The word “meaning” has many different . . . meanings. And these meanings cannot be reduced to a single meaning. We should accept that fact instead of trying to reduce the irreducible.
The concept of perfect circle is meaningless in the sense that it does not refer to anything that can be experienced. Human-like aliens, zombies, etc are all meaningful words because they refer to something that can be experienced even though the probability of experiencing these things is extremely low.
Does simply having an opinion make you an absolutist? No. In order to be an absolutist you must think that your opinion regarding some state of reality cannot turn out to be wrong.
Beliefs can only be more or less probable/likely. When someone comes along and denies this you can be sure you are dealing with an absolutist.
I think that if you don’t drink water for more than a week that you will die. But this is not an absolute truth. This is merely an outcome with an extremely high probability. As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. It can be anything it wants. If it wants to, it can give us humans who can go without water for months or even years.
To rely on this [no proofs god exists] as primary is insulting one’s own intelligence.
In any case, my syllogism above show that a God cannot exists in the first place because God is an impossibility.
It is the same, i.e. blinded to the more refined truth of reality.
In the first place possibility is not reality. Possibility is merely wishful thinking until one can provide solid proofs a god exists.
As I had shown, god is an impossibility, thus no point hoping for god to be possibly real.
As I had stated majority’s belief do not equal to truth of reality. Note flat Earth, Sun going orbiting the Earth, and the likes. What is needed is proofs to justify one’s proposition.
You don’t seem to understand the principles of syllogism?
Stating ‘your false premise’ is not an argument at all.
This is an argument for why a type of god is impossible, i.e., a perfect god. You set up a device that rates god using the absolute measure of perfection when in fact all our finite selves can apprehend is the relative measure of perfection. The ontological god has the argumentative weakness of whom is doing the conceiving. So, P1 is only true from an empirical perspective and not of essence. God might perfect in a way we cannot conceive. P2, sure, god has to be absolutely perfect, but since such absolute is not empirically apprehensible, we still have to entretain the theoretical possibility of a theoretical absolute perfection. In other words the classic response to the problem of evil, which you haven’t manage to defeat. C does not follow without adding a lot more. The empirical experience of absolute perfection is impossible, according to your argument. The existence of a perfect circle is theoretical because of the observer’s limitations and not because it is impossible itself, like a square circle. A circle might be theoretically perfect and yet errors in the observer’s conception will leave us, empirically, with a a relative perfection. An absolutely perfect God is impossible because an absolute observer is impossible. Does not mean however that such god is impossible but that having an absolute perception is. An absolutely perfect God, in-himself, remains a theoretical possibility.
“No alternative” simply means that there is no other possibility that is more likely.
For example, if my past experience contains a billion white swans and zero black swans then I have no other choice, which is to say, I have “no alternative” other than to conclude (or assume, expect, predict, etc) that every single swan in the future will also be white. This, however, does not mean that every single swan in the future will be white. The map is not the territory. Or in plain terms, what you expect will happen is not the same as what will happen.
Many people cannot accept this fact. One has no choice but to wonder why? And the answer is because they cannot act knowing that they might be wrong.
Yes, that’s what I said. But you’re not listening.
“No alternative” means that there is NO OTHER POSSIBILITY that is more likely.
The number of possibilities that are more likely is none, zero, zilch.
Can anyone else here see what a retard this guy is?
I am not inventing a new language. What I am doing is I am properly interpreting currently existing language.
Unlike you who’s taking it literally (because you suffer from a mild form of autism.)
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your syllogism is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with observations, then it’s wrong.
God is discovered through observations. Either there is sufficient evidence of the existence of God or there is not. God does not spring into existence nor does He cease to exist because of some words on a page.
Let’s take a look at how the retard’s twisted mind, which he’s now trying to project onto me, works.
When he says “alternative” he does not mean what normal people mean when they use that word. When someone who’s normal says that “there is no alternative but to die if you go without water for more than a week” what they are saying is that “there is no alternative but to expect or to conclude or to predict that a person who goes without water for more than a week will die”. This does not mean that the person will die. It simply means that we are expecting that the person will die. What normal people mean when they say “alternative” is an alternative to some assumption, belief, expectation, prediction, etc. The retard, on the other hand, uses the word “alternative” to mean an alternative to what’s going to happen. When the retard says “there is no alternative but to die if you go without water for more than a week” he is meaning it literally i.e. that nothing else can happen other than death. Here, we can clearly see that he’s confusing one’s expectations of what’s going to happen (map) with what’s going to happen (territory.)
What a moron.
By possibility I mean assumption, belief, expectation, prediction, etc.
We choose which one of the many possible expectations regarding some future state we are going to adopt.
We do not choose what’s going to happen. We choose what we’re going to believe what’s going to happen.
And we do so by assigning a probability value to each one of the possible expectations and then choosing the expectation that has the highest probability.
When someone says “there is no alternative” what they mean is “there is no other expectation that is more likely or equally likely”.
Absolute perfection is not only possible, it’s very common.
Every rock is perfect. It has the characteristics of ‘rockness’.
Water is perfect.
Molecules.
Trees.
The universe as a whole.
How can these things be imperfect?
A three legged cat might be imperfect but the majority of cats are perfect.
As soon as you say ‘generally’, you admit that it does not always apply and so you have undermined premise 2.
This is not the logical response of a theist.
Typically:
Theist A knows of the existence of God A. Theist B comes along and says that God B is better than God A. Theist A simply says that God B does not exist and that Theist B is mistaken about God B.
If Theist A accepts that God B exists, then he is admitting the existence of multiple gods. That’s a big no-no for a monotheist.
The characteristics of Jehovah don’t change when somebody says that Vishnu exists.
This one-upsmanship does not need to take place. Therefore, God does not need to be perfect.
Show me that “God is a contradiction” (one of your false premises).
Show me that a “contradiction is impossible” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “absolute perfection is an impossibility” (one of your false premises).
Show me that “God is an impossibility” (one of your false conclusions).
An absolutist/objectivist makes the assumption that the manner in which she construes a value judgment, is the manner in which all rational men and women are obligated in turn to construe it. Thus others can either be “one of us” or “one of them”. Then it’s only a matter of predicating this assumption on one or another rendition of God, Reason, Science, Nature, etc.
Or you can reject these transcending fonts and acknowledge that your own values are just subjective/subjunctive “existential contraptions” – one or another rendition of “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine”.
[i]What I would suggest however is that you and James start a new thread in which you discuss these speculations as they relate to an actual moral/political context/conflict most here will be familiar with.[/i]
In other words, instead of an exchange of “general descriptions” like this:
On the other hand this…
…is less a value judgment than a biological imperative. Sooner or later all of us must consume water or we will die. Period.
Though, sure, per Hume’s insights regarding the difference between correlation and cause and effect, we can never be absolutely certain even of that.
…just in your little world of insecurity and self-doubt.
There can never be a possible until there is an impossible. And “impossible” doesn’t mean “unlikely” (to real people anyway). Impossible means that it is 100% certain that it does not exist at all. It means a contradiction is logic.
That would be your sorry state of mind projected onto me. Apparently, you think that if a man does not consider his opinions infallible that he is necessarily insecure and full of self-doubt. That’s not how every mind in this world works. But it certainly is how YOUR mind works. If you know that your opinions can turn out to be wrong, you are filled with insecurity and self-doubt. Very familiar to you, isn’t it? Basically, you cannot act without first convincing yourself that your beliefs are infallible i.e. that they cannot turn out to be wrong. Normal people do not have such psychological problems.
You are full of these stupid claims that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever.
You aren’t real people, James. The word “impossible” means exactly what I said it means. It means “extremely unlikely”.
I like how you use “she” instead of “he”. Very politically correct. But still biased. Why not use “they” instead? It’s gender neutral.
Anyways, there are many reasons why people want other people to agree with them. One of them is that agreement reduces social friction. In other words, you can more easily achieve your goals. With that in mind, consider someone who wants others to agree with him merely because such an act would promote the attainment of his goals. Would you consider him an absolutist? I don’t think it would be appropriate. To me, an absolutist is someone who thinks that thare are infallible opinions. In other words, opinions that can never turn out to be wrong. Being a absolutist is similar to being a dogmatist, if not the same. If you’re trying to force other people to adopt your opinions that does not necessarily mean you think your opinions are infallible. It could simply mean you are trying to achieve your ends.
The distinction between “one of us” and “one of them” exists because people are different. Those who are similar to me, they are “one of us”. Those who are not, they are “one of them”. You two are making the same exact distinction. Those who think like you, they are “one of you”. Those who don’t, such as KT folks, they are “one of them”.
However, what you’re saying here is probably something more along the lines of “one of us (who know what is absolutely true)” and “one of them (who don’t know what is absolutely true)”. But I think that’s not a defining characteristic of absolutism. That’s merely one of its consequences. It’s what follows. The defining feature is the stance that there are infallible (a.k.a. absolutely true) opinions. If you think there are opinions that are absolutely true and opinions that are not then it follows that there are people who have absolutely true opinions and people who don’t. And if you think that your opinions are absolutely true then you would consider yourself a member of the first group (i.e. the rational ones) and all others who disagree a member of the second (i.e. the retarded ones.) The members of the first group would thereby be “one of us” and the members of the second “one of them”.
What I want to know is how intelligence (i.e. thinking, reasoning, predicting, assuming, connecting, etc) works. That’s what I am discussing here. That’s where I disagree with JSS and many others on this forum. There are other disagreements too, such as those that have more to do with values and less to do with facts, but right now, my interest is in the mechanism, if there is one, by which intelligence works. If that is too confusing to you then I can only advise you to stay away from these discussions.
It is litterally impossible to say an omnipotent all powerful God is good, when he sits and lets starving people die.
Like if you were in a basement, with 10 little children tied up in a rope being starved to death by some sadistic asshole, you’d undo the rope and feed them.
But nope, nope, not this God of mercy, not this god of “love”, he’s just gonna let them all suffer and rot, such a good guy he is.
You may have missed my points in the OP where I differentiated between “Absolute Perfection” and “Relative Perfection” with examples given as you has quoted.
Your examples of water, molecules, trees, universe as whole, are empirical things and I agreed they can be perfect, but only relatively perfect as conditioned by context.
A drop of water is perfect if it has all the qualities of what is supposedly “water-ness” that water is H20 as conditioned by its relevant Scientific Principles.
However there is no such thing as a drop of water or even water in the absolutely perfect sense, i.e. water-in-itself [Kant] because it is conditioned by context, thus not absolutely perfect.
We cannot nail or pin down what exactly is water-in-itself, because a drop of water is also H2O, a bundle of atoms, electrons-proton, quarks, etc.
Point is, we can impose relative perfection on empirical things but no empirical things can be absolutely perfect.
It is a problem of semantics. By ‘general’, I meant all encompassing, generic, universally and applicable in all circumstances.
Thus whatever is said of a God, ultimately a God has to be absolutely perfect.
Not that I agree, but the typical response of any theist is ‘you cannot prove god or my greater god does not exist’.
This is how the ontological God is conceived, i.e. to take the dominating stance of the ontological God.
As such, Theist A is better of grabbing the Ontological God, i.e. “my God is one no greater can be conceived.” Once a theist grab the Ontological God, there is no way other theists can claim a greater God.
Therefore, to avoid believing in an inferior God, most theists in the know will settle for an Ontological God and this is monotheism.
In the case of an ontological God, it has to be absolutely perfect so that there is no greater perfect God than one’s own absolutely perfect God [100%]. When one’s God is an 100% absolutely perfect God, there is no more room for other theists to squeeze in to claim their God is more perfect than others.
A God by default [whether one is aware of it or not] will be an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
But as I had demonstrated, absolute perfection is an impossibility in reality.
Therefore God is an impossibility in reality.
God can only be made possible in thought but never in reality.
It is only made possible in thought for a desperate psychological reason, i.e. to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
