P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4539
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:24 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:06 pm
Another angry atheist savage, trying to tell everyone how the world should be run...

I can and will debate him myself...we are stuck in the problems of this world because of people like him.
Very good, well said, and I'm counting on you to debate with this character VA's claims and be witness to a no contest. You will literally beat VA to the ground begging for submission.

Ha!
He, she...or whatever "it" is...avoids the simple statement:

"All existence is perfect relative to nothingness".

Typical atheist...running with their tale between their legs at any "hint" of an intellectual fight.

Wait, let me save the wise one the trouble:

1) "Could you rephrase the statement?"

2) "I don't understand what you mean?"

3) "That is just STUPID!" ...(me): "Why"?

4) But "x" philosopher said...

5) "Look at all the evil around us!" (even though evil is a relative term in their religion of negation).

6) "But the Crusades prove!" (me) "What the fuck do the crusades have to do with this topic"?

7) "The laws of physics state"...

8) Etc....probably could do a whole thread on it by now.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:01 pm
Ultimately God has to be absolute, unqualified and perfect so that it leaves no 'chink' for any one to attack the idea. But theists are unaware an idea is an illusion.
Ironically, this interpretation is a violation of the principle of charity. But I'll just suggest you owe a reading to Plantinga on this question. Then you might be better positioned to say what the modern version of the Ontological Argument looks like.
Fair enough.
I will read up Plantinga's argument.
...theism is fundamentally based on faith and not reason nor proofs.
Hmmm...not exactly a charitable reading of their view, I might say. But it's fundamentally incorrect as well.

"Faith," as I have shown before, is not automatically in opposition to reason or proofs. In fact, I would argue that real faith is impossible without reason or proofs, because then it would have no object in which to place faith. Unless one is a pure Pietist, one's faith must be IN some proposition or person: and propositions and persons are inevitably associated with reasons and proofs...and oftentimes, even with empirical evidence.
You are conflating the various element here.
There is a continuum degrees to faith, reason and proofs.
Faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100% totally blind.
Reason range from crude primal reason to the highest critical reasoning.
Proofs range from loose to solid/sound evidence and arguments.

Theism is based on crude primal pure reason [which Kant critiqued] and heavily laden faith >90% and non-sequitor proofs.
... unqualified, absolute and perfect.
Repeating the error is not the same as defining. You need to explain what kind of "perfection" you are imagining, to do it with informative adjectives, ( which "unqualified" and "absolute" are not), and to do it without having to resort to defining it as "perfection." (That's just circular.)
Given the time constraints, I have not gone into the details. I'll get to it in time.
If you have similar exposure you would have sensed my point.
Btw, I mentioned theists have been attributing 'perfect' to their gods in many books and articles all over the net. Do some search before I get into it.
But are you suggesting nobody's actually addressed your P2? Because I certainly have, and have not resorted to insults of any kind, you'll note.
You have only addressed P1 i.e. you argued God's creation cannot have the real sense of God.
You'd better check back. I've addressed P2 at some length and detail. Check my first response on this strand, for example.
I was referring to the other thread not this 'strand'. I was not referring to you in particular but to 'Seed.'
The 'crutch' I used here is different from the typical one used by the typical atheists.
Well, it's inevitably pejorative, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, would imply that you are yourself guilty of merely being a psychological crutch-seeker yourself, if it's true.

That's all ad hominem. You should drop it. It's silly. Really, I hope you can do better than floating self-defeating pejorative claims. It's time to retire that absurd canard, is it not?
I will maintain the psychological 'crutch' point and get to its details later.
If you think my views are driven by a 'crutch' you are welcome to present your arguments. if true I will accept it.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:04 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:04 am
Ultimately God has to be absolute, unqualified and perfect so that it leaves no 'chink' for any one to attack the idea. But theists are unaware an idea is an illusion.
Ironically, this interpretation is a violation of the principle of charity. But I'll just suggest you owe a reading to Plantinga on this question. Then you might be better positioned to say what the modern version of the Ontological Argument looks like.
Fair enough.
I will read up Plantinga's argument.
I will not insist I know Plantinga's argument well. You tell me if I am wrong.

I read Plantinga's argument here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... _Plantinga
He argued that it is possible for a being with maximal greatness to exist, so a being with maximal greatness exists in a possible world. If this is the case, then a being with maximal greatness exists in every world, and therefore in this world.
I don't see any significant difference between my use of 'perfection' and 'maximal greatness' except in context.

As I had implied I can interchange the term 'perfection' in P2 with absolute, unqualified or 'maximal greatness' and explaining the context.

The point with theism is a psychological thing [entailing a 'crutch' which you dislike] where there is no way a believer will accept their god is a lesser god and be inferior to another superior God.

For example Islam claimed in the Quran the God in the present Bible [OT and NT] is an inferior God [useless, has a physical son, and all sort of derogatory condemnations] based on the fact the Bible was corrupted from the original that was delivered to Moses and Jesus from Allah.

Some Muslims will insist the Christian God is inferior to the extent the Christian God can be subject to kiss the a..e of the Islamic God, and the Christian will defend and counter to no end.

Now when faced with such accusation from Islam would you accept their claims.
Naturally and psychologically you will not accept that.

You can argue and counter with Muslims over and over again, but eventually both will have end up with an on-par perfect, ontological, unqualified, absolute, maximal greatness God that neither can dominate the other.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:04 am
...theism is fundamentally based on faith and not reason nor proofs.

Hmmm...not exactly a charitable reading of their view, I might say. But it's fundamentally incorrect as well.

"Faith," as I have shown before, is not automatically in opposition to reason or proofs. In fact, I would argue that real faith is impossible without reason or proofs, because then it would have no object in which to place faith. Unless one is a pure Pietist, one's faith must be IN some proposition or person: and propositions and persons are inevitably associated with reasons and proofs...and oftentimes, even with empirical evidence.
You are conflating the various element here.
There is a continuum degrees to faith, reason and proofs.
Faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100% totally blind.
Reason range from crude primal reason to the highest critical reasoning.
Proofs range from loose to solid/sound evidence and arguments.

Theism is based on crude primal pure reason [which Kant critiqued] and heavily laden faith >90% and non-sequitor proofs.
You've just contradicted that. According to the above, "faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100%." If that's so, then you've artificially and arbitrarily narrowed the field of what you will consider "Theistic faith" to determine that someone who has, say, 10%m 50% or 80% faith could not possibly be a genuine Theist. And you'd need to justify such a narrowing. In fact, you'd have to prove that I was personally "not a Theist."

Good luck. I think what you've done there is merely a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, actually. And it doesn't make it any more legit if Kant did it either.
Btw, I mentioned theists have been attributing 'perfect' to their gods in many books and articles all over the net. Do some search before I get into it.
Gladly. What sites do you want me to look at?
If you think my views are driven by a 'crutch' you are welcome to present your arguments. if true I will accept it.
I don't know if I think it. It could be true, but how would I know?

I wouldn't accuse someone of being a "crutch" depender unless I knew them. To assert it in the absence of fact would be mere pejorative, and not legitimate arguing. But what I do point out, and what I would point out again, is that anybody who uses the "crutch" argument opens themselves up to its use against them -- "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," in that case, so to speak.

So there really is NO good argument there to present, for either side. I would say that the claim "Theists are 'crutch-dependers' who only want there to be a God" is no more legitimate than the claim, "Atheists are 'crutch-dependers' who only want there NOT to be a God." If the one sticks, so does the other: if the second doesn't, then neither does the first.

My point is that we should simply recognize how manifestly poor the "crutch" argument really is. It's really not worth keeping.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:50 pm
You've just contradicted that. According to the above, "faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100%." If that's so, then you've artificially and arbitrarily narrowed the field of what you will consider "Theistic faith" to determine that someone who has, say, 10%m 50% or 80% faith could not possibly be a genuine Theist. And you'd need to justify such a narrowing. In fact, you'd have to prove that I was personally "not a Theist."

Good luck. I think what you've done there is merely a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, actually. And it doesn't make it any more legit if Kant did it either.
A theist who believe in God rely on 100% faith when his belief is merely based on what his priest tell him or merely doing so by going with the crowd.
The theologians like St Anselm and others like Plantinga do not rely on 100% blind faith but they rely on some form of arguments. I would regard this as using 49% arguments proof and 51% faith.
I don't understand why the fuss when used in this context.

If I tell you there is a pot of Gold [one ton of it] exactly at GPS point xx xxx.xxxx, then without further research and verification you went ahead to that point and start digging, that would be 99% blind faith.
Btw, I mentioned theists have been attributing 'perfect' to their gods in many books and articles all over the net. Do some search before I get into it.
Gladly. What sites do you want me to look at?
Just search 'God' & 'perfection' in Google and read through 10 pages or more of the search.
If you think my views are driven by a 'crutch' you are welcome to present your arguments. if true I will accept it.
I don't know if I think it. It could be true, but how would I know?
I am not a blind faith person on this.
I will do extensive research on it and assign its respective confidence level.
I wouldn't accuse someone of being a "crutch" depender unless I knew them. To assert it in the absence of fact would be mere pejorative, and not legitimate arguing. But what I do point out, and what I would point out again, is that anybody who uses the "crutch" argument opens themselves up to its use against them -- "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," in that case, so to speak.

So there really is NO good argument there to present, for either side. I would say that the claim "Theists are 'crutch-dependers' who only want there to be a God" is no more legitimate than the claim, "Atheists are 'crutch-dependers' who only want there NOT to be a God." If the one sticks, so does the other: if the second doesn't, then neither does the first.

My point is that we should simply recognize how manifestly poor the "crutch" argument really is. It's really not worth keeping.
Actually this is not meant to be personal.
I am viewing you from a perspective of a generic theist first and then within a certain category of theists.
What you have been presenting is not something unique at all but is typical to many theists of your type. So don't take it too personally.

One clue to the 'crutch principle' re theism is some theists will spontaneously kill those who critique their belief, i.e. experienced as tugging their psychological crutch. Some will not hesitate to donate [even their whole fortune] to reinforce that crutch. Some will even sacrifice their life on the basis of that crutch which is self-defeating.

Thus when we link theism to the 'crutch' principle then to psychology, humanity will be in a position to deal with theistic related evil acts objectively. This will not happen now but we have do the homework first [e.g. via discussion] then expect results in some future time.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:50 pm
You've just contradicted that. According to the above, "faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100%." If that's so, then you've artificially and arbitrarily narrowed the field of what you will consider "Theistic faith" to determine that someone who has, say, 10%m 50% or 80% faith could not possibly be a genuine Theist. And you'd need to justify such a narrowing. In fact, you'd have to prove that I was personally "not a Theist."

Good luck. I think what you've done there is merely a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, actually. And it doesn't make it any more legit if Kant did it either.
A theist who believe in God rely on 100% faith when his belief is merely based on what his priest tell him or merely doing so by going with the crowd.
IF that were the case, then yes. But in that case, his or her "faith" is definitionally not in God but in the priest or the crowd -- so that's not a real Theism, but rather a "priestism" or "crowdism."
The theologians like St Anselm and others like Plantinga do not rely on 100% blind faith but they rely on some form of arguments. I would regard this as using 49% arguments proof and 51% faith.
I don't know how you justify such arbitrary percentages. In fact, neither Plantinga's nor Anselm's arguments are faith-based. Rather, they are conceptual-analytic arguments that ask no faith of the hearer. And whether Anselm or Plantinga are 50% faith-dependent or merely 10% faith-dependent, if at all, would be a question only they could answer.
I don't understand why the fuss when used in this context.
No "fuss." Just the irony that when people accuse Theists of relying on faith, they often are completely oblivious to the fact that their own views are equally, or usually even more faith-dependent. They just don't tend to regard it as "faith" because they think that's a specially religious word. But, for example, no Atheist believes his creed on evidence, since 100% evidence -- or even 50% or 20% evidence -- for Atheism is logically impossible. Whatever shred of inductive warrant the Atheist stands on is so small that the vast preponderance of his or her conviction has to be nothing but faith.

That being so, what's the big wonder that Theists employ some measure of faith to understand their own beliefs? Everybody in the world does that. The advantage of the Theist is that he or she knows she does; and the disadvantage of others is the delusion that they don't rely on faith at all.
Just search 'God' & 'perfection' in Google and read through 10 pages or more of the search.
Oh, seriously? :shock: That's your best source? At least I gave you a good statistical study on slavery.

What happened to that, by the way: did you check it out? If you did, then you know the current state of slavery in the modern world. And you know that it's not disappearing at all.
One clue to the 'crutch principle' re theism is some theists will spontaneously kill those who critique their belief, i.e. experienced as tugging their psychological crutch.
Oh, really. This is silly. I presume your frame of reference is ISIL or some such thing, because it can't be Theists generally. How many Quakers, Anabaptists, and evangelicals, or even Mennonites, Mormons and Jews have "killed you" -- or anyone -- for critiquing their beliefs as a "crutch" ? Since you're still alive, I'm going to assume the answer is "None."

But the problem isn't even that. It's that the "crutch" argument is, on its own merits, such a poor argument that it can't help destroying your own credibility. As I said, if it's true at all of Theists, then it is equally applicable to Atheists or Agnostics. It's all just "wish-fulfillment," by the lights of that argument. Everything is hack psychology -- belief, disbelief, critical reflection, all of it.

So it's just too stupid an argument to keep.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:50 pm
You've just contradicted that. According to the above, "faith comes in degrees from 1% to 100%." If that's so, then you've artificially and arbitrarily narrowed the field of what you will consider "Theistic faith" to determine that someone who has, say, 10%m 50% or 80% faith could not possibly be a genuine Theist. And you'd need to justify such a narrowing. In fact, you'd have to prove that I was personally "not a Theist."

Good luck. I think what you've done there is merely a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, actually. And it doesn't make it any more legit if Kant did it either.
A theist who believe in God rely on 100% faith when his belief is merely based on what his priest tell him or merely doing so by going with the crowd.
IF that were the case, then yes. But in that case, his or her "faith" is definitionally not in God but in the priest or the crowd -- so that's not a real Theism, but rather a "priestism" or "crowdism."
The theologians like St Anselm and others like Plantinga do not rely on 100% blind faith but they rely on some form of arguments. I would regard this as using 49% arguments proof and 51% faith.
I don't know how you justify such arbitrary percentages. In fact, neither Plantinga's nor Anselm's arguments are faith-based. Rather, they are conceptual-analytic arguments that ask no faith of the hearer. And whether Anselm or Plantinga are 50% faith-dependent or merely 10% faith-dependent, if at all, would be a question only they could answer.
I don't understand why the fuss when used in this context.
No "fuss." Just the irony that when people accuse Theists of relying on faith, they often are completely oblivious to the fact that their own views are equally, or usually even more faith-dependent. They just don't tend to regard it as "faith" because they think that's a specially religious word. But, for example, no Atheist believes his creed on evidence, since 100% evidence -- or even 50% or 20% evidence -- for Atheism is logically impossible. Whatever shred of inductive warrant the Atheist stands on is so small that the vast preponderance of his or her conviction has to be nothing but faith.

That being so, what's the big wonder that Theists employ some measure of faith to understand their own beliefs? Everybody in the world does that. The advantage of the Theist is that he or she knows she does; and the disadvantage of others is the delusion that they don't rely on faith at all.
Note faith in the priest or holy texts is still based on something empirical.
Faith directly in God is faith based on something illusory.
This like a schizophrenic who has 100% faith in the 'person' who gave him command to kill anyone.

I agree non-theists also rely on faith in various contexts, e.g. I have 100% faith in most theories of Science which I have NOT done and retested the experiments the scientist did.
Just search 'God' & 'perfection' in Google and read through 10 pages or more of the search.
Oh, seriously? :shock: That's your best source? At least I gave you a good statistical study on slavery.

What happened to that, by the way: did you check it out? If you did, then you know the current state of slavery in the modern world. And you know that it's not disappearing at all.
I have countered that.
One clue to the 'crutch principle' re theism is some theists will spontaneously kill those who critique their belief, i.e. experienced as tugging their psychological crutch.
Oh, really. This is silly. I presume your frame of reference is ISIL or some such thing, because it can't be Theists generally. How many Quakers, Anabaptists, and evangelicals, or even Mennonites, Mormons and Jews have "killed you" -- or anyone -- for critiquing their beliefs as a "crutch" ? Since you're still alive, I'm going to assume the answer is "None."

But the problem isn't even that. It's that the "crutch" argument is, on its own merits, such a poor argument that it can't help destroying your own credibility. As I said, if it's true at all of Theists, then it is equally applicable to Atheists or Agnostics. It's all just "wish-fulfillment," by the lights of that argument. Everything is hack psychology -- belief, disbelief, critical reflection, all of it.

So it's just too stupid an argument to keep.
Did you read I used 'SOME' in my statement.
Other theists may not have resorted to kill non-believers but they have displayed 'crutch' behavior in other contexts.

Yes, non-theists and agnostic also relied on the crutch principles to deal with that same existential crisis manifested in secular forms. Many non-theists use drugs as a crutch, and other means as a crutch.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:31 am
Note faith in the priest or holy texts is still based on something empirical.
Faith directly in God is faith based on something illusory.
That's presumptive on your part. The vast majority of people think otherwise, and with good reason. In contrast, Atheism is utterly incapable of providing adequate empirical proof for its own basic claim: so it would seem that in actuality, the 100% "faith" is requisite on their side.
I agree non-theists also rely on faith in various contexts, e.g. I have 100% faith in most theories of Science which I have NOT done and retested the experiments the scientist did.

If that's true, you would have to regard them as the priests of your belief. You would have unfounded confidence in them in just the way, and just to the degree, that a blind religionist would have faith in his or her priest: 100%.
Did you read I used 'SOME' in my statement.
If so, then I'm afraid it becomes only a trivial observation. It may be useful to know that "some doctors malpractice," or "some card-players cheat." However, it no longer says anything useful about the great mass of those who don't malpractice or cheat. Likewise, "some Theists are wishful thinkers" or "some Theists are blind" does not make any illuminating statement about Theism itself, or about the greater mass who may well be neither "blind" nor "wishful thinkers."
Other theists may not have resorted to kill non-believers but they have displayed 'crutch' behavior in other contexts.
You're not getting the problem. It's not an empirical one, merely; it's a conceptual one. If you float the "psychological crutch" argument at all, it counts against you when your opposition floats it. If it doesn't count against you, it doesn't count against Theists either.

If Theism is wish fulfillment, then Atheism is also wish fulfillment.

But now an additional problem: of the two, the statistical preponderance vastly favours Theism. So now the Atheist has to describe why the vast majority of human beings have been "evolutionarily conditioned" to believe things that, as the Atheist insists, are absolutely unjustified by reality. In other words, she now has to explain how false religious beliefs are more evolutionarily adaptive than true beliefs about reality. :shock: Now, how would she go about that task? And worse still, if she succeeds, then she's succeeded in proving her own beliefs are not as evolutionarily adaptive as religious ones. :shock:

It's just not a good argument. It just doesn't work, logically speaking. I can see you just love it, but there really isn't any good reason to. It's terrible thinking.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5292
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:47 am
Re
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The Syllogism:
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.
Well your stubborn denial matters not! ;-)


Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
But then isn't that a matter of perspective? Tell me which food is best? It can be answered from the perspective of nutrition, taste, price, aesthetics, etc. So which is the correct one? It's subjective! In fact all criteria in the measure of a god, parallels that which men of a particular culture desire. Which is why there are so many gods. They each see their version of god as the correct one above all others. So there is no single perspective that you could attribute to their various gods, as the defining criteria, or there would only be one version.

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. Note Descartes, St Anselm and the likes.
Just because you study them doesn't necessarily mean they were the cats meow of truisms.

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.
Perfect as defined by whom?

Another point I need to qualify is the 'god' in this argument is that of the theological God, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I am not referring to gods of the Greeks, e.g. and hundreds of the likes;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures
There are probably thousands of God over various cultures around the world and any claims of their existence as real can be easily argued away.

This is why whenever there is the question of the realness of these of other gods, the argument will always veer towards the perfect God.

One point to take note is the evolution of the idea of God over history of mankind will inevitably lead to the perfect God.

Any counters to P2 above.
perfect [adjective, noun pur-fikt; verb per-fekt]

adjective
1) conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2) excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3) exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4) entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5) accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
6) thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.
7) pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.
8.) unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.
9) expert; accomplished; proficient: She will need a perfect driving teacher.
10) unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.
11) Botany.
...a) having all parts or members present.
...b) monoclinous.
12) Grammar.
...a) noting an action or state brought to a close prior to some temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or incomplete action.
...b) designating a tense or other verb formation or construction with such meaning.
13) Music.
...a) applied to the consonances of unison, octave, and fifth, as distinguished from those of the third and sixth, which are called imperfect.
...b) applied to the intervals, harmonic or melodic, of an octave, fifth, and fourth in their normal form, as opposed to augmented and diminished.
14) Mathematics. (of a set) equal to its set of accumulation points.
15) Obsolete. assured or certain.

noun Grammar.
16) the perfect tense.
17) a verb form or construction in the perfect tense.Compare future perfect, pluperfect, present perfect.

verb (used with object)
18) to bring to completion; finish.
19) to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless: He has succeeded in perfecting his recipe for chicken Kiev.
20) to bring nearer to perfection; improve; make better: She works hard to perfect her writing.
21) to make fully skilled.
22) Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

Looking at the first definition, the main definition, it would seem that popular consensus is that it's the best of them all, yet it is said that there is only one. Doesn't one have to know the absolute worst before they can know the absolute best? And best description, definition or ideal type. Hmmm, good luck with that. It seems that you are defining their god as you see fit and then attempting to argue that your definition is incorrect.

Argue with yourself much?


In logic, first ones premises must be valid before the conclusion can be said to be true.
;-)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:31 am
Note faith in the priest or holy texts is still based on something empirical.
Faith directly in God is faith based on something illusory.
That's presumptive on your part. The vast majority of people think otherwise, and with good reason. In contrast, Atheism is utterly incapable of providing adequate empirical proof for its own basic claim: so it would seem that in actuality, the 100% "faith" is requisite on their side.
I agree non-theists also rely on faith in various contexts, e.g. I have 100% faith in most theories of Science which I have NOT done and retested the experiments the scientist did.

If that's true, you would have to regard them as the priests of your belief. You would have unfounded confidence in them in just the way, and just to the degree, that a blind religionist would have faith in his or her priest: 100%.
Why should I regard scientists as priests of my belief.
All I need is to admit to the truth and qualify accordingly.
Btw, for all the scientific theories that I have tested in class they are all true.
The above give support and confidence to the other scientific theories based on the Scientific Method which I have accepted based on 100% faith.
What I am more concern is where scientific theories are imputed into technology which I can use.
Other theists may not have resorted to kill non-believers but they have displayed 'crutch' behavior in other contexts.
You're not getting the problem. It's not an empirical one, merely; it's a conceptual one. If you float the "psychological crutch" argument at all, it counts against you when your opposition floats it. If it doesn't count against you, it doesn't count against Theists either.

If Theism is wish fulfillment, then Atheism is also wish fulfillment.
I have no issue if you assert non-theists also rely on 'crutches' as long as you substantiate it. There are non-theists who rely on drugs as a psychological 'crutch' to the extent of killing themselves.
Obese people depend on food as a crutch and some [despite knowing the dangers] will eat themselves to death.
But now an additional problem: of the two, the statistical preponderance vastly favours Theism. So now the Atheist has to describe why the vast majority of human beings have been "evolutionarily conditioned" to believe things that, as the Atheist insists, are absolutely unjustified by reality. In other words, she now has to explain how false religious beliefs are more evolutionarily adaptive than true beliefs about reality. :shock: Now, how would she go about that task? And worse still, if she succeeds, then she's succeeded in proving her own beliefs are not as evolutionarily adaptive as religious ones. :shock:

It's just not a good argument. It just doesn't work, logically speaking. I can see you just love it, but there really isn't any good reason to. It's terrible thinking.
Note once upon a time it was psychological comfortable to believe the Earth was flat. But then such a belief did change with empirical evidence.
The problem with theism is it is based on transcendental thoughts which is tougher to explain the deception the mind plays on theists.

Despite the deception of an illusory God thought as real, I agree this deception is net-positive against its negative cons for the majority of people from the past to the present.
But as I had argued the negative cons of theism are outweighing its pros as we move toward the future to the extent of being a threat of exterminating the human species.

Note this one example among many other evil acts from theists;

Image

You may argue the above were committed only by a minority.
I am arguing it is not the minority that should be concerned with but rather the ideology that inspire the critical minority to commit terrible evils and violence.

You will then question, that is due to one specific theistic religion, why focus on theism.
My point is the existence of theism lend moral support to the minority theistic religions and minority of believers.
Therefore to be effective against the evilness of SOME evil laden theistic beliefs we must wean off the whole of theism and replace it with fool proof alternatives to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:30 am
Why should I regard scientists as priests of my belief.
Because you, as you have said, have faith in them without having actually done their experiments. What have you to rely upon, then, except their word?
The problem with theism is it is based on transcendental thoughts
That describes an extreme minority position -- the so-called "mystical" tradition. It doesn't describe all, or even most Theists.
But as I had argued the negative cons of theism are outweighing its pros as we move toward the future to the extent of being a threat of exterminating the human species.

Note this one example among many other evil acts from theists;

Image

You may argue the above were committed only by a minority.
I am arguing it is not the minority that should be concerned with but rather the ideology that inspire the critical minority to commit terrible evils and violence.
I agree we should be concerned with ideology -- but the ideology in that case is Islam. You will find that there is no connection between Theism (as a broad category) and violence -- a person may well be a completely ardent Theist, while being totally non-violent. It all really depends on what conception of "god" is in view.

Consider the Hassidim, the Hutterites, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and so on. Such groups have never been responsible for acts of violence, and are in fact among the most peaceful groups on the planet. By failing to distinguish among Theistic beliefs, you've essentially indicted the innocent.

Now, if you're not keen to make distinctions among Theists, and you want to reject the innocent as if they are the guilty, then you ought to regard Atheism the same way: make every Atheist responsible for everything the worst Atheists have done. And if you're going to do that, then you ought to realize that Atheism does not come off well. In fact, avowedly Atheist regimes have killed 148 million in the last century alone, far more than in all religious wars, which account for a maximum of 7%, even with Islam included! This means that if you care about acts of violence, you ought to be far more concerned with Atheist ideology that even with the worst ISIL terrorists. And in particular, you should be very opposed to Socialism and all attempts at secular social engineering. Far and away, they are history's most homicidal ideologies.

Are you?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:53 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:30 am
Note this one example among many other evil acts from theists;

Image

You may argue the above were committed only by a minority.
I am arguing it is not the minority that should be concerned with but rather the ideology that inspire the critical minority to commit terrible evils and violence.
I agree we should be concerned with ideology -- but the ideology in that case is Islam. You will find that there is no connection between Theism (as a broad category) and violence -- a person may well be a completely ardent Theist, while being totally non-violent. It all really depends on what conception of "god" is in view.

Consider the Hassidim, the Hutterites, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and so on. Such groups have never been responsible for acts of violence, and are in fact among the most peaceful groups on the planet. By failing to distinguish among Theistic beliefs, you've essentially indicted the innocent.

Now, if you're not keen to make distinctions among Theists, and you want to reject the innocent as if they are the guilty, then you ought to regard Atheism the same way: make every Atheist responsible for everything the worst Atheists have done.
And if you're going to do that, then you ought to realize that Atheism does not come off well. In fact, avowedly Atheist regimes have killed 148 million in the last century alone, far more than in all religious wars, which account for a maximum of 7%, even with Islam included! This means that if you care about acts of violence, you ought to be far more concerned with Atheist ideology that even with the worst ISIL terrorists. And in particular, you should be very opposed to Socialism and all attempts at secular social engineering. Far and away, they are history's most homicidal ideologies.

Are you?
I have always mentioned, ALL evils acts and potential must be addressed and dealt with accordingly and effectively.
But note this is the Philosophy of Religion section, so to topic we will only deal with religious related evil acts and not others.

Re religious related evil acts, I have always focus on the specific ideology primarily where Islam is the worst of them all but other theistic religions also has lesser but also the evil threat that is significant to humanity.

If humanity can weaned of specifically Islam, then that would reduce a major % of religious related evil. This should be the primary focus.
However to deal effectively with Islam we need to deal with Islam as a subset of theism, thus we need to address theism in the background before we zoom into Islam specifically.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5982
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:53 am
But note this is the Philosophy of Religion section, so to topic we will only deal with religious related evil acts and not others.
Atheism IS a religion. Its a gratuitous creed, the whole focus of which is the question of God's existence. And like the most blind of religions, It takes complete faith to believe it at all. So I'd say it qualifies here.
Re religious related evil acts, I have always focus on the specific ideology primarily where Islam is the worst of them all but other theistic religions also has lesser but also the evil threat that is significant to humanity.
Are you afraid of the Quakers again? Is there a "significant threat" posed by the Hassidim? Are you getting Mormon death threats? Or have those nasty Zoroastrians attacked someone?

In any case, how would one justify calling any "religious related acts" "evil" at all? In Atheism, there's no objective thing such as "evil". For them, it's not even possible to call the most psychotic ISIL terrorist "evil" in any coherent and meaningful sense. To do that, you'd have to refer to objective moral values; and for that, you'd need God. So we're back to Theism for the very terms necessary to mount a critique of any action, "religious" or not.
If humanity can weaned of specifically Islam, then that would reduce a major % of religious related evil.
I have exact figures, actually. Let's take homicides as indicative.

Before 2000, Islam accounted for about 3.5% of the world's conflict dead. Another 3.5% could be roughly attributed to other religions, including Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Animism, Catholicism, and all the rest of the other religions of history combined.

Total: 7%.

The rest were killed in conflicts over such things as economics, language, land, resources, politics and so on; but by far the biggest percent by Atheistic regimes. In fact, as you know, more people were killed in the 20th Century wars than in all previous wars combined. And as you'll recall, none of those wars was religious...unless you include Atheism as a religion. In that case you really would have a good argument.

So let's keep Atheism in the game...where it belongs. If we don't, we'll never be able to address the preponderance of the question of evil.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4539
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:53 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:30 am
Note this one example among many other evil acts from theists;

Image

You may argue the above were committed only by a minority.
I am arguing it is not the minority that should be concerned with but rather the ideology that inspire the critical minority to commit terrible evils and violence.
I agree we should be concerned with ideology -- but the ideology in that case is Islam. You will find that there is no connection between Theism (as a broad category) and violence -- a person may well be a completely ardent Theist, while being totally non-violent. It all really depends on what conception of "god" is in view.

Consider the Hassidim, the Hutterites, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and so on. Such groups have never been responsible for acts of violence, and are in fact among the most peaceful groups on the planet. By failing to distinguish among Theistic beliefs, you've essentially indicted the innocent.

Now, if you're not keen to make distinctions among Theists, and you want to reject the innocent as if they are the guilty, then you ought to regard Atheism the same way: make every Atheist responsible for everything the worst Atheists have done.
And if you're going to do that, then you ought to realize that Atheism does not come off well. In fact, avowedly Atheist regimes have killed 148 million in the last century alone, far more than in all religious wars, which account for a maximum of 7%, even with Islam included! This means that if you care about acts of violence, you ought to be far more concerned with Atheist ideology that even with the worst ISIL terrorists. And in particular, you should be very opposed to Socialism and all attempts at secular social engineering. Far and away, they are history's most homicidal ideologies.

Are you?
I have always mentioned, ALL evils acts and potential must be addressed and dealt with accordingly and effectively.
But note this is the Philosophy of Religion section, so to topic we will only deal with religious related evil acts and not others.

Re religious related evil acts, I have always focus on the specific ideology primarily where Islam is the worst of them all but other theistic religions also has lesser but also the evil threat that is significant to humanity.

If humanity can weaned of specifically Islam, then that would reduce a major % of religious related evil. This should be the primary focus.
However to deal effectively with Islam we need to deal with Islam as a subset of theism, thus we need to address theism in the background before we zoom into Islam specifically.
Should we be weanned off atheism also? And weaned off what else...everything.

It seems you focusing on weaning as the means to negate evil is really an observation of necessarily detaching from the transitory aspects of life and this in itself is the foundation of all religion.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:53 am
But note this is the Philosophy of Religion section, so to topic we will only deal with religious related evil acts and not others.
Atheism IS a religion. Its a gratuitous creed, the whole focus of which is the question of God's existence. And like the most blind of religions, It takes complete faith to believe it at all. So I'd say it qualifies here.
You are trying to be deceptive and rhetorical here.
'Religion' is a very loose word but conventionally 'atheism' is not recognized as a religion.
Many relate to certain habits and hobbies are religions, e.g. soccer and those sports that has fanatical followers.

There are many definitions of 'what is religion.' I prefer Ninian Smarts concept of religion which must conform to 7 critical and necessary dimensions.
http://danbhai.com/wr/l01.htm

Instead of trying to deceptive, what not just defined 'atheist' and atheism for what it typically understood.
Personally I do not prefer to refer myself with the term 'atheist' and atheism.
I prefer 'not-a-theist' and I have my own personal beliefs.

I am not a Buddhist but I adopt one of the Boddhisattva Vow to be compassionate to all human beings and thus is against evil acts.

Re religious related evil acts, I have always focus on the specific ideology primarily where Islam is the worst of them all but other theistic religions also has lesser but also the evil threat that is significant to humanity.
Are you afraid of the Quakers again? Is there a "significant threat" posed by the Hassidim? Are you getting Mormon death threats? Or have those nasty Zoroastrians attacked someone?
I did not say all religions pose an evil threat to humanity in the same degree.
Whilst Islam is really toxic, the other Abrahamic religions do pose some threat in the resistance against the progress of humanity, e.g. their insistence on creationism over evolution and other issues.
In any case, how would one justify calling any "religious related acts" "evil" at all? In Atheism, there's no objective thing such as "evil". For them, it's not even possible to call the most psychotic ISIL terrorist "evil" in any coherent and meaningful sense. To do that, you'd have to refer to objective moral values; and for that, you'd need God. So we're back to Theism for the very terms necessary to mount a critique of any action, "religious" or not.
Note I am not moving forward as an atheist nor atheism.
I am progressing as a human being.
As for dealing with evil, I am relying on a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [based mainly on the Kantian model] with groundings on absolute moral values that do not necessarily depend on a God [illusory] who delivered holy texts with absolute moral commands [like kill non-believers, and others.
It is immoral to rely on absolute commands from a God which is illusory and an illusion.
If humanity can weaned of specifically Islam, then that would reduce a major % of religious related evil.
I have exact figures, actually. Let's take homicides as indicative.

Before 2000, Islam accounted for about 3.5% of the world's conflict dead. Another 3.5% could be roughly attributed to other religions, including Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Animism, Catholicism, and all the rest of the other religions of history combined.

Total: 7%.

The rest were killed in conflicts over such things as economics, language, land, resources, politics and so on; but by far the biggest percent by Atheistic regimes. In fact, as you know, more people were killed in the 20th Century wars than in all previous wars combined. And as you'll recall, none of those wars was religious...unless you include Atheism as a religion. In that case you really would have a good argument.

So let's keep Atheism in the game...where it belongs. If we don't, we'll never be able to address the preponderance of the question of evil.
As I had stated elsewhere humanity must address ALL evil acts, i.e. theistic and non-theistic related evil acts and violence.
But non-theistic related evil acts are off topic within this section which can be dealt with in other non-theistic sections like politics, social, etc.

In terms of numbers, note it is claimed Islamist killed over 80 million Hindus over a 1000 years in India. Islam has continued to kill non-believers up to 2018.
So the number is large enough to warrant serious attention.

Note I have argued Buddhism, Christianity, non-violence Hindu schools and other pacifist religions are not responsible for the evil acts of their followers.
There are no leading evil laden texts within the main sutras to exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers in the name of Buddhism nor the Buddha.
It is the same with Christianity where Christ did not exhort Christians to kill non-believers but rather to love their enemies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests