Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

The only way to prove and realized the empirical-rational reality is via some conditional Framework and Systems, thus such cannot be absolutely perfect, i.e. unconditional.

Note I qualified my P1, i.e. Absolute Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Since the only way to prove anything within the empirical-rational reality is via conditional Framework and System,
Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

I agree there is possibility for a God is exists within thoughts and primal crude reason, but as Kant asserted this is pseudo-rational and an illusion.

God which is an Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

The real possibility of why and how the idea of God arose and claimed as real within an empirical-rational reality is due to desperate existential psychological impulses. I have provided links and references to show in cases where the idea of God arose in the mind of some people driven by psychological impulses.

No one has yet to answer the OP.

Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another’s?

Thus you cannot prove your premise. And I disagree with your premise (as have others).
Thus your syllogism is invalid.

No. That is your CLAIM. It cannot also be your premise.

The above is irrelevant, you got confused is conflating here.
Point is the theists’ claim is based on primal crude reason [pseudo-rational] [not emprical-rational] and what I did is to use more refined reason and rational approach to show the theists thoughts is false.

Note at one time the majority of people disagreed with the loner Copernicus’ claim of the Earth revolving round the Sun.

No. That is your CLAIM. It cannot also be your premise.
[/quote]
Note Premise;
Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
dictionary.com/browse/premise

I have supported my P1 with explanation and rational proofs in the details and other posts.
Note my argument;

  1. Without a conditioned Framework, realization of reality is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
  2. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is without a conditioned framework.
  3. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. (P1)

The statement does not support your conclusion if the statement itself is a dubious or rejected claim. You wish is that absolute perfection is impossible, so you keep professing it. But you are wrong. And you cannot prove otherwise. And that’s not even counting the fact that it is a nonsense statement.

You know that there is something wrong when it’s necessary to pile on more words so that plain “perfection” goes for a ride … perfection → absolute perfection → absolute [unconditional] perfection → absolute {totally unconditional] perfection.

Is this just the equivalent of yelling louder when people don’t accept your argument? Or is it hiding behind the complexity of more words?

Sometimes the “loner” is just wrong.

If a lot of people disagree with you, then you need to very carefully look at their arguments and also your own and you need very good reasons to explain why yours is better.

You’re not doing that. You have essentially dug in your heels and you keep repeating that your understanding of perfection, theists and God is the correct one and everyone else is wrong. That’s a lot of ego on display.

If the meaning of the word “perfection” is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it’s not a good basis for a syllogism.

More to the point, why is an “absolutely perfect” speed of light 299,792,458 meters per second? Why not 299,792,459? Or, for that matter, why not 345,871,835 meters per second? Or, perhaps, 1,000,000,000 meters right on the nose?

Either a God, the God chose that particular speed for reasons mere mortals are “here and now” unable to fathom, or because even a God, the God is subsumed in [beholden to] the “immutable laws of matters”.

Or was God morally obligated to choose that particular speed?

In any event, how is all of this subsumed in RM/AO and the Real God?

And then, finally, given the gap that would seem to exist between what you think the relationship is between the speed of light and perfection and all that would need to be known about that relationship metaphysically – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics – in order to know for sure, why on earth should anyone here suppose that your own arguments encompass the optimal or the only rational explanation?

We define a perfect game in Bowling as 12 strikes in a row in a 10 frame game. Meet that condition and you are perfect. But suppose the game of bowling consisted of 50 frames…or 100 frames? How much perfection then?

And Larsen pitched a perfect game because his performance fell within the defined parameters of what everyone agrees this means.

But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.

“Perfection” in human interactions will often revolve around a particular set of assumptions.

On the other hand, a diving competition precludes the sort of perfection that can be measured in a swim meet. You are either the fastest [measured by the clock] or you are not. But in diving there are too many opportunities for subjective interpretations of the dive. Conscious or unconscious.

Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.

Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that “I” too am no less the embodiment of this gap.

How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?

I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?

And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?

Agreeing or not agreeing with what you think isn’t the point from my frame of mind. Instead, the point revolves around your capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to agree. Here and now in other words, and not in some distant future where folks like you and I surmise that we will not even be around anyway!

To either confirm your prognostications or to experience a world in which they prevail.

RM requires precise definitions of the critical words. That’s how.

This doesn’t surprise me.

How about others?

Let me ask you this, James…

Over the course of, say, your entire life, has anyone ever come to define the words you use to encompass RM/AO more precisely than you have?

Can you provide us with some examples?

I suspect not. Why? Because once the objectivists acknowledge that they were wrong about one definition, they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other definitions.

And then the whole psychological contraption might come tumbling down.

Again, it’s not what you know about the relationship between any particular inferior/superior God, perfection and RM/AO/the Real God, but that you know precisely what that relationship is.

By definition in other words.

Really, my friend, do you have any idea just how common that frame of mind is?

Not that this is at all relevant to the topic (but when are your questions ever), I learn from others, sure. Why don’t you?

Even the word “affectance” (as just explained in another thread) was used by psychologists before I coined it into its essential meaning from their particular meaning (somewhat a Moses and the Pharaoh trick).

And I have changed the words that I use on rare occasion. I realized that “RM” was not the ontology as much as the method for designing the ontology, thus it became “RM/AO” instead of just “RM”. FC helped me with the wording of “self-harmony” as being more to the point than just “harmony”. I don’t use “SAM corporation” now merely because people associate it with those evil money hogging imperialists, but rather “SAM Co-op”.

All words that I use came from someone else. I just make a greater effort to get their intended meanings right than most people. And yes, I do try to correct when I find that I haven’t been using one properly enough. No big deal.

But of course what you and many don’t get is that once you have done that for quite a while, doubting yourself in constructive ways, you eventually find that there is hardly anything left to doubt. And that is what bothers you so very much. You want everyone to be as frightened with self-doubt as yourself.

Nope.
Absolute = unconditional = totally unconditional is just an additional meaning and emphasis.

If you and others have understood what is ‘absolute’ easily I would not have to waste time explaining. Note;

God is usually presented as the ‘Father of all absolutes’ i.e. absolutely absolute.

The term “perfection” fits in perfectly for my premises.
Note the meaning of ‘perfect’
dictionary.com/browse/perfect?s=t

There is range of meanings within the word ‘perfect’ but you seem to be sticking only to one meaning.

The point here is we can have relative perfection but these are conditioned to the criteria set and agreed by a group of people.

The above is not an impossibility albeit odds are very very slim. The point this is nevertheless a relative perfection when agreed by a group of people but set with more higher standard.

The critical point here is the understanding of the difference between ‘absolute perfection’ [applicable only for God] versus ‘relative perfection’.

I believe you are setting up an impossible ultimate limit, i.e.

ALL that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails …

This is an expectation that can only be achieved by an omniscient God [if exists].

In this case, you will not be above to resolve your problem because of wrong view and wrong thought. [note the Generic 4NT-8FP problem solving technique highlighted the Dassein thread].

Note I mentioned Russell’s there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a “certain” answers to any question - note Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’.

I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].

Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.

Effectively we should always ground our problems on the known and extend outward into the possible unknown, not the impossible unknown as you have done. This is what the Buddha meant by one creating their own dukkha [problem].
This is also how Science proceeds to gain knowledge grounded on its Scientific Framework [with processes, assumptions, etc.]

I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.

Note your ALL and ‘obligated’ again which set an ultimate limit.
In this case, the target is the majority or a critical mass not ALL [100%].
Note the principles of the Bell Curve, human variables will always be widely distributed, i.e. we cannot expect ALL humans to be 6 feet tall, or 80 kilo in weight.

Prism, this is the reference that you gave for “perfect”;

Note that there is no conditional, but there is a “description of an ideal”. So we are back to the fact that your definitions are screwy.

When I first explained that to you, you refused it, saying that such a definition involving an ideal is only “conditional”. And yet right there from your own reference, it clearly states “absolute”.

And as explained to you long ago, there is no “absolutely perfect” because that is redundant;
absolutely conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal”.
Nor is there a “conditionally perfect” as that would be an oxymoron;
conditionally conforming absolutely to the description of an ideal.

But beyond that, the term “absolute perfection” has no descriptor or ideal mentioned. It is an incomplete thought. And thus certainly not a definition of anything.

So when you say,
“P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”
You have made a nonsense statement (as was explanation to you from the beginning). It is like saying;
“P1- Absolutely Larger than is impossible”

The first premise that you give is false
“P1- Absolute perfection is impossible”

And even if it made sense, you would not be able to prove it to be true. It would still be an invalid premise.

[list]Thus your syllogism is INVALID.[/list:u]
And all of this was explained to you long ago. But now even YOU provided a correct definition which shows WHY you have been wrong this entire time.

Note my reply to the above exposing your deception;
viewtopic.php?p=2689433#p2689433

Note my reminder;

I gave several examples on how it might be used, ffs.

If those examples are the same as the one I highlighted

then we should be in agreement with how I used the term perfect in my P1 and P2.

The above ‘perfect’ is applied to what is in the empirical world, but for a God which is supposedly infallible, such a God cannot be attributed with ‘relative perfection’ for humans, thus the ‘perfection’ attributed to a God must be absolute, i.e. unconditional.

By reason,
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C… Therefore God is an impossibility [within an empirical-rational reality]

As I had stated,
since by reason the above is not tenable, there is no way one can even start to consider God exists as a hypothesis, i.e. God exists is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality.

The real reason why God exists within the consciousness of the human majority is due to inherent psychological reasons. I have provided evidences for this.