I said to be empirically possible, whatever must have empirical elements.
The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.
What was speculated was “miraculous” relative to what human can do. You can say it is 'god-liked" but in this case it is not God per-se. Whatever is it like, if it is empirically possible, it must have empirical elements.
You have to read the thread again.
Generally what is empirical based cannot be absolutely perfect which is transcendental and beyond the empirical.
If one claims an ‘absolutely perfect being’ out there in the universe, then that by definition has to be an absolutely perfect God, a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.
That is what intelligent people call “tautological”, a type of useless/pointless statement.
Didn’t you catch the definition,
“an absolutely perfect God = a Being than which no greater in perfection can exist.”
No science or “empirical evidence of perfection” can be gained until you define, in some useful, realistic form, what “perfect” means. Saying that there is “absolute” and “relative” perfection is NOT defining what “perfect” means. I gave you a definition (one which you will never be able to contest), but you refused it, so it is up to you.
You are STILL failing on the most fundamental level.
Your counter is too shallow.
I have already given you a basic definition of ‘perfect’ from the dictionary with an extension to perfect = absolute, total, and unqualified.
Btw, do you understand what is absolute, total and unqualified?
My meaning of perfect cover the full range from the empirical [qualified] to the absolute [unqualified].
I have explained the term ‘absolutely perfect’ arise out of psychological impulses and such a term is at best a thought which cannot be represented by anything in reality, thus an impossibility.