Page 5 of 6

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:53 am
by Reflex
VA,
You do realize, don’t you, that you just acknowledged the possibility of God in the tradition of classical theism? That you contradicted about 90% of everything you’ve ever said? The scholastics of medieval Europe were very good at working out what an infinite God entails. It’s hard to imagine that they were unaware of the constrains space-time puts on perfection.
Objection 1. It seems that perfection does not belong to God. For we say a thing is perfect if it is completely made. But it does not befit God to be made. Therefore He is not perfect.

Objection 2. Further, God is the first beginning of things. But the beginnings of things seem to be imperfect, as seed is the beginning of animal and vegetable life. Therefore God is imperfect.

Objection 3. Further, as shown above (I:3:4), God's essence is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is imperfect. — Thomas Aquinas

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:20 pm
by Immanuel Can
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:45 am
Do you have a Moral System with a better grounding than the Kantian Model?
Of course. To have anything would be more than to have nothing, and Kant has nothing.

Theism has grounding: your issue with it is not that -- it's that you don't believe that grounding is objectively real. But conceptually, Theism has no grounding problem. If God does exist, then morality is grounded in the nature of God.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:55 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Reflex wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:53 am
VA,
You do realize, don’t you, that you just acknowledged the possibility of God in the tradition of classical theism? That you contradicted about 90% of everything you’ve ever said? The scholastics of medieval Europe were very good at working out what an infinite God entails. It’s hard to imagine that they were unaware of the constrains space-time puts on perfection.
Objection 1. It seems that perfection does not belong to God. For we say a thing is perfect if it is completely made. But it does not befit God to be made. Therefore He is not perfect.

Objection 2. Further, God is the first beginning of things. But the beginnings of things seem to be imperfect, as seed is the beginning of animal and vegetable life. Therefore God is imperfect.

Objection 3. Further, as shown above (I:3:4), God's essence is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is imperfect. — Thomas Aquinas
I aware there are theists who accept an imperfect God due to ignorance or argument in the case of Thomas Aquinas as you have claimed [any reference for this?].

There are many theists who believe in a range of empirical based gods [Neptune, monkey, elephant god, etc.] but when pushed they will end up with the ontological God of perfection as there is no other way to strengthen the necessary psychological security.

My point is when one accept a lesser than perfect God, then they are vulnerable to be insecure when there is a greater god than their less perfect God.
Note the Quran claims Allah is the greatest God of all [absolutely perfect] and more superior to the Christian God as claimed in the current corrupted Bible.
There is no way the Christians [2 billion] will accept their God as inferior.
Thus they will have to claim the ceiling limit of an absolutely perfect God which no other God can dominate it to kiss ass.

In this case it is logical [to me a fact] the majority of theists will end up with an absolutely perfect God that simple logic is presented to them.

I don't believe Thomas Aquinas will accept his God [being imperfect] as inferior and thus by reason can be forced the kiss the ass of the absolutely perfect dominant Islamic God.
Thus logically when cornered Thomas Aquinas by logical necessity will have to claim his God is absolutely perfect just as Decartes and St. Anselm has done.

Note this from:
God is Perfect
http://www.saintaquinas.com/article6.html

Despite the objections, it seems that Aquinas accept God is perfect.

Here's another;
20: What are the 8 attributes of God?

St Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of his Summa Theologica, after having enumerated five proofs for the existence of God, proceeds to outline and explicate his attributes, of which Thomas says He has eight:

1) Simplicity, 2) perfection, 3) goodness, 4) infinity, 5) ubiquity, 6) immutability, 7) eternity, and 8) unity.

https://pintswithaquinas.libsyn.com/20- ... cEKWXku.99

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:07 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:45 am
Do you have a Moral System with a better grounding than the Kantian Model?
Of course. To have anything would be more than to have nothing, and Kant has nothing.

Theism has grounding: your issue with it is not that -- it's that you don't believe that grounding is objectively real. But conceptually, Theism has no grounding problem. If God does exist, then morality is grounded in the nature of God.
But the nature of God [illusory] as claimed by the Abrahamic religions is imbued with evil elements. So can we rely on evil to ground morality?

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:24 am
by Reflex
You don’t understand, VA. Aquinas’ style was to anticipate “objections” and systematically refute them. In other words, he anticipated the argument you make only to refute it. “Cornered”? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.

You have no business being in a philosophy of religion forum. I only reply to your posts when I’m bored.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:33 pm
by Immanuel Can
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:07 am
But the nature of God [illusory] as claimed by the Abrahamic religions is imbued with evil elements. So can we rely on evil to ground morality?
There is no concept "evil" in Non-Theism. There is also no objective "morality." So Non-Theism can't even coherently ask that question.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:26 pm
by Reflex
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:07 am
But the nature of God [illusory] as claimed by the Abrahamic religions is imbued with evil elements. So can we rely on evil to ground morality?
:lol: Are you for real?

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:34 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:07 am
But the nature of God [illusory] as claimed by the Abrahamic religions is imbued with evil elements. So can we rely on evil to ground morality?
There is no concept "evil" in Non-Theism. There is also no objective "morality." So Non-Theism can't even coherently ask that question.
I have argued this point in the other post and direct you to the principles of etymology.
What authority do you have to monopolize the use of the term 'evil'.
You have to upgrade your education on this.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:37 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Reflex wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:07 am
But the nature of God [illusory] as claimed by the Abrahamic religions is imbued with evil elements. So can we rely on evil to ground morality?
:lol: Are you for real?
Note sure of your ??


'Immanuel Can' asserted the God of his Abrahamic religion can ground morality.
I disagreed because the God of the Abrahamic religion condone evil [evident in the holy texts], so can can such an evil laden God be used as a ground for morality [all good]?

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:40 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Reflex wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:24 am
You don’t understand, VA. Aquinas’ style was to anticipate “objections” and systematically refute them. In other words, he anticipated the argument you make only to refute it. “Cornered”? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.

You have no business being in a philosophy of religion forum. I only reply to your posts when I’m bored.
You have no business to dictate where I can participate.
Btw, usurping the authority of the official moderators is an infraction.

I will take note and will not reply to your 'boring' posts.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:48 am
by Reflex
Good. That gives you more time to read Divine Perfection: Possible Ideas of God

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:59 pm
by Immanuel Can
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:34 am
I have argued this point in the other post and direct you to the principles of etymology.
As I point out there, etymology will not solve that problem for you.
What authority do you have to monopolize the use of the term 'evil'.
I'm not. I'm asking you to justify your OWN account of what "evil" is. For it was you who used the term in reference to "sacred texts."

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:19 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
The only thing perfect about mankind's gods, is that they were perfectly fictitious. I mean it's certainly understandable why the ignorant ancient cultures believed such crap. They feared for their life in times of ignorance, barbarism and injustice, I mean, is it any wonder? Imagine that earliest caveman that saw a lightening strike that caught trees on fire, and he had to run for his life... How about it striking a fellow cave man... Oh Boy! Certainly a seed for the concept of gods, right? And it just kept being refined by the fearful, subject to the wrath of the powerful in their time. Thank 'god,' (snicker, snicker), that we've reached a level of civility where the laws of equality serve as gods. Though they need to be tweaked a little here and there. But such is mankind's evolution. It just takes time people. Of course it's nice that the power of the church is behind us now, and fading fast!

Won't it be nice when only intellectuals are left, and all the superstitious are dead and gone.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:12 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:34 am
I have argued this point in the other post and direct you to the principles of etymology.
As I point out there, etymology will not solve that problem for you.
What authority do you have to monopolize the use of the term 'evil'.
I'm not. I'm asking you to justify your OWN account of what "evil" is. For it was you who used the term in reference to "sacred texts."
I have addressed this point in the other thread.

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:16 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Reflex wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:48 am
Good. That gives you more time to read Divine Perfection: Possible Ideas of God
I have read the above and find it useful for my hypothesis.
It was referred by one 'Dark Matter.'