P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:26 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:19 pm
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.
The 'fear for their life' is still there, that is why the grasp of theism is so fundamentally strong in the majority of people at present.

I believe in the freedom of speech and thought but not when such thoughts inspired SOME believers to commit terrible evil and violence as a divine duty to please God [this is glaringly evident].

This is why we need to defang and where possible replace theism with fool proof alternatives to deal with that 'fear for their life' thing.
The idea of 'perfection' is the most effective term to nullify 'God exists' as an impossibility to the extent the question of 'God exists?' is moot and a non-starter.

But we need to console theists there are fool proof alternatives to deal with the same existential 'fear for life' thoughts.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5921
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:12 am
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.
You didn't. Instead, you just made the empty claim that you had already done it.

But you never did.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Reflex » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:52 pm
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.
You didn't. Instead, you just made the empty claim that you had already done it.

But you never did.
True. He never has done anything other than express personal feelings on the matter.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5921
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:23 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:34 pm
True. He never has done anything other than express personal feelings on the matter.
My money's on that "he" is a "she." The argumentation style gives it away.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Reflex » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:23 pm
Reflex wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:34 pm
True. He never has done anything other than express personal feelings on the matter.
My money's on that "he" is a "she." The argumentation style gives it away.
Sure it’s not an “it”? VA sounds like a broken record.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:23 pm
Reflex wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:34 pm
True. He never has done anything other than express personal feelings on the matter.
My money's on that "he" is a "she." The argumentation style gives it away.
Nah, I am "he".
Note I am from the East and perhaps it is because English is not my first language [mother tongue].

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
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 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:26 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:19 pm
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.
The 'fear for their life' is still there, that is why the grasp of theism is so fundamentally strong in the majority of people at present.

I believe in the freedom of speech and thought but not when such thoughts inspired SOME believers to commit terrible evil and violence as a divine duty to please God [this is glaringly evident].

This is why we need to defang and where possible replace theism with fool proof alternatives to deal with that 'fear for their life' thing.
The idea of 'perfection' is the most effective term to nullify 'God exists'
It's easy VA! Just ask the question! What Perfection? Perfection from mankind's perspective or perfection from a gods perspective? As surely they would be completely different. I say that no man could ever know of a perfection from a gods perspective, as men are far too bound by things no god might have to be bound by. And how could one know that a god would even consider such a concept as perfection. Surely eternity/infinity breeds no need for such a concept. NO! Perfection is purely a concept of humans due to all the things they want and desire, where they see that having them is somehow paramount, the end all/cure all. It's purely selfishness. What we each should be doing is simply enjoying everything we have, and not worrying about perfection, except of course anything to do with our technologies, as it's better to build certainty factually rather than guesswork believably. Don't want to get caught in our own mouse traps. Which seems like a point that many are ignoring. But surely I digress due to connectedness, which everything is!


as an impossibility to the extent the question of 'God exists?' is moot and a non-starter.
You know I disagree with that, depending on how one defines their terms. I agree that mankind's version of a "god," that he created long ago, is so full of holes it's not funny. But that does not preclude the creator of all the universe, whatever "it" may be. So I believe in the possibility of a creator, not to be confused in any way, with that of all of mankind's current and past god creations.

This is why I said earlier that you believe in their god. Your argument did not allow for the possibility of an actual creator, if in fact such a thing exists. It's common for many atheists to believe that mankind's past and present gods are the only creators they have to consider. And in so doing pay credence to those gods as being the only possibility.

My argument for the possibility of a creator that no one, as of yet, is aware of, is that we exist and we can create. We can clone, and possibly soon we may be able to create life from simply elements, heat and magnetic flux, the four forces. That we exist with such capabilities at this relative size does not preclude others at a much larger relative size, quite the contrary. To believe otherwise is surely arrogance. To make us feel special above all other possible things, known or unknown. And I for one, am not so full of ourselves, actually it's quite the opposite. I concentrate more on our flaws, because the good things don't need correcting, only the flaws do.



But we need to console theists there are fool proof alternatives to deal with the same existential 'fear for life' thoughts.
Sure, we must always take the less fortunate under our wings!

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5921
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:15 am
Nah, I am "he".
Note I am from the East and perhaps it is because English is not my first language [mother tongue].
I stand corrected.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
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 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:15 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:23 pm
Reflex wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:34 pm
True. He never has done anything other than express personal feelings on the matter.
My money's on that "he" is a "she." The argumentation style gives it away.
Nah, I am "he".
Note I am from the East and perhaps it is because English is not my first language [mother tongue].
Well then you obviously deserve more credit than he does, but then that's not really saying all that much. ;-)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:35 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:26 am
The 'fear for their life' is still there, that is why the grasp of theism is so fundamentally strong in the majority of people at present.

I believe in the freedom of speech and thought but not when such thoughts inspired SOME believers to commit terrible evil and violence as a divine duty to please God [this is glaringly evident].

This is why we need to defang and where possible replace theism with fool proof alternatives to deal with that 'fear for their life' thing.
The idea of 'perfection' is the most effective term to nullify 'God exists'
It's easy VA! Just ask the question! What Perfection?
Perfection from mankind's perspective or perfection from a gods perspective? As surely they would be completely different.
I say that no man could ever know of a perfection from a gods perspective, as men are far too bound by things no god might have to be bound by.
And how could one know that a god would even consider such a concept as perfection.

Surely eternity/infinity breeds no need for such a concept. NO! Perfection is purely a concept of humans due to all the things they want and desire, where they see that having them is somehow paramount, the end all/cure all. It's purely selfishness.

What we each should be doing is simply enjoying everything we have, and not worrying about perfection, except of course anything to do with our technologies, as it's better to build certainty factually rather than guesswork believably. Don't want to get caught in our own mouse traps. Which seems like a point that many are ignoring. But surely I digress due to connectedness, which everything is!

The problem is how do we know there is God's perfection when we have not proven whether God exists or not.
My thesis is, God is an impossibility, so there is no question of God's idea of Perfection.

I have presented there are two main categories of 'perfection' i.e.
  • 1. Empirical perfection, e.g. 100/100 marks in an objective tests or 10/10 for a gymnast and the likes. This is relative to a Framework and System.

    2. Reasoned Perfection, e.g. an ideal perfect circle that meet certain measurement criteria, the perfect God [absolute, complete, unconditional and the likes].
Whilst empirical and relative perfection are conditional, reasoned or absolute perfection is very logical and the reasoning is indisputable. What is disputable is whether such absolute perfection exists as real or not?

I had argued God by default must imperatively be 'perfect' as reasoned.

Why humanity must be serious and concerned with the idea of God [by default is perfect] is the idea of the perfect God is claimed by SOME [most] theists to be real to the extent of delivering its command through its prophets/messenger subsequently written in holy books.
What is very real [very evident] is these God-delivered-texts contain evil laden elements which inspired or subliminally compelled SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil acts and violence which to them is good and a divine duty to please God.

This is why we must get back to the roots and deal with the question of God and its default perfection, then to defang it.
as an impossibility to the extent the question of 'God exists?' is moot and a non-starter.
You know I disagree with that, depending on how one defines their terms. I agree that mankind's version of a "god," that he created long ago, is so full of holes it's not funny. But that does not preclude the creator of all the universe, whatever "it" may be. So I believe in the possibility of a creator, not to be confused in any way, with that of all of mankind's current and past god creations.

This is why I said earlier that you believe in their god. Your argument did not allow for the possibility of an actual creator, if in fact such a thing exists. It's common for many atheists to believe that mankind's past and present gods are the only creators they have to consider. And in so doing pay credence to those gods as being the only possibility.

My argument for the possibility of a creator that no one, as of yet, is aware of, is that we exist and we can create. We can clone, and possibly soon we may be able to create life from simply elements, heat and magnetic flux, the four forces. That we exist with such capabilities at this relative size does not preclude others at a much larger relative size, quite the contrary. To believe otherwise is surely arrogance. To make us feel special above all other possible things, known or unknown. And I for one, am not so full of ourselves, actually it's quite the opposite. I concentrate more on our flaws, because the good things don't need correcting, only the flaws do.
I agree the pantheistic or panentheistic idea of a God that is a creator, present everywhere and is indifferent to human activities, is not an issue at all.

For discussion sake, there is the alternatives of the non-theistic philosophy/spirituality of life that is mostly evil & violent free in their ideology, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and the likes.

In the light of the above, thus there is a difference between theistic based philosophy/spirituality and non-theistic ones.

The origin and cause of the theistic drive to theism [some are problematic] and the more refined levels of theism, i.e. pantheistic or panentheistic idea of a God [no evil elements] is due to certain basic psychological drives from an existential crisis. The difference between theism and pantheism is a matter of degrees but they are from the same fundamental drives to a need for completeness and overcoming the dissonance [uncomfortable] of infinite regression re cause and effect.

As Kant argued, theists and pantheists rely upon pseudo rational syllogisms [Pure Reason] to force the closure of this infinite regression - to soothe [subliminally] the discomfort.

Note the non-theistic Buddhists and the likes understood this dissonance, predicament, dilemma and thus they avoid it and deal direct with the existential crisis bypassing the idea of God and be indifferent to infinite regression.
But we need to console theists there are fool proof alternatives to deal with the same existential 'fear for life' thoughts.
Sure, we must always take the less fortunate under our wings!
Agree, so to prevent SOME of them from being inspired to commit terrible evil acts and violence,sacrificing their own life in the name of their God.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:35 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:51 pm
You are spinning your wheels here. Interpreting one or more of the various properties that are attributed to God [an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being] in ways that are incoherent does not show that there is no being, God. All it shows is that the being, God, does not have the incoherent ‘property’. I am surprised that you cannot see this. Misguided attempts such as this are taken up in any decent Introduction to Philosophy textbook.

Consider the following argument.

A1. If my grandmother is in the living room, then there is a person in the living room with a head that it is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped.
A2. My grandmother is in the living room.
therefore,
A3. There is a person in the living room with a head that is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped..

Pointing out that there cannot be a head that is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped, even if true, does nothing to show that my grandmother is not in the living room. It shows at most that my grandmother doesn’t have a sphere-shaped, cube-shaped head.

There have been attempts to show that there is no God by attempting to show that there is an incoherence in the existence of an all-knowing being and free-will for human beings [where free-will in humans is an essential aspect of human beings according to the proponents of the existence of God in the context]. The most that this approach can show, by itself, is that there is an inconsistency in the existence of this God’s notion of free-will and a particular understanding of “all-knowing”. It does not show that God does not exist. A perfectly rational way of responding is to acknowledge the inconsistency, if there is an inconsistency, as showing that the notion of “all-knowing’ that had been part of the understanding must to be revised. The believer in this context still has her God along with a better understanding of the nature of her God.

Your proof of the non-existence of God that appeals to the impossibility of “absolute perfection” [understood in the way that you choose to present it] does not show that the first premise of argument P is false, because your notion of “absolute perfection” has nothing to do with the God of argument P.

Whether or not your “proof” has anything to do with one of the God proofs in Descartes’ 5th “Meditation”, or Anselm’s Ontological proof is a different argument. Even if it is assumed that the arguments of Descartes [the one in the 5th, not the one in the 3rd “Meditation”] and the argument of Anselm are impacted by your critique [I do not think they are, but that is not important here] the “first cause” arguments of Aquinas, for example, are not.

Let me emphasize that the points above have nothing to do with the substance of your claims about “absolute perfection”. Rather the points are about the basic logical structure of your argument, which structure is reflected in other discussion in philosophy, discussions where the mistake you are making is not made.
I am curious, have you ever taken a basic college introduction to philosophy course, or even read a decent Introduction to Philosophy textbook?

Cheers,

Hugh
Note I'd spent 3 years full time [ave -6/7 hrs a day] reading, researching and analyzing the philosophy of Kant plus reading tons of other philosophical material covering all the notable Eastern and Western philosophers.
I wonder how much you have really learn about philosophy-proper if you have taken a basic college introduction to philosophy?

I stated your argument P is a non-starter

Argument P:
  • P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
    P2. Something exists.
    Therefore, 3. God exists.
Your P1 is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Note my argument why God must imperatively have the quality of absolute perfection.
P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect as per the OP.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests