God is an Impossibility

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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';

In philosophy, the concept of The Absolute, also known as The (Unconditioned) Ultimate, The Wholly Other, The Supreme Being, The Absolute/Ultimate Reality, and other names, is the thing, being, entity, power, force, reality, presence, law, principle, etc. that possesses maximal ontological status, existential ranking, existential greatness, or existentiality. In layman's terms, this is the one that is, in one way or another, the greatest, truest, or most real being.

There are many conceptions of The Absolute in various fields and subjects, such as philosophy, religion, spiritual traditions, mathematics, and even natural science. The nature of these conceptions can range from "merely" encompassing all physical existence, nature, or reality, to being completely unconditioned existentially, [u]transcending[/u] all concepts, notions, and types, kinds, and categories of being.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Objectively, where?

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.

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.

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.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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

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

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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

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

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,

The nature of these conceptions [of absolute] can range
from "merely" encompassing all physical existence, nature, or reality,
to being completely unconditioned existentially, transcending all concepts, notions, and types, kinds, and categories of being.

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;

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:
absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:
absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright:
an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

the absolute,

something that is free from any restriction or condition.
something that is independent of some or all relations.
something that is perfect or complete.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absol

ute

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

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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].

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:
absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:
absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright:
an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

the absolute,
something that is free from any restriction or condition.
something that is independent of some or all relations.
something that is perfect or complete.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absol

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:
absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:
absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright:
an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

the absolute,
something that is free from any restriction or condition.
something that is independent of some or all relations.
something that is perfect or complete.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absol

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.

[Fanman]

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.

[Prismatic567]

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;

Matthew 5:48 is the forty-eighth and final verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the final verse of the final antithesis, and it is a summary of Jesus' earlier teachings.

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:

Therefore you shall be perfect, just
as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Interpretations
There is some debate about the meaning of the injunction to be "perfect," since orthodox Christianity teaches that creatures cannot achieve God's level of perfection.

The term rendered "perfect" in most English translations is τέλειοι (teleioi), the same word used in the Septuagint for תָּמִים and meaning "brought to its end, finished; lacking nothing necessary to completeness.".[2]
According to Barnes, "Originally, it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts.
Applied to people, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, where no part is defective or wanting." [3] Some link the Gospel's use of the term with its use by the Greek philosophers. To them something was perfect if it fully be its intended function.

One commentary offers, "Manifestly, our Lord here speaks, not of degrees of excellence, but of the kind of excellence which was to distinguish His disciples and characterize His kingdom.
When therefore He adds, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect—He refers to that full-orbed glorious completeness which is in the great Divine Model, 'their Father which is in heaven.'" [4]
Other scholars believe that Jesus is here setting a goal that is certain to be impossible, so that we will realize this and be humble. The pursuit of perfection is important, even if the attainment of it impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:48

[Prismatic567]

Is love possible?
Does hate contradict love?
Is hate possible?

God a contradiction?
A contradiction is impossible. [if same sense, time and conditions]
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Why should God be a contradiction?
Nobody knows whether God is a contradiction.

Why should a contradiction be impossible?
Most of us know that contradictions are possible.

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

Why should an absolute perfection not be possible?
An absolute perfection is possible. As an ideal, it is possible, can become real; whether it does or not is a different question.

Your premises are not valid, thus false.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

[Anomaly654]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

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

Can any theists counter the above?

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.

Your thoughts?

[Prismatic567]

Here is an argument Why God is an Impossibility.

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

Can any theists counter the above?

Way back in the thread I offered an argument you did not respond to. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Again:

I must have missed it, no intention to ignore any reasonable challenges.

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.

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.

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.

Your thoughts?

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

Your above view is based on an ignorance of the fundamental of the mainstream theistic religions.

I quoted Christianity as a quickie reference. Here's some more evidence;

41 Bible Verses about God, Perfection Of God
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/ ... fection-Of

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").
https://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.
https://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.

[Arcturus Descending]

Prismatic,

Ultimately it is related because a perfect God would not allow imperfection, i.e. in this case evil to exists.

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.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Ultimately it is related because a perfect God would not allow imperfection, i.e. in this case evil to exists.

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.

"Do you know the mind of God?"

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.

[Anomaly654]

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.

Okay. Let us proceed: please define a square circle for me. What is its shape? What are its attributes?

[Prismatic567]

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.

Okay. Let us proceed: please define a square-circle for me. What is its shape? What are its attributes?

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
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

Why people commit the above fallacy, e.g. in the case of God is also due to psychology.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

Okay. Let us proceed: please define a square circle for me. What is its shape? What are its attributes?

What are the attributes of a particle/wave?

[Anomaly654]

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.

Okay. Let us proceed: please define a square-circle for me. What is its shape? What are its attributes?

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.

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?

[Anomaly654]

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.

Okay. Let us proceed: please define a square circle for me. What is its shape? What are its attributes?

What are the attributes of a particle/wave?

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?

[Anomaly654]

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?