A “square-circle” does not have a shape, so it cannot be claimed that it MUST be a shape.
You have constructed and deconstructed your own idea here. No one has claimed that a square-circle has a shape. So I don’t think that it works as an analogy.
My point is, you have argued why God must be absolutely perfect, but it doesn’t make sense to argue both that God must be absolutely perfect and that absolute perfection is impossible.
If absolute perfection is impossible, why must God be absolutely perfect?
Theists can claim that God is absolutely perfect, but as we have discussed, this is a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement, not a fact or quantity that can be disproved.
There are problems with this claim. Don’t you see any?
And again I am in agreement that a lot of what humanity has done and continues to do in the name of a god is repugnant, and cause of great suffering. But that fault lies squarely on human shoulders. Those that would harm need no reason, but will use any reason for it’s political ends and as means. You are thinking rather simply minded, if you think humanity needs a theistic reason to have done what it has. It uses the convenient, and emotionally driven religious zeal is very convenient, but often religion has little to do with god actually. We all can’t even agree on what a god is. That’s a powerful political tool. A god didn’t give any part of this earth to any part of humanity. But as long as there has been violence it has involved control of territory. In the name of god is a lie used for that end. That is the god you have argued as impossible. And I agree, that god is impossible as real. I just think you’re tugging on the wrong end of the rope.
The analogy is someone has claimed a square-circle must have a shape-X, i.e. which is merely a thought but not possible in reality.
The point is theists claim their God is real and absolutely perfect.
Regardless whether you called that “a subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” [I don’t agree on this], the point is such an absolutely perfect is impossible to be real.
Therefore there is no real absolutely perfect God who had sent prophets and messenger, created the universe, listens to and answers prayers.
In this case, there is no justified grounds for theists to claim it is a real God that commanded them to commit certain divine acts.
You got this wrong.
It is that theists claim their God is REAL and absolutely perfect that God is impossible to be real because ‘absolute perfection’ to be real is an impossibility.
What problem?
You have not presented any justified arguments at all.
What you have presented above is very convoluted, try present them more rigorously and logically.
I have discussed this at length elsewhere.
Don’t intend to do it here.
I see your thinking is more simply minded, narrower and shallower than mine.
The root cause of all religions is the existential crisis.
In the theistic religions, this is where theists are driven to seek the after-life and eternal life to soothe the terrible mental pains exuding SUBLIMINALLY from the existential crisis.
This potentially generate the most terrible evil and violent primal drive within SOME humans.
Note Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his son to God for his own personal selfish salvation.
So you can imagine what the rest of the theists will be willing to do for a God to ensure their personal selfish salvation.
What more when it is a God that commanded believers to war against and kill non-believers under vague conditions of threats. This is documented within the holy texts of the Quran as commands from Allah in exchange for a promise of eternal life in paradise. [Evidence available]
As such a percentile of Muslims (if 20% = a pool of 360 million) will zealously comply with this command to war and kill non-Muslims in order to be doubly assured of eternal life in paradise. This real consequence of evil and violence is so evident within the 1400 years history of Islam.
Yes, there will be political elements who will exploit the above, but these are secondary issues which must be addressed political.
We however cannot ignore the primary cause of these evil and violence, i.e. directly as commanded by a God.
Btw, read this carefully from the horses mouth, i.e. the primary reason why non-Muslims are killed is because they are disbelievers and their foreign policies or whatever is merely secondary or excuses;
The above points are supported by verses directly from the Quran.
I note you are merely waving your views without much depth on knowledge of religions and human nature.
In my view, these examples are not the same category.
You have both claimed and argued why God must be absolutely perfect, whilst holding that absolute perfection is impossible. Therefore it is you who are giving shape to the square-circle.
No one has though, not in a geometrical sense. And I don’t believe that anyone would. Claiming that a square-circle has a shape and that God is absolutely perfect are not analogous in my view.
If perfection isn’t a “subjective or inter-subjective interpretation or value judgement” then what do you think it is?
? You have argued both that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” and that “absolute perfection is impossible”. Now you’re shifting the burden to theists, as though the claim that “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect” isn’t yours, and a position that you haven’t held and defended?
If you don’t see any problems then fine. I won’t bother telling you what I think they are.
Who is the arbiter of what constitutes justification? The same person who believes this “However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.” and doesn’t see any problems with such a claim?
I Did NOT personally claim that God must be absolutely perfect.
I am presenting the point that the theists claimed their God is real and absolutely perfect and by implication MUST be absolutely perfect. I have explained why this is so in the OP and elsewhere.
An analogy is merely a clue to the point.
If you do not agree, we can forget about it.
I look at it this way.
Everything that is agreed upon by a group of people is inter-subjectively agreed.
A scientific fact is an inter-subjective judgment and this is empirically grounded.
Absolute Perfection is not a fact but it is an inter-subjective judgment which is merely reasoned but not empirically grounded.
When one claim absolute perfection [non-empirical] is real [empirical], that is a contradiction.
Thus the claim that God is real and absolutely perfect is a contradiction and an impossibility to be real.
It is not me who argued “God imperatively MUST be absolutely perfect.”
That is the theists’ claim, not mine.
The “imperatively MUST” is implied within ‘absolutely perfect’.
I will only respond to justified-counters, if not, I will not bother.
There are the normal attributes of what constitute justified-arguments.
The most convenient is using a syllogism or list of premises that are sequitor to the conclusion and each premises is reasonable and supported by evidence and proof.
P1 A human woman is a real person who can be impregnated biologically.
P2 God is an impossibility to be real - see link below.
C3. Therefore a real woman getting pregnant by an impossible-to-be-real-God is an impossibility or oxymoron.
I always make it a point to present my main argument in a syllogism it provide some sort of structure to make it easier for others to counter and critique.
You have claimed, argued and defended that position. This is evidenced when others have pointed out that God need not be absolutely perfect, but you have insisted that it must be.
So God MUST be absolutely perfect because some theists claim that it is?
The attribution of absolute perfection can be based upon empirical observation (things that we can observe through the senses), the judgement is qualitative and subjective. You don’t have to agree that something someone perceives as absolutely perfect is, but to claim it isn’t empirically grounded is in my view, incorrect.
You have. Not in the sense that you’re arguing God exists, but in relation to your argument.
You stated in the OP (and have subsequently argued);
This is your reasoning and your claim.
When you state “However I have demonstrated the imperative ‘absolute perfection’ is an impossibility in reality.”
What is the justification for this claim, as per your description of justified arguments?
An interesting retort, but you continue to miss a delicate point and pull on the wrong end of the rope.
It ain’t a gods fault, it’s humans that are to blame, and you continue to get the two confused.
Hmm. If someone claims that something empirical is absolutely perfect; since you are claiming that to do so is necessarily a contradiction; by which law would you argue that it isn’t? Which law precludes absolute perfection from existing in reality? Note, I am not asking what you think here, but for the law which justifies your above claim.
Nope whatever is empirically grounded by default cannot be absolutely perfect.
I have already argued whatever is empirically grounded can ONLY be relatively perfect.
You are still insisting on your straw-man.
I never claimed “God imperatively must be absolutely perfect” - that is the theists’ claim.
Note this;
PI. [mine]: Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real.
P2. [theists’]: God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.
C… Therefore God is an impossibility to be real
You are stating a faultless-God exists as real without proofs?
Firstly, it is humans to be blamed for reifying God as real - when in fact the idea of God is merely a thought thus illusory -,
then secondly, theists commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of the illusory God.
Thus if we resolved and get rid of the first blame, i.e. wean theists off the belief in God, then there will be no more [ZERO!] God-driven evil and violent acts.
It is critical humanity should deal with God-driven evil and violent acts which is of all things is grounded merely on an illusion .
There will be other evil and violent acts from political, social, psychological, etc. basis which must be dealt with respectively within their specific context.
That means that the object of observation could be absolutely perfect but the observer does not see it as absolutely perfect. The observation is faulty not the object.
The apple-on-the-table is the object-of-observation.
Is God ever an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation?
Even for the apple-on-the-table, it can NEVER exists as absolutely-perfect.
The state of an apple changes at every second from fruiting to ripening, to rotting and disappearing into various matters and molecules.
As such there is no absolutely-perfect apple.
Thus if God can be observed by humans, God can NEVER be absolutely-perfect.
Yes, God could be absolutely perfect, but only from pure, crude, pseudo logic.
The idea of God as absolutely-perfect is derived from pure logic, thus not empirical.
Since the idea of God is not empirical, it cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
Instead of “but” you should use the term “my”. So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Even if what you’re saying is reasonable. Also, I’m not fully able to make sense of what you’re saying, but it seems as though 2 through to 4 are all “laws”.
Which scientists? This would imply that there is a law. There is no such law I’ve heard of. This is again, your reasoning. Couldn’t the case be that the term “absolutely perfect”, is just not scientific?
How could you know whether or not the being purported to be God (which one?) has ever been an object or entity of observation?
Laws are more official, e.g. Newton’s Law, etc.
The above are generally accepted statements, e.g.
“Whatever is empirical is based on human observations and experiences.”
I have already provided the definition for the term ‘empirical’ and this is recognized within philosophy.
So you are really weird in questioning me on this;
“So it is clear that these are your ideas, and not something which is factually referenced as pertaining to reality. Also, I’m not fully able to make sense of what you’re saying …”
You are ignorant of this norm and how Science works?
It is the standard approach [scientific method] to Science that scientific theories cannot be “absolutely perfect.”
Note in one case, Karl Popper stated, scientific theories are at best polished conjecturals and no scientist would dispute that.
I am asking a question?
If any one were to insist God is an object-of-observation or entity-of-observation, then bring the argument and justifications or better, the evidence.
Hmm. Given that what I stated can actually be read. Questioning you on what specifically?
If you alter the text, context, meaning and application of what people say, it can seem weird. Wasn’t that your intention though, in doing so? To make it seem as though I had questioned the nature of empiricism?
In this case, I believe that the paragraph I wrote has to be read as a whole to convey its meaning. If you take parts out of it or put it in a different context, it doesn’t function as I intended.
I believe that the implication of my awareness, was shown when I stated that the term “absolute perfection” is unscientific.
I don’t think it was unreasonable to infer that your question was rhetorical. Given that you’ve argued that it is impossible for God to exist.
.
