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.
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?
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].
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.
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.
Way back in the thread I offered an argument you did not respond to. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it. Again:
An Impossibility can’t be imagined because we live in an existence of structured information. Example: A square circle imparts no information or meaning and is an example of an impossibility. From an informational standpoint only “square” and “circle” are able to inform conceptualization because they possess the structured information of existents. The mind slams shut when it tries to comprehend square circle. A square circle is an impossibility; it fails to offer information to [fails to in-form] a perceiving mind.
God on the other hand–along with concepts like redness or justice–though abstractions, all impart information to minds. Thus, all three offer this common evidence of existence of some sort. All three can be discussed objectively (just as you’re discussing God in this and other threads) because they have informational structure. It appears by this standard that both your first premise and conclusion above are false.
I must have missed it, no intention to ignore any reasonable challenges.
Point is humans can think of anything as a thought, even the impossible.
So ‘impossibility’ can be thought, even defined by the intellect and reason.
A thought can only be an imagination, if it can be imaged from possible images.
For a thing to be imaged and imagine, it has to be empirical and conceptualized.
A thought that cannot be imagined ‘conceptualized’ is an idea [note philosophical] like Plato’s ideas, forms and universals.
Therefore the mind can think and idealize a thought such as a square-circle.
Just like a thought of an idea of square-circle is inferred from its empirical attributes of square and circle abstracted from empirical squares and circles,
God is also a thought of an idea of a perfect being inferred from its empirical attributes and “predicated” to God, i.e.
God [subject or object] + empirical predicates = thought of an idea.
In this case, the empirical predicates can be justified empirically, but that do not prove God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
If I assigned all sorts of empirical attributes to person X, we still need the physical-alive person X to appear to be empirically verified he is alive as a person.
When “Superman” [comic] is assigned with superpowers, if any one insist ‘Superman’ is real, then he will have to produce [to be verified empirically] a physical-alive Superman who can perform all the super feats Superman is claimed to be able to perform.
There are many cases of the mentally ill, e.g. schizos who claim ‘God’ [or Satan] with all its omnipotent powers ordered them to kill humans and they did kill people. It is obvious no court will recognize such a claim.
Note my P2, in the case of God, the qualities attributed to God are absolute; P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Ultimately and rationally [logically] no theists will accept a conditional God that is not totally unconditional. God has to be absolutely perfect. [Reasons given]
But absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.
To be real, the thing must be verifiable empirically and philosophically.
Therefore God which must be absolutely perfect is empirically and philosophically impossible to be real.
If you are familiar with the fundamentals of the mainstream theistic religions, you would not have critiqued the above.
Note God as Supreme, Perfect and Absolute in other theistic religions;
In Islam; Tasbīḥ (Arabic: تَـسْـبِـيْـح) is a form of dhikr that involves the repetitive utterances of short sentences in the praise and glorification of Allah in Islam, by saying Subḥānallāh (سُـبْـحَـانَ ٱلله, meaning “God is perfect (free of any errors/defects)”).
For example, the Quran says subḥāna llāhi ʿammā yaṣifūn[3] (37:159; “Glory be to God [who is free from] that which they describe”) and subḥāna llāhi ʿammā yušrikūn[4] (52:43; “Glory be to God [who is free from] that which they associate with him”). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasbih#Interpretation
In Hinduism and other Eastern religions, God is associated with the Absolute [note in Cap];
In idealist philosophy, the Absolute is “the sum of all being, actual and potential”.[1] In monistic idealism, it serves as a concept for the "unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity.
According to Glyn Richards, the early texts of Hinduism state that the Brahman or the nondual Brahman–Atman is the Absolute.
-wiki
Zoroastrianism Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is one of the world’s oldest continuously practiced religions. Ascribed to the teachings of the Iranian-speaking spiritual leader Zoroaster (also known as Zarathushtra),[5] it exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its supreme being.
Bahai:
God is nothing less perfect than one (eg. plural), but rather something more perfect. bahaipedia.org/God
Examples of divine attributes described in Bahá’í scripture include Almighty, All-Powerful, All-loving, All-Merciful, Most-Compassionate, All-Glorious.
-wiki
Point is if God or the Supreme Being is not assigned [believed] with Supreme, Perfect, Absolute powers, such a God will not have the greatest power to contra and subdue the greatest fears, i.e. the subconscious fear of death, with eternal life in paradise.
To cover any doubts, there is Pascal’s Wager.
In Buddhism, which is non-theistic, there is no unconditional being, like those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism [OT], theistic-Hinduism and other theistic religions.
Would you choose a God who is perfect by your perception (namely, not allow evil to exist), in other words, a puppeteer ~~ or a God who is imperfect and allows humans free will?
How do we evolve if there is no free will? Do we stay in that Garden eternally bored?
You can have no idea what a perfect God, if there is one, would allow. You judge perfection by human definition. Do you know the mind of God?
I think that it may be pretty darn perfect of a God to allow us to walk the Earth, grounded, without having to be afraid of ascending into the heavens on a divine whim. But then again, that may not be perfection but just good thinking/planning/organization if you believe in a designer God. If not, gravity is perfection to me unless one tries to defy it.
My main point is, a perfect God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.
So it is moot for me on the question of what god to choose.
The question of God and the Problem of Evil is a secondary issue.
Logically, a perfect [i.e. morally perfect] God cannot let evil exists especially when God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omni-whatever.
I don’t judge ‘perfection’ by human definition that is subjective, but rather logical and rationally.
This again is moot.
How can the mind of God ever be known, if God is not known and ultimately it impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
I can define a square-circle as a thought with the following attributes of the thought:
The idea of a square-circle is a merely thought.
Thus basically a square-circle is a thought that is contradictory.
Since it is contradictory, it cannot be empirical.
Since it is not empirical, it does not have a geometrical shape or empirical shape.
Thus to insist a square-circle is possible to be real empirically and philosophically is delusional. In this case, it is a logical illusion from the abuse of the intellect and reason.
In this abuse and fallacy by ‘crude’ reason, the person is influenced by the fact that squares and circles exist, therefore, a square-circle exists.
In the case of God [illusory], it is also an abuse and fallacy by crude reason, i.e. the person is influenced by cause and effect, created things, therefore the Whole-Universe must have a super creator, i.e. an all powerful God.
When we dig deep philosophically, the bolded terms above cannot be justified philosophically as really real.
Hume stated, whilst useful for survival, the insistence on the absoluteness of ‘cause and effect’ is due to psychology, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
Note the root of Reason is biology, thus the link to psychology [human behaviors]; The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology amazon.com/Evolution-Reason … 0521791960
Why people commit the above fallacy, e.g. in the case of God is also due to psychology.
You’re dancing around like a ballerina here so I’ll give the abridged answer you seem to be avoiding:
“I can’t define a square circle by its shape or attributes. An impossible thing has no shape or attributes.”
Okay, thanks for the straightforward reply, Prism. I maintain that impossibilities–which in my view only means unstructured information, so there may be some possible worlds square circles could exist in–can’t be defined because they have no information that is available to intellectual apprehension. The mind slams shut trying to comprehend or describe an impossibility.
The concept of God meets the demands of informational structure in this existence: Particularity and Quintessence or Essence, e.g., thing-attribute. The concept “God” is of a particular entity with at least one conceivable attribute, perfection. Perfection is an attribute that nothing else that falls within our purview has. The point is simple: to prove God to be an impossibility you have to compare the concept of God with that of a known impossibility. In this case, your claim fails the test as I see it.
You queried in the op, Can any theists counter the above?
Is there a cash prize? If so, where should I go to claim it?
I don’t get the question. I understand that matter is one or the other depending on whether it’s being observed–and particles and waves each have attributes–but not aware of the concept “particle/wave” so can’t answer the question. What is your interpretation?
Okay I apologize for last post. After posting realized that what you reference is probably what I recall being called wave-particle duality and jumped on Wickipedia:
Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts “particle” or “wave” to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:[1]
It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.
Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa.[2] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[3]
Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved; see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.
If I understand the above, the idea of pushing ‘wave-particle’ into a single term would be inappropriate as reality (quantumly speaking) can only be properly described from the perspective of one or the other…not both together. Is this a proper reading of the above quote?
