Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:34 am
Note there is a range of definition for 'perfection'.
the more appropriate definition in this case is
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect
-excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
Can you show Pure Water [H20] exists as real?
Whatever is concluded from the empirical [science] is never absolutely-perfect as any scientist will attest for that.
From YOUR own definition 'excellent'
or
beyond practical improvement.
Batches of water as well as molecules of water meet one or both of these criteria. End of argument. Period.
How would you practically improve a molecule of water?
How is it not excellent?
As mentioned the above relate to relative-perfection, not absolute perfection.
All the above are from the human perspective, what other perspective can there be?
Well, great. From my perspective I have experienced all sorts of perfect water and perfect trees.
Perfection is a value judgment. For some things that are abstract ideas, like circles, we can say it is unbelievably unlikely that there will ever be a perfect circle. Though, once you get to subatomic levels, who knows?
But why is this the only kind of perfection?
I cannot find a single flaw in the tree outside my window? I am not even sure what that would mean.
I have been and still refreshing on Quantum Mechanics at present. There is no way for perfection to exists at the Quantum level since the fundamentals of QM is 'relations' and ultimately related to the human conditions which is never perfect.
You really need to flesh that out, because there are so many missing steps, at best. It is also oddly anthropocentric. Perfection does not exist at the quantum level because it is about relations and ultimately related to human conditions? This is vague and then also false. Unless you think quantum relations did not exist before humans did, for example.
Further, why the redundant term absolute perfection?
And how does ANY of this rule out an unbelievably powerful entity that created the universe or is the universe and conscious?
It doesn't.
Read the OP again on why I differentiate between relative perfection and absolute-perfection.
It is possible for a human-liked powerful entity to have created the universe but it is subjected to be created by another more powerful than itself, thus leading to an infinite regression.
This does not make sense. Something that might be true is treated as if it is necessarily true. Since there could possibly be an entity that is a more powerful creature....but there may be no more powerful creature. And this unimaginably powerful creature could be the god of the theists and they could be write in many or all things they say about it. Yes, some theologians run around spouting absolute, mathematical type qualities to deities. Perhaps they are incorrect about this, but there is a maker of the universe, who from our perspective is magically, unbelievably powerful and perhaps there is no other entity more powerful. So, you have proven nothing. It's like someone 'proving' that time and space are not relative before Einstein demonstrated and later testers confirmed that they are.
You confuse the memes in your head with reality. IOW you are doing something very much like what theists are accused by atheists of doing.
As such it cannot be an absolute-perfect God.
Doesn't matter. Many theists have believed in fallible deities or deities that are not so powerful they go beyond logic. Perhaps one of these deities exists. You are dependent on the beliefs of a certain kind of theologian. Or its a coincidence that you assume the same things as some of the mathematically obsessed theologians in the Abrahamic religions, and then use those religious assumptions against the existence of any deities. It's a good argument, potentially, though certainly not as presented with all the skipped steps, against a small subset of theists, but not as a general argument against the possible existence of a deity.
Sorry.
The point is the God of the theists has to be imperatively perfect absolutely.
That is a ridiculous phrase and a warning should be that it begins with an adverb has and adjective in the middle and then ends with another adverb. It means nothing and is just an unfounded claim.
Note also the manipulative 'God of the theists'. IOW for some reason just using the word 'God' was skipped over. Why? Because it makes it easier because you are now talking about a meme, rather than the thing itself, a deity.
And nothing you have said rules out a deity. It's just you wouldn't respect such a deity. It would not be able to undo logic or might not be able to unmake itself, etc.
But while you are not respecting this deity, it might very well have created all the existent things and so on.
It is ultimately a very facile position. I am sorry to be harsh and there are many places where I get the impression that English is not your first language. But if that is the case, you need to know that you are often not using the language well and what you present as self.evident truths are actually your own theological assumptions, however it ironic it is that an atheist has these.
And you have been doing this for years, with exactly the same flaws and across various forums. And when it gets pointed out enough, you change your name and appear somewhere else.
