God is an Impossibility

There are no absolutes. So if perfection has any meaning, it must be the one according to which perfection is not absolute.
You are the one making no sense whatsoever.

No absolute can physically exist.
Noone cares that you DECLARE that there are absolutes that physically exist.
The things you cite as absolute, perfect, etc are none of that.

You are wrong.

You don’t even know the simplest basics.

  1. “Perfection” means 100%, mathematically said. “Absolute” means 100%, mathematically said.

  2. “Impossibility” has nothing to do with likelihood. It’s like JSS already said:

You don’t know what the words you are using mean.
This is typical of parrots i.e. people whose only contact with reality is through what other people say.
You are simply clueless about the manner in which reasoning functions.

What does 100% mean?
I will give you an example of when we say that an assumption has a probability value of 100%.
(Yes, it is a probability value, despite James’ attempts to negate that it is.)
Suppose that you have a billion observations of white swans and zero observations of black swans.
The number of any kind of swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of white swans we have observed is one billion.
The number of black swans we have observed is zero.
The ratio between the number of white swans (specifics) and the number of any kind of swans (generics) is exactly 1.
That’s what 100% means.
The ratio between the number of black swans and the number of any kind of swans is exactly 0.
That’s what 0% means.
On the other hand, if you had 800,000,000 observations of white swans and 200,000,000 observations of black swans the ratio would be different and as a consequence of that the probability that you will encounter a white swan in the future will no longer be 100% but 80%.
Probability, or certainty if you will, is a human measurement based on a limited set of data.
If you only have 10 observations of swans and if every single one is an observation of a white swan then you will be 100% sure that all swans are white.
But, if you had 100 observations of swans where 80 swans were white and 20 were black you’d have different expectations.
What I am trying to tell you is that even clueless people can be 100% sure about what’s true.
The most important thing is that just because every single swan in the past was white does not mean that every single swan in the future will also be white.
The future is under NO obligation to mimic the past.
If you are 100% certain that something will happen that does not mean that that something will happen.
Similarly, if you are 100% certain that something won’t happen that does not mean that that something won’t happen.

The universe does not work according to your expectations, moron.

Perhaps if you repeat that to yourself in the mirror over and over and over, one day it will finally soak in.

Your arguments have nothing to do with this thread.

Look, this is the only thing you can do: Personal attacks, ad homs, but no single argument.

We all know what “100%” means. We don’t need your stupid personal attacks in order to understand what “100%” means".

And by the way: JSS and others have already said what logic means. But you are merely asking:

Will you ever grasp what logic is?

His arguments have nothing to do with this thread.

It seems that he has inferiority complexes. Therefore he has to insult. No one of his posts lacks insults.

If Prismatic and other atheists want to say: “God does not exist”, why do they not do that instead of playing their stupid kind of language game?

That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it? I guess that you know why they don’t do it.

They confuse many things with their wishful thinking and ideological beliefs. So, why should they not generally confuse objectivity, logic, God with subjectivity, wishful thinking, ideological beliefs?

Perhaps you should focus on my arguments instead of narrowing your intention to my insults?
You deserve those insults, by the way.

It is pretty clear that you don’t know what “100%” means. If you did know what it means then you wouldn’t be denying the fact that “impossible” means nothing other than “extremely unlikely”.

James has no clue what logic is.

Don’t worry. I do know what logic is. Better than the two of you.

Of course they do. You are denying the premise that there is no such a thing as absolute perfection. I am affirming it.
You are one hell of a moron.

No. You are saying “what people mean when they say…
And despite being wrong, it is irrelevant because what you expect and predict concerning what these people are saying is NOT what they are discussing in this thread.

As usual with you, you are guilty of your own accusations. You have (again) been unwittingly criticizing yourself with these posts.

The premise of this thread is that the concept of absolute perfection, and the concept of absolute in general, is meaningless.
That is what you’re denying and that is what I am trying to affirm.
You are a moron.

It is not “meaningless”. At least learn what the word “meaningless” means.
:icon-rolleyes:

That’s what you should do. Remember, you are guilty of your own accusations.

Any word that does not have a reference to something that can be experienced, observed or measured is meaningless.
Simply thinking that the word you are using is meaningful does not make it meaningful.

“Absolute perfection” is otherwise described as “the highest point of perfection”.
It means that there is NO point of perfection higher than it in the entire universe.
How can you know for certain that there is no such a point?
Sure, you can think it’s highly improbable that there is such a point.
But to think that there is no such a point for certain?
Only if you think that the universe works according to your expectations.

Actually it does. And everyone ELSE knows that. But until you learn what the word means, you will remain in your tower of delusion.

I am aware of the fact that you deny the existence of meaningless words i.e. words that do not refer to something that can be experienced.
Elsewhere you said that in order to use a word in a sentence it must already be meaningful.
That makes me think you’re insane.
Who is this everyone else?
You mean morons who “think” in the same exact degenerate way that you do?
They are hardly everyone else.
According to you, a statement such as “the love in great respiration smells without presidential atoms regarding celebrities” is meaningful.
It’s just that you don’t understand what it means.
I am proud of your brilliant mind.

If you cannot tell us how we can experience perfect circles then the concept of perfect circles is meaningless.
That’s what it means for a word to be meaningless: it has no reference to something that can be experienced.
I can tell you how we can experience zombies even though we cannot experience them anywhere within the environment that we inhabit.
But noone can tell us how we can experience perfect circles or absolute perfection for the simple reason that these concepts are . . . meaningless.
Of course, you are used to these concepts so it takes a lot of effort on your part to realize and accept that they are meaningless.
A strong habit is difficult to overcome.
But that’s none of my business.
I don’t have such problems.

Show me one absolute perfection that can exists in empirical reality?

You still don’t get it.
Your mass attraction is an empirical process and thus a relative perfection at most
.

I have stated relative perfection do exists in the empirical world but they are always conditional upon some conceptual framework or contexts.

Example, if you answered 50/50 questions correctly in an objective tests, that is a ‘perfect’ score, but it is a relative perfection as conditioned by the contexts of the test.
Athletes used to score perfect 7/7 in skating & diving, 10/10 in gymnastics and other sports but these ‘perfect’ scores are actually subjective, i.e. relative upon the framework of the judging process.

If you bring in any thing ‘perfect’ that is scientific, it is only conditioned [relative] to the human-made scientific framework and system.

Point it is impossible for an absolute perfection-in-itself to exists in reality independent of any human related conditions. [Kant]

A ‘perfect circle’ cannot exist physically, but such an ideal [though physically impossible] at least is related to a conceptual empirical reality, i.e. circles.

What is extreme with the “idea” [not even a concept] of a God is, it is an ideal that is not related to the empirical at all. The ideal of God has no grounding at all and is baseless. The ideal of God is an illusion based on primal reason [Kant] to deal [thus has utility] with an existential crisis.
The grounding of an absolute perfect God is merely based on an inherent psychological problem and can be cured psychologically. This is what the Buddhists did since 2500 years ago.

Yes, NO ideal [empirically related or non-empirical] can physically exists. The idea of God is imperatively the Mother of all ideals.

I repeat, the example above is based on scientific empirical observations, thus a relative perfection conditioned upon the human-mad scientific framework and method.

The idea of God is the ideal of all ideals, i.e. mother of all ideals.
As I had argued, the claim of an ideal God has to be absolutely perfect [ontological god] so that no others will have the opportunity to claim their God is more perfect.
In order not to settle for an inferior God to another, all theists [implicitly] by default will have to settle for an absolute perfect God [ontological] {P2}.

I’ll tell you what sort of ‘God’ is possible.
An anthropomorphic god is possible though of low probability.
It is possible a human-liked [empirical] god, the size of a billion stars, with very powerful energy could [very low probability] exists someway in the universe. Humans will think such a god is ‘perfect’ but it is only relatively perfect as other similar anthropomorphic gods can also exists elsewhere competing with one another, leading to infinite regression.
Would any theist proper accept an anthropomorphic god [‘man with beard in the sky’] in our current intellectual and spiritual conditions?

Thus my argument stands;
PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility
P2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C… Therefore God is an impossibility.

Re my reply to JSS above where I explained the difference between ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ perfection.

Perfection is never always absolute.

‘Perfection’ that are conditioned upon the empirical, e.g. perfect scores 100/100 on an objective tests, a perfect 4.0 GPA, 10/10 points in gymnastic performance, 7/7 in a diving competition, etc. are relative perfections.

As absolute perfection, is unconditional upon any human elements, e.g. perfect circle, triangle, square, etc. and the mother of all ideals or perfections, i.e. the absolutely perfect God [ontological].

But the properties of circles,triangles, squares are not the same in Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries … so they are “conditional upon human elements”. Call it a framework or context if you want.

Your division of perfection into relative and absolute is arbitrary. Upon reflection, it makes no sense.

That’s right. Words such as “highest” and “maximum” only make sense in relation to a finite set of values. And this finite set of values must be subjectively defined. The universe itself isn’t bounded. The universe can be “anything it wants to be”. As Hume said, the future is under no obligation to mimic the past. Any meaningful concept of the word “perfect” has to be relative to some subjectively defined boundaries. When I say “she’s a perfect woman” what I mean is that she has everything that I want in a woman. “Everything that I want in a woman” is a finite set of requirements that can be tested against reality (i.e. any particular woman.) When a woman fulfils every single requirement, I say she’s perfect. When she does not, I say she is not perfect. We can see that the ordinary use of the word “perfect” is not absolute as Mr. Alf declares.

What these people have trouble with is accepting that everything is relative to, or dependent upon, context and that nothing is absolute or independent from context. Decontextualization (or quite simply reductionism) is an epistemological process the purpose of which is to simplify information in order to digest/understand it.

Sounds like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.