surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 5:25 am
God does not have to be perfect but merely the greatest possible being that can actually exist in reality.
Perfection like omnipotence and omniscience are arbitrary characteristics given to him by his believers
For they only limit him by their imagination when in actual fact any being has to be restricted by what is empirically possible
A pantheist God for example could exist because such a being would be the Universe so its existence would not be a problem
As usual there are a range of different meaning for the word 'perfect'.
In this case the following meaning is applicable to P1 in the argument;
- Perfect = unqualified; absolute: [i'll add] totally unconditional
Pantheists will usually claim their God is Absolute,
- According to Glyn Richards, the early texts of Hinduism state that the Brahman or the nondual Brahman–Atman is the Absolute.
If you claim your God is empirically possible, I have no issue with that as long as it is qualified as such.
Then you have to list down what empirical qualities your God has.
Since you are claiming your God is only a possibility, then it can only be a speculation and not a real existing God.
For example I can speculate there is a human-liked
entity which is billion times more powerful than humans [or any other empirical being one can imagine] and it is existing in a planet
1000 light years
This speculation is an empirical possibility [cannot be denied] because all the characteristic of this alien are empirical [bolded above].
But this is only a speculation until actual empirical evidence of such a being is produced for verification and confirmation.
Theists in the meantime claim their Perfect
God exists as real to the extend of listening and answering their prayers while at the same time creating and controlling universes. Such a God, I argued, is an impossibility to exists as real empirically and philosophically.