Imagination and God

[Eodnhoj7]

Creation is observable, as a reflection of all. Imagination, using images from memory and thought, is the approximation of the source where being is grasped beyond the realm of the senses by using sensory material.

To imagine is to give image thus a process of defintion occurs.

God, as an actuality, is subject to continual definition and redefinition thus is always simultaneously defined and undefined at the same time. God is not limited to definition, neither limited by undefinition.

To argue either extreme, definition or undefinition of God, is to fall into a contradiction. Idolization of definition leads to a false containment of God through reason; idolizatiom of obscurity leads to a false inability to relate to the source.

Imagination, as the giving of image, is a source of definition by nature, as a source of definition it is a form of logic.

Logic is the manifestation of God, as logic is definitive thus creative by nature. Creation is definition.

To say logic is applied to fit the assertion of God, is to set an assertion and applying logic to meet that assertion; thus a contradiction in premise occurs where the premise is self negated by it's own assumption.

To apply an assertion to fit a logic of God, is to set a logic and applying assertions to meet that logic; thus a contradiction in form occurs where the form is self negated by it's own logic.

God is thus defined and undefined by the manifestation of assertions and logic that loop between the two as variations of the other. God is both assumed and logical, where as assumed is defined "as is" and where logical is a process of definition as undefined.

Under these terms any defintion of God can be represented under a symbol of a circle, as an intrinsically empty definition, and a cross, as an intrinsically synthetic assumption. This self referential loop and synthetic continuums reflects the basic forms and functions of God being reasoned through imaginative means where a symbol acts as an approximation of the source.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Imagination of a thing can only happened if it can be imaged.
To be imaged it must be empirically possible.
I can imagine an apple because apples exist empirically.
I can imagine a unicorn, i.e. horse with one horn in its forehead because a horse and a horn can be verified empirically.

If your god is that bearded man in the sky, yes such a god can be imagined.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a bearded man in the sky for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

If your God is that giant monkey God in space or somewhere, yes, such a monkey god can be imagined in the image of a type of monkey.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a moneky in the space or from anywhere for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

But for the Abrahamic religion, God is monotheistic and claimed to be perfect than which no greater perfection can exist, i.e. absolute perfection.

Absolute perfection is impossible to be empirical.
Thus such an absolute perfect God can only be symbolized in words [statements] but not within empirical possibilities.
Therefore an absolute perfect God in this case cannot be imagined at all in any way.
Such a god is like a square-circle which is a contradiction and thus a non-starter for consideration to be imagined.

[attofishpi]

Imagination of a thing can only happened if it can be imaged.
To be imaged it must be empirically possible.

Just what R U smoking exactly? I can think of a shitload of stuff that cannot be empirically PLAUSIBLE.

I can imagine an apple because apples exist empirically.
I can imagine a unicorn, i.e. horse with one horn in its forehead because a horse and a horn can be verified empirically.

If your god is that bearded man in the sky, yes such a god can be imagined.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a bearded man in the sky for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

If your God is that giant monkey God in space or somewhere, yes, such a monkey god can be imagined in the image of a type of monkey.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a moneky in the space or from anywhere for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

But for the Abrahamic religion, God is monotheistic and claimed to be perfect than which no greater perfection can exist, i.e. absolute perfection.

Absolute perfection is impossible to be empirical.
Thus such an absolute perfect God can only be symbolized in words [statements] but not within empirical possibilities.
Therefore an absolute perfect God in this case cannot be imagined at all in any way.
Such a god is like a square-circle which is a contradiction and thus a non-starter for consideration to be imagined.

Define PERFECTION.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Imagination of a thing can only happened if it can be imaged.
To be imaged it must be empirically possible.

Just what R U smoking exactly? I can think of a shitload of stuff that cannot be empirically PLAUSIBLE.

Show me what is not empirically plausible and can be imagined or imaged directly.
What is not empirically based can be thought or reasoned but not imagined which involved the senses [empirical].

I can imagine an apple because apples exist empirically.
I can imagine a unicorn, i.e. horse with one horn in its forehead because a horse and a horn can be verified empirically.

If your god is that bearded man in the sky, yes such a god can be imagined.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a bearded man in the sky for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

If your God is that giant monkey God in space or somewhere, yes, such a monkey god can be imagined in the image of a type of monkey.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a moneky in the space or from anywhere for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

But for the Abrahamic religion, God is monotheistic and claimed to be perfect than which no greater perfection can exist, i.e. absolute perfection.

Absolute perfection is impossible to be empirical.
Thus such an absolute perfect God can only be symbolized in words [statements] but not within empirical possibilities.
Therefore an absolute perfect God in this case cannot be imagined at all in any way.
Such a god is like a square-circle which is a contradiction and thus a non-starter for consideration to be imagined.

Define PERFECTION.

See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect

Perfection is possible relatively within a system, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 within an objective test, perfect score in gymnastic, diving, archery, etc.

Note I am referring to absolute perfection as the attribute of God.
What is absolute perfection with God is not conditioned upon any system, thus it is an empirical impossibility.

[attofishpi]

Imagination of a thing can only happened if it can be imaged.
To be imaged it must be empirically possible.

Just what R U smoking exactly? I can think of a shitload of stuff that cannot be empirically PLAUSIBLE.

Show me what is not empirically plausible and can be imagined or imaged directly.
What is not empirically based can be thought or reasoned but not imagined which involved the senses [empirical].

Ok so you are moving the goal posts. It's one thing to be empiriacly plausible and quite another to be beyond comprehension of the senses.

I can imagine an apple because apples exist empirically.
I can imagine a unicorn, i.e. horse with one horn in its forehead because a horse and a horn can be verified empirically.

If your god is that bearded man in the sky, yes such a god can be imagined.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a bearded man in the sky for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

If your God is that giant monkey God in space or somewhere, yes, such a monkey god can be imagined in the image of a type of monkey.
If that is the case, bring the empirical evidence of such a moneky in the space or from anywhere for verification at the minimum on the scientific basis.

But for the Abrahamic religion, God is monotheistic and claimed to be perfect than which no greater perfection can exist, i.e. absolute perfection.

Absolute perfection is impossible to be empirical.
Thus such an absolute perfect God can only be symbolized in words [statements] but not within empirical possibilities.
Therefore an absolute perfect God in this case cannot be imagined at all in any way.
Such a god is like a square-circle which is a contradiction and thus a non-starter for consideration to be imagined.

Define PERFECTION.

See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect

Perfection is possible relatively within a system, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 within an objective test, perfect score in gymnastic, diving, archery, etc.

Note I am referring to absolute perfection as the attribute of God.
What is absolute perfection with God is not conditioned upon any system, thus it is an empirical impossibility.

But you insisted on some sort of perfection that a God would entail? What perfection would that be?

[Dontaskme]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just what R U smoking exactly? I can think of a shitload of stuff that cannot be empirically PLAUSIBLE.

Show me what is not empirically plausible and can be imagined or imaged directly.
What is not empirically based can be thought or reasoned but not imagined which involved the senses [empirical].

Ok so you are moving the goal posts. It's one thing to be empiriacly plausible and quite another to be beyond comprehension of the senses.

Do you understand what is fundamentally empirical??

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Define PERFECTION.

See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect

Perfection is possible relatively within a system, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 within an objective test, perfect score in gymnastic, diving, archery, etc.

Note I am referring to absolute perfection as the attribute of God.
What is absolute perfection with God is not conditioned upon any system, thus it is an empirical impossibility.

But you insisted on some sort of perfection that a God would entail? What perfection would that be?

It is not me who is insisting God must be absolute perfect.

The higher echelons and theistic thinkers claim their ultimate God must be supremely or absolutely perfect, i.e. supremely perfect or absolutely perfect God to ensure there is no compromise with God.

Note Descartes for example;

Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:

But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God?

Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number.

And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.

— Descartes, (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... _Descartes

One of the logic of ending with a claim of a supreme God or absolutely absolute God is to ensure one's absolutely perfect God will not have its ass kicked by another greater absolute perfect God.

[attofishpi]

Show me what is not empirically plausible and can be imagined or imaged directly.
What is not empirically based can be thought or reasoned but not imagined which involved the senses [empirical].

Ok so you are moving the goal posts. It's one thing to be empiriacly plausible and quite another to be beyond comprehension of the senses.

Do you understand what is fundamentally empirical??

Of course. How else could we harvest buttons?

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect

Perfection is possible relatively within a system, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 within an objective test, perfect score in gymnastic, diving, archery, etc.

Note I am referring to absolute perfection as the attribute of God.
What is absolute perfection with God is not conditioned upon any system, thus it is an empirical impossibility.

But you insisted on some sort of perfection that a God would entail? What perfection would that be?

It is not me who is insisting God must be absolute perfect.

The higher echelons and theistic thinkers claim their ultimate God must be supremely or absolutely perfect, i.e. supremely perfect or absolutely perfect God to ensure there is no compromise with God.

Note Descartes for example;

Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:

But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God?

Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number.

And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.

— Descartes, (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... _Descartes

One of the logic of ending with a claim of a supreme God or absolutely absolute God is to ensure one's absolutely perfect God will not have its ass kicked by another greater absolute perfect God.

So perfection means strength to you? Again, define what YOU mean by asserting God is perfect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not me who is insisting God must be absolute perfect.

The higher echelons and theistic thinkers claim their ultimate God must be supremely or absolutely perfect, i.e. supremely perfect or absolutely perfect God to ensure there is no compromise with God.

Note Descartes for example;

Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:

But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God?

Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number.

And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.

— Descartes, (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologic ... _Descartes

One of the logic of ending with a claim of a supreme God or absolutely absolute God is to ensure one's absolutely perfect God will not have its ass kicked by another greater absolute perfect God.

So perfection means strength to you? Again, define what YOU mean by asserting God is perfect.

Where did I state perfection only mean strength?
I did not imply strength but power [omnipotence] as an example above.

Don't you know the ultimate God is attributed with omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent omni-benevolent and omni-whatever+?
God is claimed to absolutely perfect with the above attributes so that God is second-to-none.

Your God has to be absolutely-perfect [unconditionally complete] with say omniscient, otherwise other theists like Islamist will claim your God is ignorant and stupid relative to their absolutely perfect all-knowing greatest-of-all Allah.
In the Quran, Allah by implication condemned the Christian God as stupid and inferior in a way, because the Christian God had a biological son of the Trinity.

This is why the Christians [more knowledgeable ones like Descartes' et al] had to claim the Christian God is of absolutely perfection and second-to-none, so no other theists' God can kick the ass of the Christian God.

[attofishpi]

One of the logic of ending with a claim of a supreme God or absolutely absolute God is to ensure one's absolutely perfect God will not have its ass kicked by another greater absolute perfect God.

So perfection means strength to you? Again, define what YOU mean by asserting God is perfect.

Where did I state perfection only mean strength?
I did not imply strength but power [omnipotence] as an example above.

But you stated that a perfect God would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God?

Exactly WHAT R U IMPLYING by suggesting PERFECTION?

Don't you know the ultimate God is attributed with omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent omni-benevolent and omni-whatever+?
God is claimed to absolutely perfect with the above attributes so that God is second-to-none.

This ridiculous bile is perpetuated by idiots upon this forum. The 'omni' of God that I have deciphered from 23yrs of 'sussing it out' is that God is omnipotent and omnipresent but I would retract from the consideration of omniscient since that would require knowing ALL of the future, and beyond realising that God would be bored within its own existence if that were true, it would also make free will a pile of bollocks and render the reason for the 10 commandments pointless.

Your God has to be absolutely-perfect [unconditionally complete] with say omniscient, otherwise other theists like Islamist will claim your God is ignorant and stupid relative to their absolutely perfect all-knowing greatest-of-all Allah.
In the Quran, Allah by implication condemned the Christian God as stupid and inferior in a way, because the Christian God had a biological son of the Trinity.

This is why the Christians [more knowledgeable ones like Descartes' et al] had to claim the Christian God is of absolutely perfection and second-to-none, so no other theists' God can kick the ass of the Christian God.

What the precisely are you talking about? You still have not defined what would be a 'perfection' of God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So perfection means strength to you? Again, define what YOU mean by asserting God is perfect.

Where did I state perfection only mean strength?
I did not imply strength but power [omnipotence] as an example above.

But you stated that a perfect God would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God?

Exactly WHAT R U IMPLYING by suggesting PERFECTION?

Anyone can claim their God to be perfect in accordance to their interpretation.
In this case, their perfection could mean merely empirical perfection.
In this case, such an empirical perfect God would would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God.

This is why a theist must claim his God is absolutely-perfect, i.e. second-to-none and not merely perfect, which could mean empirically and relatively perfect.

Don't you know the ultimate God is attributed with omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent omni-benevolent and omni-whatever+?
God is claimed to absolutely perfect with the above attributes so that God is second-to-none.

This ridiculous bile is perpetuated by idiots upon this forum. The 'omni' of God that I have deciphered from 23yrs of 'sussing it out' is that God is omnipotent and omnipresent but I would retract from the consideration of omniscient since that would require knowing ALL of the future, and beyond realising that God would be bored within its own existence if that were true, it would also make free will a pile of bollocks and render the reason for the 10 commandments pointless.

WHO ARE YOU - an inferior gnat to judge God for others.
You can do it for yourself with theological low self-esteem.
If you don't claim your God to be omniscient, then your God could be [logically] ignorant and stupid relatively to another God which is omniscient and absolutely-perfect.

How can you [disrepectfully] allow your God to be accused of being ignorant and stupid?
As such it would be wiser to keep your human-gnat opinions to yourself and go along with what is logically sound.

Your God has to be absolutely-perfect [unconditionally complete] with say omniscient, otherwise other theists like Islamist will claim your God is ignorant and stupid relative to their absolutely perfect all-knowing greatest-of-all Allah.
In the Quran, Allah by implication condemned the Christian God as stupid and inferior in a way, because the Christian God had a biological son of the Trinity.

This is why the Christians [more knowledgeable ones like Descartes' et al] had to claim the Christian God is of absolutely perfection and second-to-none, so no other theists' God can kick the ass of the Christian God.

What the precisely are you talking about? You still have not defined what would be a 'perfection' of God?

I have already indicated the dictionary meaning of 'perfection' did you read that?
Basically, the absolute-perfection of God meant such a God is second-to-one on all its positive attributes.
As such whatever attribute is claimed for your God, your God is second-to-none in term of that attribute.

Another point is, if a theist were to allow any chink in their claim of absolute-perfection, it may effect their confidence in their God of granting them eternal life and salvation.
The claim of absolute-perfection is merely a thought and claim, i.e. it is easy and free so why not take it [Pascal Wager with nothing to lose] and have the feeling of 100% confidence they will have eternal life and salvation.

[attofishpi]

Where did I state perfection only mean strength?
I did not imply strength but power [omnipotence] as an example above.

But you stated that a perfect God would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God?

Exactly WHAT R U IMPLYING by suggesting PERFECTION?

Anyone can claim their God to be perfect in accordance to their interpretation.
In this case, their perfection could mean merely empirical perfection.
In this case, such an empirical perfect God would would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God.

This is why a theist must claim his God is absolutely-perfect, i.e. second-to-none and not merely perfect, which could mean empirically and relatively perfect.

I'm still absolutely clueless about what you mean by a perfection where God is concerned so you really R just beating a drum of total bollocks to me.

Don't you know the ultimate God is attributed with omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent omni-benevolent and omni-whatever+?
God is claimed to absolutely perfect with the above attributes so that God is second-to-none.

This ridiculous bile is perpetuated by idiots upon this forum. The 'omni' of God that I have deciphered from 23yrs of 'sussing it out' is that God is omnipotent and omnipresent but I would retract from the consideration of omniscient since that would require knowing ALL of the future, and beyond realising that God would be bored within its own existence if that were true, it would also make free will a pile of bollocks and render the reason for the 10 commandments pointless.

WHO ARE YOU - an inferior gnat to judge God for others.

No, just someone far more competent at rational comprehension of - God.

You can do it for yourself with theological low self-esteem.
If you don't claim your God to be omniscient, then your God could be [logically] ignorant and stupid relatively to another God which is omniscient and absolutely-perfect.

How can you [disrepectfully] allow your God to be accused of being ignorant and stupid?

Err, R U really that stupid that you don't real eyes it is U that is accusing God of being ignorant and stupid? (courtesy of your poorly thought out reasoning in a vain attempt to support your obvious lack of faith in atheism.)

As such it would be wiser to keep your human-gnat opinions to yourself and go along with what is logically sound.

Hang on - you R the one that keeps stating to me that this is a philosophy forum and that one should be open to each others interrogations - you didn't state it as eloquently as that, but at least I am attempting not to call you a stupid kunt.

Your God has to be absolutely-perfect [unconditionally complete] with say omniscient, otherwise other theists like Islamist will claim your God is ignorant and stupid relative to their absolutely perfect all-knowing greatest-of-all Allah.
In the Quran, Allah by implication condemned the Christian God as stupid and inferior in a way, because the Christian God had a biological son of the Trinity.

This is why the Christians [more knowledgeable ones like Descartes' et al] had to claim the Christian God is of absolutely perfection and second-to-none, so no other theists' God can kick the ass of the Christian God.

What the precisely are you talking about? You still have not defined what would be a 'perfection' of God?

I have already indicated the dictionary meaning of 'perfection' did you read that?

The perfection of an apple could be agreed upon - but you still have not defined what (to U) would make God 'perfect'.

Basically, the absolute-perfection of God meant such a God is second-to-one on all its positive attributes.
As such whatever attribute is claimed for your God, your God is second-to-none in term of that attribute.

Mmm nah. God stated he is a jealous God - DO U UNDER_STAND Y?

Another point is, if a theist were to allow any chink in their claim of absolute-perfection, it may effect their confidence in their God of granting them eternal life and salvation.
The claim of absolute-perfection is merely a thought and claim, i.e. it is easy and free so why not take it [Pascal Wager with nothing to lose] and have the feeling of 100% confidence they will have eternal life and salvation.

What R U talking about. I am not a theist and I am not claiming my gnosis of God requires any belief that IT MUST BE PERFECT - whatever the fuck U actually mean by that term.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you stated that a perfect God would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God?

Exactly WHAT R U IMPLYING by suggesting PERFECTION?

Anyone can claim their God to be perfect in accordance to their interpretation.
In this case, their perfection could mean merely empirical perfection.
In this case, such an empirical perfect God would would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God.

This is why a theist must claim his God is absolutely-perfect, i.e. second-to-none and not merely perfect, which could mean empirically and relatively perfect.

I'm still absolutely clueless about what you mean by a perfection where God is concerned so you really R just beating a drum of total bollocks to me.

This ridiculous bile is perpetuated by idiots upon this forum. The 'omni' of God that I have deciphered from 23yrs of 'sussing it out' is that God is omnipotent and omnipresent but I would retract from the consideration of omniscient since that would require knowing ALL of the future, and beyond realising that God would be bored within its own existence if that were true, it would also make free will a pile of bollocks and render the reason for the 10 commandments pointless.

WHO ARE YOU - an inferior gnat to judge God for others.

No, just someone far more competent at rational comprehension of - God.

You can do it for yourself with theological low self-esteem.
If you don't claim your God to be omniscient, then your God could be [logically] ignorant and stupid relatively to another God which is omniscient and absolutely-perfect.

How can you [disrepectfully] allow your God to be accused of being ignorant and stupid?

Err, R U really that stupid that you don't real eyes it is U that is accusing God of being ignorant and stupid? (courtesy of your poorly thought out reasoning in a vain attempt to support your obvious lack of faith in atheism.)

As such it would be wiser to keep your human-gnat opinions to yourself and go along with what is logically sound.

Hang on - you R the one that keeps stating to me that this is a philosophy forum and that one should be open to each others interrogations - you didn't state it as eloquently as that, but at least I am attempting not to call you a stupid kunt.

What the precisely are you talking about? You still have not defined what would be a 'perfection' of God?

I have already indicated the dictionary meaning of 'perfection' did you read that?

The perfection of an apple could be agreed upon - but you still have not defined what (to U) would make God 'perfect'.

Basically, the absolute-perfection of God meant such a God is second-to-one on all its positive attributes.
As such whatever attribute is claimed for your God, your God is second-to-none in term of that attribute.

Mmm nah. God stated he is a jealous God - DO U UNDER_STAND Y?

Another point is, if a theist were to allow any chink in their claim of absolute-perfection, it may effect their confidence in their God of granting them eternal life and salvation.
The claim of absolute-perfection is merely a thought and claim, i.e. it is easy and free so why not take it [Pascal Wager with nothing to lose] and have the feeling of 100% confidence they will have eternal life and salvation.

What R U talking about. I am not a theist and I am not claiming my gnosis of God requires any belief that IT MUST BE PERFECT - whatever the fuck U actually mean by that term.

Relative to this forum 'that God must be Perfect' is kindergarten material.
It is a shame you do not understand it.

Just google 'God is perfect' and then get back to the discussion.

Here is one among the thousands or per google - "About 10,300,000 results (0.70 seconds)"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... t_1294.cfm

[osgart]

I have tried to imagine what a perfect God might be like. Charity to the charitable, grace and mercy to those who have not strayed too far, Punishment toward hardened criminals, and vengeance toward those who commit crimes against humanity.

I also see no evidence of the God I have envisioned.

A perfect God would be involved in human affairs and leave nothing to doubt without explanation. A perfect God would establish law, and judgment, and enforce it.

That puts all these God's of religion to a huge shame.

Humans can't even establish the true nature of existence. Lesser God's need apply for the Earth job.

[attofishpi]

Anyone can claim their God to be perfect in accordance to their interpretation.
In this case, their perfection could mean merely empirical perfection.
In this case, such an empirical perfect God would would have it's ass kicked by a GREATER absolutely perfect God.

This is why a theist must claim his God is absolutely-perfect, i.e. second-to-none and not merely perfect, which could mean empirically and relatively perfect.

I'm still absolutely clueless about what you mean by a perfection where God is concerned so you really R just beating a drum of total bollocks to me.

WHO ARE YOU - an inferior gnat to judge God for others.

No, just someone far more competent at rational comprehension of - God.

You can do it for yourself with theological low self-esteem.
If you don't claim your God to be omniscient, then your God could be [logically] ignorant and stupid relatively to another God which is omniscient and absolutely-perfect.

How can you [disrepectfully] allow your God to be accused of being ignorant and stupid?

Err, R U really that stupid that you don't real eyes it is U that is accusing God of being ignorant and stupid? (courtesy of your poorly thought out reasoning in a vain attempt to support your obvious lack of faith in atheism.)

As such it would be wiser to keep your human-gnat opinions to yourself and go along with what is logically sound.

Hang on - you R the one that keeps stating to me that this is a philosophy forum and that one should be open to each others interrogations - you didn't state it as eloquently as that, but at least I am attempting not to call you a stupid kunt.

I have already indicated the dictionary meaning of 'perfection' did you read that?

The perfection of an apple could be agreed upon - but you still have not defined what (to U) would make God 'perfect'.

Basically, the absolute-perfection of God meant such a God is second-to-one on all its positive attributes.
As such whatever attribute is claimed for your God, your God is second-to-none in term of that attribute.

Mmm nah. God stated he is a jealous God - DO U UNDER_STAND Y?

Another point is, if a theist were to allow any chink in their claim of absolute-perfection, it may effect their confidence in their God of granting them eternal life and salvation.
The claim of absolute-perfection is merely a thought and claim, i.e. it is easy and free so why not take it [Pascal Wager with nothing to lose] and have the feeling of 100% confidence they will have eternal life and salvation.

What R U talking about. I am not a theist and I am not claiming my gnosis of God requires any belief that IT MUST BE PERFECT - whatever the fuck U actually mean by that term.

Relative to this forum 'that God must be Perfect' is kindergarten material.
It is a shame you do not understand it.

So.
Beyond the obvious statement that your intelligence is on par with those within the kindergarten you mentioned, when R U actually going to explain precisely what YOUR definition is of a 'perfect' God?