God is an Impossibility

Since I have put in the reasonable critical analysis and soundness, I am confident I am successful, until someone can show me ‘holes’ in my argument.
So far no one has been able to show my argument is not sound.

Can you argue with the above otherwise as regard what is real?

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,
“Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all”
This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.
First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.
In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

I am giving you a very frank opinion.

If you want to disprove my argument, you have to start with the argument,
i.e.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

You can proceed by specifically arguing against my
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
Do you dispute this?
Do you think absolute perfection is a possibility within reality?
Explain why the above statement is false?

and
P2. God IMPERATIVELY must be absolutely perfect
Do you dispute this?
Explain with your counter argument why the above is false.
Note many has countered with theirs and many gods are not claimed to be absolutely perfect, i have countered that effectively.

It is so simple in theory,
if you can prove any one or both are false, then I can close shop with the OP.

What you have presented do not address my P1 and P2 directly.

Your point is you claim God exists.
Then you have to present your proposal, God exists as what?
There were claims God exists as that bearded man in the sky, this is obviously not convincing given the current knowledge we have.
Some claim God exists as spirit, energy, being, unknown substance, Absolute etc.
There are those who claim God is simply ‘existence’ or “is.”

Seemingly you believe God exists as consciousness? subconsciousness? or ??
Whatever you believe God exists as …, say X.
then you have to justify what is X.
This is why I suggest you prove your case in a separate thread.

If you can prove your claim is true and real, thus possible, then yes it will counter my argument from the absolute perfection perspective.

But I am aware whatever claim you made of God, it is not a possibility to be real, and it will end up with the usual long drawn ‘till the cows come home’ scenario. This is why I do not want your approach to mess up with my thread which is specifically based on the absolute perfection perspective and not your intended perspective.

Prismatic,

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms as you seem to do. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don’t rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find. For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I’m not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your argument is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

I can agree it is possible there at things beyond our what is currently justified to be empirical [science being the most reliable]. But the main point is what is possible beyond the empirical must be empirically possible.
For example I can believe it is possible for human-like aliens* living in a planet 3 billion light years away. Note all the bolded elements in the statement are empirically possible to be verified empirically if empirical evidence can be produced for verification.
(* or other living things, dinosaurs, monkeys, elephants, whales, etc.)

It is not possible for a square-circle [non empirical] to exist here on Earth or anywhere light years from Earth.
It is the same for the absolutely perfect God [i.e. irrational, illusory, non-empirical], i.e. it is impossible to exist as real anywhere, Earth or elsewhere.

What is empirical is fundamentally experiential.
There is no way one can experience an square-circle.
According to Kant, one can think [thoughts only] but one cannot imagine [reserve for empirical and intuitional only ] a square-circle or an absolutely perfect God.

I don’t have to claim my argument is perfect.
Note my argument stand by itself as logically solid and sound.

In the past, the majority claim with arrogance their argument for a flat earth theory was perfect. Does that meant no one could argued against it?
The truth will always prevails and the flat earth theory [regardless how perfect it was claimed to be] was subsequently proven wrong with evidence and arguments.

It is very easy, you can prove my argument is wrong by exposing holes in my P1 or P2.

Prismatic,

From my perspective this both too binary, and absolute. How can something be both beyond empirical and empirical, isn’t that a contradiction of terms? I do not put reality into a little box, and then define the criteria of what that box can and cannot contain, because it is impossible for any human being to know absolutely what is and is not possible. We have accurate frameworks and referential systems, but these do not attempt to tell us what is ultimately possible and impossible, just what is. We infer what can and cannot be using those frameworks, but they are certainly not comprehensive of all reality, our knowledge is not complete, which means that yours isn’t either.

You have claimed that your argument is perfect, which it isn’t in my view, but as has been stated perfection is subjective. So if you believe that, then what can anyone do? I don’t really understand how you can attempt to create a sound objective argument on the basis of a subjective premise.

Context, application and relevancy, Prismatic. The flat earth theory was due to a lack of empirical evidence. Your argument is purely logic based. Your logic isn’t universally correct, it is subject to error, just like everyone else. If anything, the flat earth theory should demonstrate to you how far purely logic based conclusions can err.

Your argument is based upon the premise that absolute perfection cannot exist, I don’t believe that is a sound premise. It makes it seem as though you think you know completely what is possible and what is not, but as I said, human methods of understanding reality are not comprehensive.

Either you don’t understand or you are pretending not to understand. If your argument is perfect, it cannot be countered, perfection is the absolute. So what you’re claiming whether you know it or not, is that your argument is the absolute best that logic can achieve. You cannot both claim that your argument is perfect, and then accept that may can contain holes, again that is self-contradictory. Its like you’re asking to be proven wrong, whilst firmly believing that you cannot be - the whole gist of your dialogue regarding your argument conveys that. You’re setting up everyone to fail.

I did not state a thing can both beyond empirical and existing empirically in the present at the same time.
I meant there are justified and proven empirical things.
Anything that is beyond proven empirical justifications at present can only be speculated to exists but it has to be empirically possible.
I can accept God is a that bearded man in the sky, because the bolded are empirically-based, what is left for those who claim such to bring the empirical evidence for verification.

I would not reject the claim there is a tea pot flying around a planet 100 light years away, because this is based on a speculated statement which is empirically possible but not likely. Point is I cannot reject such a claim. This may be proven empirically when humans can reach that planet 100 light years away.

If you claim for anything empirically, then it is possible. What is left to be done is await the evidence to verify the empirical possibility. So it is possible for anyone to agree on what is empirically possible as long as the thing is empirically based.

Note there are empirical framework and systems, e.g. Science, legal, etc. which must be based on empirical evidence and justifications.
We have framework and systems for thoughts, empirically-mixed and pure thoughts.
Note Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason which generates illusory such as a soul, Whole-Universe and God. A major part of my argument is banking on Kant’s theories.

We cannot claim a pure-rational-thought_out thing is possible because firstly it is not empirical-based, thus cannot be tested empirically to count as real.
As I had stated the idea of God must be an absolute perfection which cannot be empirical at all, thus never empirically possible [a 90% basis for reality].

What is objective is subjected to a Framework and System.
I have given an objective conclusion within the Framework and System of Logic.
I have claimed my argument is perfect [not absolutely perfect], i.e. qualified to the Framework and System of Logic.
My syllogism is relatively perfect, you cannot dispute that?

I did not claim the soundness of my argument is perfect, but the evidences and arguments for the two P1 and P2 speak for themselves.
If you do not agree, the onus is on you to prove they [one or both] are wrong.

It is worst for theists who has not provided any empirical evidence since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness. Note the strength of the belief in God is based on faith, not empirical evidence and not by reason.

My syllogism is perfect relative to the framework and system of logic.
Regardless, repeat, you can disprove my argument by proving my P1 or P2 is wrong, using empirical evidence or logical approaches.

I have argued absolute perfection cannot exists within the empirical world which is 90% reality.
Your belief don’t count, what count are your valid and sound arguments if any.

I have stated many times, I did not claim my argument is of absolute perfection.
Rather it is relatively perfect, i.e. conditioned upon the framework and system of logic.

You are equivocating here and kept insisting in conflating absolute with relative perfection.
I believe the bottle-neck in your resistance is you do not understand the significance of this conflation.

Note I claimed my argument is relative perfect and I [personally] DID NOT claim my premises contain holes. I am confident they do not contain any holes or falsehoods.
What I meant was, if you do not accept my argument, then prove to me there are holes [fallacies] in my premises.

Prismatic,

Your first and second premises are subjective, but conversely, your conclusion is objective, that doesn’t seem right to me. How can you reach an objective conclusion based upon subjective premises? If the premises are subjective, your conclusion is going to be an opinion or subjective, isn’t that how logic works?

How can you accept the possibility that your argument may not be perfectly sound, yet claim that it is perfect relative to the framework and system of logic, does that make sense to you? Soundness is probably the most important aspect of a logical argument if you’re looking for validity, you’re really stretching things here.

The same problem arises here, if you think that you’ve proven that absolute perfection is an impossibility, perfectly within the remit of logic, how are you going to accept any logical refutation? If anyone presents something as actually being “absolutely perfect”, you’re just going to argue that it is a subjective opinion, or not really absolutely perfect, but that would be your subjective perspective, not an objective fact. You use the term perfection a lot, but I don’t think that you understand it well enough.

This is circular. You have rejected every counter-argument given, as such I don’t think that I can state anything that I or others more intelligent than me have already said. As I’ve said, I think there are many valid refutations, but you don’t agree. That is where we are and that is probably how things are going to stay. You can’t counter the perfect argument, so I’m not going to waste time trying to convince you that it isn’t, only to be told that I haven’t said anything valid.

Note there are a few perspectives to the point.
As I had stated my syllogism is relatively perfect, thus the conclusion in relation to the rules of logic.

The next perspective is whether my premises are sound or not.
It is not my opinion that the premises are sound, rather I believe with justifications, my premises are sound.
At this stage it is up to you or anyone to dispute my premises are not sound.
So far [from my assessment] you have not been able to show they are unsound.

Thus the final state at present is;

  1. My syllogism is relatively perfect subject to the rules of basic logic.
  2. No one has provided any counter to my P1 and/or P2

Therefore as far as I am concern I am waiting for anyone to counter my premises.
If none, then the above state stands.

Note the two stages to logical syllogism and arguments, i.e.

  1. The syllogistic structures
  2. The soundness of the premises, thus the whole argument.

You cannot conflate the two above and they have to dealt with sequentially.

As I had stated, you have to show my premises are false and unsound.

for example, if I present the following premises;

  1. The earth is flat and not round/spherical
  2. The Sun is square and not round

Surely you can show my above premises are false.

However my premise ‘Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real’ is much more refine than the above type of premises.
Note I have already justified how my premise is sound.

If you present anything as absolute perfect, then you have to prove your statement is sound. Fact is you cannot show anything is absolutely perfect as real except as in a psychological driven thought
To start, try arguing against Kant ‘thing-in-itself’ which is claimed by others as absolutely perfect to be real.

I have rejected every counter-argument because they are unsound.
Many valid refutations, where?

Note I have argued God is an impossibility to be real.
The main reason why the idea of an illusory emerged in thought is due a compulsive impulse triggered from an existential crisis which is psychological.
There are spiritual approaches that address this issue effectively.
I believe in time, my argument will be proven true with the advancement of the
The Human Genome Project
The Human Connectome Project
and other advance knowledge and technology.

You should consider why you are being straight jacketed by an inherent defense mechanism to resist further exploration of your own self [Know Thyself].

Note by feeding and stoking the flame of the idea-of-God [illusory and an impossibility] within the consciousness of the majority, you are complicit to the terrible evils and violent acts committed by SOME theists in the name of an illusory God.

Prismatic,

As I’ve stated, for me there is no difference between perfection and absolute perfection. “Absolute” is only used for emphasis and doesn’t present an actual difference, because perfection necessarily describes the absolute best something can be. When we use the term “perfection” absolute is implied. I believe there are many things which are perfect, because the perception of perfection is subjective. I’m not aware of there being “objective perfection”, unless it is agreed universally that something is flawless or something like that, which as far as I’m aware has not or perhaps never occurred.

Because your 1st premise is subjective, it doesn’t stand on anything except your subjective viewpoint, as such it is your view that absolute perfection is impossible, because you don’t believe there is any empirical evidence for it. My disagreement with your 1st premise is valid in and of itself, I don’t have to show that absolute perfection exists factually. You can disagree with me, and your own disagreement is valid in and of itself, because the perception of perfection is subjective. For your argument to be sound, IMV, you have to show that absolute perfection is objective, but you can’t do that and at the same time claim that it is impossible, you have seemingly created quite the conundrum for yourself.

In this very thread, Prismatic. There are pages and pages of reasoned refutations.

Why, because I disagree with you? That is simply ridiculous, you make it seem as though I’m speaking to an intellectual authority on the subjects being discussed. Lighten up.

I have already explained there are many perspective to ‘perfection’ and ‘absoluteness’.

There is no way, a theist [not me] would accept the ‘perfection’ of humans [e.g. 100/100 in an objective score is comparable to God’s perfection which must be absolute.

Note this definition of ‘Absolute’;

The being that possess maximal ontological status of perfection can only be attributable to God [as defined by majority of theists, not me].

You are not up to it, I suggest you do more extensive research on the term ‘absolute’ and ‘perfection’. I have already done that.

I [personally] don’t have to show absolute perfection is objective. It is not my view, I am countering the theists [majority] who by default has to claim God must be of Absolute Perfection which in their sense is objective.
Note logically it is impossible for subjective empirical evidence to be rationally perfect absolutely.

Objectively, where?

You are not making any provision for the the psychological perspective at all?

Whatever, the ‘currency’ of this discussion is ‘arguments’ not what I or you think of myself or yourself respectively. If you have good counter arguments then I will buy them.

Prismatic,

Hmm, why so final… Where have stated something which is contrary to the quote from Wiki, or the dictionary definitions of perfection?

Prismatic,

IMV your argument does have to show that, otherwise the 1st premise is a subjective statement, rather than an objective one. I don’t know whether or not theists claim that God’s perfection is objective, but even if they do, that is their subjective viewpoint.

I think what you’re trying to say, is that theist’s believe God’s perfection transcends human perfection.

With regards to this: "Note logically it is impossible for subjective empirical evidence to be rationally perfect absolutely."

I’ve been trying to make sense of this all day, looking through google and the such, but the meaning completely evades me, what on God’s earth does this mean? Break it down for me.

Note the Wiki article.

You don’t seem to note the absolute to one extent “that possesses maximal ontological status.”
Do you understand what this mean, note the Ontological God of St. Anselm and others.

The Wiki article also mentioned,

Surely you should understand there is a contrast from merely ‘physical existence’ [Science, etc.] to ‘completely unconditioned’ God.
In the secular there is absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and other relative absolutes, how can these relative absolutes be comparable to the absolutely absolute attributable God.

Here is where your subliminal defense mechanism and confirmation bias shut you from understanding the truths of the above statements re Wiki and in the dictionaries.

Note in dictionary;

I have posted the above meanings many times in this forum?

You are confused in the above.

Theists [majority] definitely [& ultimately must ] claim their God to be absolutely objective, i.e. totally unconditioned and independent of any human being.
Note I am arguing against theists that their claim of an objective God is wrong and God is non-existent within reality. It is all in their minds driven psychologically.

Yes, I have been arguing all along the theists claim is subjective, note my insistence the claim for God is ultimately psychological.

Yes [stated in the Wiki article], don’t you agree?

If you agree, God’s perfection [absolute] transcends human perfection [relative], then it is obvious,
humans’ relative empirical perfection is impossible to match the absolutely perfection of God.

E.g. of humans’ relative empirical absolute or perfection, are
absolute monarchy, absolute temperature, absolute alcohol proof,
perfect score in the sport of diving and other sports like 300 in ten spin bowling, 100/100 in objective tests, etc.,
cannot be comparable to the absolute and absolute perfection of God-[as claimed by theists].

Prismatic,

What word is this quote defining? You haven’t explicitly stated “absolute” right?

If “perfect” is one of the ways we define “absolute” what difference does it make if we say “absolutely perfect”?

IMV, if we say that theists claim God’s perfection transcends human perfection, that is enough to qualify the point you’re making. We need not say that God’s perfection is absolute, because as you can see from the dictionaries, absolute is implied when we say that something is perfect.

When God is referred in term of absolute, then ‘absolute’ can stand by itself. I would not use the term perfectly absolute. Maybe at times I would state absolutely absolute to leave no room for doubts.

However when God is described in term of ‘perfection’ then to ensure I cover all grounds, it is necessary to use the term ‘absolutely perfect’ or absolute perfection.
The point is we do not use the term ‘absolute’ as commonly as the term ‘perfect’ which is used for many things and concepts, e.g. perfect score, perfect mother, and perfect whatever.

In addition there is the perfect circle in theory and perfect circle in practice.
Thus in order to be absolutely certain with my intentions, I use the term ‘absolute perfection’ in relation to God to reflect it as ‘maximally great’ or a ‘being no greater can exists’.

Descartes used the term ‘supremely perfect’ and I think “absolutely perfect” is more precise to to reflect what the majority of theists [not me] had defined what God is or will ultimately be.

Prismatic,

I think that terms such as “absolute”, “supremely”, “maximally” etc., in the context we’re using them, are superlatives that describe the extreme. When used before “perfect” they can be either for emphasis, or to describe perfection which transcends. But conversely, the term “perfect” describes/encapsulates all of those prior mentioned superlatives in and of itself, such that we don’t need to use them when we say something is perfect. As such, I think there may be an issue with language rather than either you or me being right or wrong in that respect.

I understand what you mean when you say God’s perfection is absolute, compared to human perfection which is relative, to deny that I do would be intellectually dishonest. Regardless, I think that we only describe perfection in this way, with a double positive phrase, when God, a supreme being, the ultimate reality etc., is being discussed.

From my experience and re Normal Curve, there is always a continuum and range of people with different intellectual capability from very low to very high.
I have added the emphasis to ensure no one miss or misinterpret the concept with regards to God’s perfection.

Note this will give you an example of my point that differentiate humans’ relative perfection and God’s absolute perfection;

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect empirically and philosophically.
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

One of the problems of his approach, which has been pointed out to him, is that he takes theological language, from Christianity, as if it was intended to be taken as scientific language. As if people must believe in mathematically perfect deities to be theists. To describe a being that created the universe some theologians began to bandy about the idea of omnipotence. To take this literally, as an assertion within science, say, that God has to power to do anything at all even if it is self-contradictory, is to choose a definition of God used by some members of one religion and confusing all speech as literal. IOW there is something autistic about his approach. And he has no problems telling theists that they are wrong about their own religions.

And then he goes ahead and makes claims about theism in general based on misunderstandings of language and even the one religion that he places in the role of all religions.
Of course some theists think like he does, but that does not make him right.