New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[attofishpi]

The link is where I have explained in detailed what you want to know, i.e. what I meant by
"absolutely perfect".
It is just a matter of clicking the link to read the answer your want therein.

Therein I had explained, there is only relative perfection, and absolute or totally unconditional perfection is an impossibility in the real world which is the real universe that is somehow conditioned upon the human conditions.
Because the universe is somehow conditioned it cannot be an unconditioned, i.e. absolute perfection.

Hey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

This last statement--> "..any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god."

If God had an attribute less than perfect then it would be subjected to being inferior to another's god is irrational, indeed ridiculous since as you know, God is God, ONE God - it could have loads of "imperfections" (whatever that means) and still be GOD.

..for the record as one with knowledge that God exists I personally couldn't give a rats arse regarding "perfection" (whatever that means).

Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection. Could you provide an example?

The 'one-up' instinct is very evident among humans, especially it is so critical within theism.

If your god is accepted as imperfect [with imperfection], then that would leave room for other theists to claim their God is more perfect [absolutely perfect] than your God.
In that case, theist-X can claim his Absolutely perfect God can force your inferior less-perfect God to kiss his God's rat-arse, sodomize your God and dominate/own your God in every way.

If you claim [so easy, just believe it is so] your God is absolutely perfect and other theists are doing the same, then no God can dominate another.

If you don't give a rat arse re 'perfection' that is your discretion. It will be good for you as long as you are not driven psychologically into any 'one-up' war with another theist.

However, in general, Christians or Muslims would never accept their God is inferior to another.
In this case, both Christians and Muslims will claim their God is absolutely perfect [as stated in their holy texts] so their God cannot be inferior [less perfect] to the other.

If one's God is proven to be inferior or less perfect, then the believers' confidence of their God's ability to promise them eternal life in heaven or paradise with 72 virgins would be shaken.

To ensure their confidence of salvation is guaranteed, it is so easy, just believe one's God is absolutely perfect in every way so that no one can shake their faith in this case.

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what religion has developed per whatever culture...it's the SAME God. Theist beliefs does not change that fact.

Now get back to my request:- Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection. Could you provide an example?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hey, force me do the copy-paste to this thread then!-->

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

This last statement--> "..any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god."

If God had an attribute less than perfect then it would be subjected to being inferior to another's god is irrational, indeed ridiculous since as you know, God is God, ONE God - it could have loads of "imperfections" (whatever that means) and still be GOD.

..for the record as one with knowledge that God exists I personally couldn't give a rats arse regarding "perfection" (whatever that means).

Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection. Could you provide an example?

The 'one-up' instinct is very evident among humans, especially it is so critical within theism.

If your god is accepted as imperfect [with imperfection], then that would leave room for other theists to claim their God is more perfect [absolutely perfect] than your God.
In that case, theist-X can claim his Absolutely perfect God can force your inferior less-perfect God to kiss his God's rat-arse, sodomize your God and dominate/own your God in every way.

If you claim [so easy, just believe it is so] your God is absolutely perfect and other theists are doing the same, then no God can dominate another.

If you don't give a rat arse re 'perfection' that is your discretion. It will be good for you as long as you are not driven psychologically into any 'one-up' war with another theist.

However, in general, Christians or Muslims would never accept their God is inferior to another.
In this case, both Christians and Muslims will claim their God is absolutely perfect [as stated in their holy texts] so their God cannot be inferior [less perfect] to the other.

If one's God is proven to be inferior or less perfect, then the believers' confidence of their God's ability to promise them eternal life in heaven or paradise with 72 virgins would be shaken.

To ensure their confidence of salvation is guaranteed, it is so easy, just believe one's God is absolutely perfect in every way so that no one can shake their faith in this case.

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what religion has developed per whatever culture...it's the SAME God. Theist beliefs does not change that fact.

The fact is 'God' is not a fact but an illusion.

Note:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The philosophical realist's Fact - which is grounded on an illusin
2. The FSK-ed fact, e.g. scientific fact.

Show me proofs that God is a fact that is real?

What is God to theists is at best a belief, i.e. a thought.
Not all theists believe their God is the SAME God.

Now get back to my request:- Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection. Could you provide an example?

If you do not claim your God to be absolutely perfect, then your God is imperfect, i.e. has imperfections.

Say, if an absolutely perfect God [all powerful] can guarantee eternal life in heaven, and your God cannot do that, then, it has imperfection to the extent that it cannot do it.

[attofishpi]

The fact is 'God' is not a fact but an illusion.

Your assumption.

Show me proofs that God is a fact that is real?

Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God' :---> viewtopic.php?t=33214

What is God to theists is at best a belief, i.e. a thought.

Correct. I am no longer a theist, I know God exists.

Not all theists believe their God is the SAME God.

Irrelevant. The God I know exists IS everyone's God, even atheists.

If you do not claim your God to be absolutely perfect, then your God is imperfect, i.e. has imperfections.

Apparently God stated that it is a jealous God - an admission of imperfection right there.

Say, if an absolutely perfect God [all powerful] can guarantee eternal life in heaven, and your God cannot do that

Where did TWO God's come from here?

From what I have experienced, God is omnipotent to what I perceive of REAL_IT_Y.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact is 'God' is not a fact but an illusion.

Your assumption.

Show me proofs that God is a fact that is real?

Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God' :---> viewtopic.php?t=33214

What is God to theists is at best a belief, i.e. a thought.

Correct. I am no longer a theist, I know God exists.

Not all theists believe their God is the SAME God.

Irrelevant. The God I know exists IS everyone's God, even atheists.

If you do not claim your God to be absolutely perfect, then your God is imperfect, i.e. has imperfections.

Apparently God stated that it is a jealous God - an admission of imperfection right there.

Say, if an absolutely perfect God [all powerful] can guarantee eternal life in heaven, and your God cannot do that

Where did TWO God's come from here?

From what I have experienced, God is omnipotent to what I perceive of REAL_IT_Y.

Your "I know" 'Know' and Knowledge has to be Justified True Belief [ignoring Gettier].
The most credible is knowledge justified and verified via the human-based scientific-FSK sustained via a collective of human subjects in agreement.

Your first-person [only you and your experience] knowledge cannot be credible.
If you want your knowledge to be credible, you will need to get the relevant scientists to verify and justify your claim via the scientific FSK.

Btw, can you get Immanuel Kant to confirm his God is the same as yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..........

It is so easy to condemn views of others without justifications.
Kindi kids do that all the time, same here for many.

Btw, can you confirm your God is the same as that of attofishpi?

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what religion has developed per whatever culture...it's the SAME God. Theist beliefs does not change that fact.

What attofishpi implied is, his God, the Muslim God, the Hindu God, and all other Gods are the SAME. The varying beliefs [based on the Gospel, Quran, Gita, etc.] is due to ignorance.

[Immanuel Can]

Btw, can you confirm your God is the same as that of attofishpi?

No, I think it's very different.

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what religion has developed per whatever culture...it's the SAME God.

What you fail to grasp is that it's not.

If I describe you as "a four foot tall black trans-female wrestler," and somebody else describes you as "a six-foot, male with a beard like a bird's nest and one leg," are we talking about the same person? And are we talking about the same person you actually are? But I'm still calling you VA, so why isn't it the SAME person?

Answer: it's not the same person, and we know it's not, because the characteristics attributed to the person we're talking about are wildly different and contradictory to each other.

Get it?

Now get back to my request:- Please explain what you ACTUALLY mean by an attribute of God having perfection as opposed to imperfection.

You were the one who brought up the term. I should ask you what you meant by it.

[attofishpi]

Your "I know" 'Know' and Knowledge has to be Justified True Belief [ignoring Gettier].
The most credible is knowledge justified and verified via the human-based scientific-FSK sustained via a collective of human subjects in agreement.

Your first-person [only you and your experience] knowledge cannot be credible.
If you want your knowledge to be credible, you will need to get the relevant scientists to verify and justify your claim via the scientific FSK.

I don't need other people to verify anything. Faithless fervent atheists like yourself can just remain blind to the true nature of reality, I don't care.

I've provided the evidence that is empirically observable for all to see and reason with such that it should leave reasonable people with little doubt that at the minimum there is a 3rd party intelligence at the backbone to what we perceive of reality.
viewtopic.php?t=33214

Btw, can you get Immanuel Kant to confirm his God is the same as yours.

Of course his God is the same as mine. It's the same God of you, and everyone.

[attofishpi]

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what religion has developed per whatever culture...it's the SAME God.

What you fail to grasp is that it's not.

Don't be irrational IC.

My God is the same as your God and is the same for ALL mankind's God. What people believe God to be is irrelevant because it does not change the entity that IS God.

[Atla]

Kindi kids

[Deusexmachina]

To all humans who think God is real: find a human who has endured enough suffering and tribulations and afflictions and still accepts the notion of a deity, or if you are capable, answer this simple question, "why didn't God make you a talking cockroach?" All anthropomorphic gods are impotent and sadistic/masochistic like their makers. Speed up the 6th Extinction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone has counters to the above OP?

[seeds]

Anyone has counters to the above OP?

Sure.

Let me repost it for you...

• iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Anyone has counters to the above OP?

Sure.

Let me repost it for you...

• iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

Yes, he's been peddling this confused theology that he tells even theists they have to have for years. And he has no idea that perfection is a value judgment. Of course some theists fall into the same silliness. But it's amazing how little he knows about the variety of theisms.

And he always stacks his deck with 'absolutely'. I'm so glad he's now locked in a room with godelian. One can only hope he sets up shop with IC also. Those are some theists who deserve VA and whom VA deserves.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone has counters to the above OP?

Sure.

Let me repost it for you...

• iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

Your above is a strawman.

Read this in the OP;

Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

I have another argument for the impossibility of God-in-general based on Kant's arguments;

1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

[seeds]

Your above is a strawman.

Read this in the OP;

Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

Okay.

Then what you seem to be implying now, is that it is indeed possible for God to be real, just not perfect.

I have another argument for the impossibility of God-in-general based on Kant's arguments;

1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

In reference to premise #2 in this new syllogism, explain how all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument.

By the way, even though it appears as if premise #2 is nonsense, I do happen to agree with conclusion #3.
_______