this ultimate point.
Yours is very short-sighted and is proven wrong as above.
QED.
Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based. Note Kant’s proof on this.
There are degrees to objectivity. Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity. Theists relied on beliefs but theirs are not justified-true-beliefs that can be rationally justified, e.g. repeatedly tested by anyone at anytime with same ‘independent’ results, e.g. as in Science.
What kind of logic is that?
That is a fallacy based on hasty generalization.
A medical doctor would likely spent most of his working hours with sick patients. Would that make the doctor a sick person? It is the same for anyone who is fighting evil acts, they cannot be evil rather they are good.
It is only semantics, I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.
At present I [adopting a Boddhisattva’s vow of compassion] have very strong intentions to counter theism because part of it is very malignant with its contribution to terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone theists who are inspired by certain evil laden words of their God [illusory].
To convince such evil prone theists their God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and ‘defang’ the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.
The majority of theists must also be convinced of the impossibility of God as they are indirectly providing moral support for the evil prone theists hiding beneath the skirts of the majority’s belief in theism.
I think that this is simply an opinion, and one that lacks imagination. Ever heard of Yin/Yang? The other issue here is the way in which something IS good or evil. Are we defining good in an empirical way? Is it an objective thing? Or is it a perception? And then there is the problem of the observer, the judge: How can the finite judge the character of the Infinite? No matter the reach of our concepts and generalizations we are still judging from our own WTP, thus our judgment is never impartial about reality.
That is false outside of a very precise form of monotheism. If I am a polytheist, then my gods are stratified, probably, by levels of greatness, and thus not ever god has to necessarily be perfect. Then there is the standard of perfect and how it is applied. The perfect hammer is not perfect at every task, but perfect at its purpose, or hammering. Thus gods are perhaps perfect not because nothing greater can be thought of or conceived but because it fulfills its purpose, its nature. Perfect Omnipotence is not necessarily tied to our well-being (with every “evil” being defined as damage to such well-being), but conceived as such by our will to power, to borrow Nietzsche’s concept.
Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
Any elements of evil proves contradiction
Evil exists empirically as defined logically.
God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist
Note the infinite is not judging the infinite.
In this case the supposed infinite contradict itself.
As such logically the idea of God is an impossibility - via reason not the empirical.
Since God is an impossibility, the question of God is a non-starter.
You missed my subtle point.
If one is a polytheist, one is likely to start off believing in many gods.
When it is highlighted to polytheist their gods are inferior they will rationally argued for a master god that is superior and dominate all other gods.
This is what happens with Hinduism where Brahman-God is the most supreme over all other gods.
My point is whatever God or gods are presented, the inherent tendency and psychological intent is to gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God when theists are cornered in some ways. No normal theists will accept any God as inferior to another.
You missed my point.
Note the links I provided re the meaning of ‘perfect’ which is synonymous with ‘absolute’.
As I had stated the normal psychological tendencies of theists is not to accept any God as inferior to another God.
This is what drive the evolution in the idea of god from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
Thus a God per-se despite the variations in form MUST ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.
Thus perfect and absolute are inherent in the definition of a God.
For example if you do not claim perfect omnipotence for your God, then your god is then less powerful than another which is claimed to have perfect omnipotence. In this case the God with perfect omnipotence will have the power to control your lesser perfect god to kiss its ass or do other derogatory acts. This is why all rational theists will gravitate towards an absolutely perfect God so that their God is not inferior to any God, thus all theists will end up having the same on par God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Logically there is no other rational way than ending with an absolutely perfect God.
This is how Islam which came later and with advantage of hindsight proclaimed in the Quran, the monotheistic one and ONLY perfect God without exception.
Not to lose out, St. Anselm [1033AD] of Christianity came up with the Ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
Actually I have already explained the above ‘Why’ many times but you have not read it.
I suggest you read the whole of this thread for knowledge sake.
If everyone believed that God is tall, would that constitute a definition of “God”?
There are many things that are tall. Being tall is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being tall? Perhaps one person’s idea of “tall” isn’t quite the same as everyone’s. Perhaps your idea of tall isn’t actually tall at all.
There are many things that as perfect. Being perfect is a single characteristic, but not a defining characteristic. Could the real God still be God without being perfect? Perhaps one person’s idea of “perfect” isn’t quite the same as everyone’s. Perhaps your idea of perfect isn’t perfect at all.
You would have to perfect understanding yourself to know what is or is not prefect. And though you presume that your understanding is perfect as you preach to others, have you considered that perhaps it isn’t? I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all.
The defining characteristic of God is as stated; The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.
Any other speculated characteristic of God is just that, “speculation”, subjective opinion, poetic fancies, nothing more.
And disproving any speculated characteristic concerning God in no way disproves God.
You must prove that the defining characteristic is impossible.
You have ignored this post where I highlighted my intended meaning of ‘perfect’ which is synonymous with ‘absolute’ and other stated meanings. viewtopic.php?p=2685408#p2685408
then you insist,
JSS: “I am certain that you do not understand perfection at all.”
Read the above post again so to understand what I meant by ‘perfect’.
I did not invent my own meaning of ‘perfect’ but refer to that from the dictionary, how can I be wrong.
Note in the other thread ‘God is an Impossibility’ viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
I presented to major categories of perfection, i.e.
Relative perfection
Absolute perfection
In the above you merely talked about relative perfection which is not relevant to the point while my focus is on ‘absolute perfection’, i.e. the perfection of all perfections.
Note this point in my earlier post;
In this case, if ‘omnipotence’ is qualified in anyway, then it is less than perfect omnipotence.
Note the meaning of ‘perfect’ = unqualified - see above meaning. viewtopic.php?p=2685408#p2685408
God as defined generally by theists [not me] is attributed with certain essential qualities.
Point is these qualities must be stretched to the point of absolute perfection, i.e. unqualified, otherwise one’s God would be an inferior God who has to kiss the ass of another.
Do I need to have “perfect” understanding of myself to say 1 + 1 = 2 is mathematically perfect?
Do I need to have “perfect” understanding of myself to say the following is a description of perfect circle?
The above is the same way how I can discuss the idea of an absolutely perfect God as conjured by theists [not me] which is an illusion.
As for ‘myself’, I believe “I” am an empirical self.
As such there can no absolutely perfect understanding of myself.
However since “I” is empirical, I can have a relative ‘perfect’ understanding of myself.
If you cannot attain perfect understanding of the perfection involved in a “perfect God”, then yes, you cannot claim that you have any proof against one. It would be like saying “The most intelligent person would behave like this…”, even though you are clearly not intelligent enough to know one way or another. And from what I have seen, your understanding of the general concept of “perfection” (as well as intelligence) is minimal.
I find your thinking very st…
If the above is your argument;
If you cannot have perfect understanding of yourself, then your thesis above is worthless.
Nice try, but even forgiving the non-sequitur …
One can claim ignorance and easily be exactly correct, but to claim perfect understanding, especially of perfection itself, is an entirely different story.
You have not shown any understanding of perfection. Several here have shown that your understanding of it is flawed. That means that you haven’t proven anything. And yes, the burden has been upon you this whole time.
Whether God is evil depends upon one’s perspective. An “evil” means an “anti-life”. On the personal level, God might be evil, anti-your-life, but that is not the same as the macro-scale of being anti-all-life (“Evil” with a cap “E”).
And from the highest perspective, God cannot be Evil, else throughout the infinite universe, there would no longer be life (and never would have been any). Because of God, there will always be life in the universe … somewhere.
And that is The Problem with The Problem of Evil - “evil” is a matter of level of perspective.
