New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.


Why God must be absolutely Perfect

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [major types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God conceived via pure reason [Kantian] and Metaphysics.

It is impossible for God to exist as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

Argument for P2
1. What is real must be conditioned upon a specific human empirically based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK], e.g. the Scientific FSK.
2. Absolute Perfection is a thought of an absolute unconditioned which is faith-based, thus not 1.
3. Therefore, from the perspective of a human conditioned FSK, it is impossible for absolute Perfection to be real.

Validation:

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

• ChatGpt:
  In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Re: conditioned nature of reality, I have addressed that in many threads in this forum.

Note:
The next 3 posts below are critical to the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Exist:
Existence [is] is not a predicate. "IS" is merely a copula joining a subject to a predicate.
As such what exists must be Conditioned to what is real, i.e. a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

2. Reality:
What is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible, reliable and objective at present is the human and empirically-based Scientific-FSK as the standard at 100.
The lesser credible and objective FSKs are, e.g. the theistic FSK based on faith is merely 0.001 of the standard.

Reality is all-there-is, 'all' includes all person[s] in existence.
What is real is Empirical Realism [Kantian aka Transcendental Idealism] which is in contrast to Philosophical Realism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
"Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views."
As such what is real must be empirically verifiable and justifiable plus supported by the finest philosophical reasonings.

3. GOD:
My reference to GOD is this:
"In monotheistic thought, GOD is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith.
GOD is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.
GOD is most often held to be incorporeal, with said characteristic being related to conceptions of transcendence or immanence." WIKI

God in this case is a personal God and including the panentheistic God.
God in this case is general claimed to be absolutely perfect, e.g. Descartes and the like, for no theists would accept an imperfect God that is inferior to another.

ETA:
This OP do not cover minor gods [nb: small 'god'], e.g. the various Greek, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, pagan, and other gods which by default are not claimed to be perfect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
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.

Perfect:
Note the relevant meaning for 'perfect' is;
d : ABSOLUTE, UNEQUIVOCAL
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
When I used the term 'absolute perfect' is a double enforcement to the meaning of 'perfection.

Absolute:
- a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

In philosophy (often specifically metaphysics), the absolute, in most common usage, is a perfect, self-sufficient reality that depends upon nothing external to itself.[1] In theology, the term is also used to designate the supreme being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

My focus is in this OP is mainly focussed on the Christian God [as in Gospels, not OT] and Islamic God in the Quran which is believed by almost 5 billion of people around the world.

• The Muslims are unanimously agreed in their belief that Allah, may He be exalted, is possessed of the utmost perfection and that He is above all shortcomings, no matter how small or insignificant. All the Muslim scholars have ascribed absolute perfection to Allah, may He be exalted,
  https://islamqa.info/en/answers/247961/ ... ortcomings

• For Christians,
  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  NIV

Many Christians and Muslims do not bother with the details of their God, but as contractually obligated, they have to abide by the terms of the contract within their holy book. Ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.

However, I don't believe any typical Christian will accept the Islamic God as claim in their Quran to be absolutely perfect, is greater than the Christian God.
As such, when pushed, Christians will resort to an absolute perfect God which is not an issue at all, but at least generate confidence and security for themselves.

[Iwannaplato]

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
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.

And yet many gods and even versions of God are presented by theists as less than or perhaps better put other than absolutely perfect. This is oevious in pagan religions. In the Chritianity we have a deity that doubts (even himself), get's pissed off, has to test to find out stuff and so on.

Yes, it's possible that if one has a not absolutely perfect God, other theists might say that their God is better.

But that doesn't mean that theist therefore must consider their deity absolutely perfect. Yes, some theists, perhaps many will say this, certainly in the theism that have decided to try to eradicate other religions (not a coincidence there), but really scripture points to not perfect deities AND is poetic.

It's like saying that when one writes poetry to a lover one actually means that in some scientific, mathematical way, the lover is more beautiful than the Pacific ocean or the Sun The poetry is an expression of feeling.

Scripture presents a complex deity, at least in the Abrahamic religions.

So, again, VA, you are treating a contingent human possibility: some theists might say other theists' deity isn't as good as theirs and some part of a deduction that shows that God must be presented as absolutely perfect. And likely with all the omni-characteristics which were the fetish of some medieval theologians.

But 1) in reality, this is not true: many theists are not presenting this way and 2) scripture does not present the deity this way. 3) you're confusing a possible interaction between theists and somehow a necessary criterion for someone's version of the deity. That's not deduction. That's you making up rules.

That's a non-theist telling theists what they must believe....
so that your later conclusions seem more logical.

The second confusion is that you are using what people believe (incorrectly) to prove that something cannot exist.
Your proof doesn't even approach demonstrating that, say, an entity vastly different, vastly more powerful and intelligent, to degrees where we really can't understand what the limits are on these things,
but not absolutely perfect
not omni-anything in the theologian's mathematical sense
exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'god' is a very loose term.
There are probably many thousands of gods out there, i.e. the Greek gods, various pagan gods, Hindu gods, Chinese God, Middle-Eastern gods, etc. These has no relevance to the OP.

I am very specific which God the OP is referring to, as stated above, i.e.

3. GOD:
My reference to GOD is this:
"In monotheistic thought, GOD is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith.
GOD is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.
GOD is most often held to be incorporeal, with said characteristic being related to conceptions of transcendence or immanence." WIKI
God in this case is a personal God, thus cover the panentheistic God.

My focus is thus mainly on the Christian God [as in Gospels, not OT] and Islamic God in the Quran which is believed by almost 5 billion of people around the world.

• The Muslims are unanimously agreed in their belief that Allah, may He be exalted, is possessed of the utmost perfection and that He is above all shortcomings, no matter how small or insignificant. All the Muslim scholars have ascribed absolute perfection to Allah, may He be exalted,
  https://islamqa.info/en/answers/247961/ ... ortcomings

• For Christians,
  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  NIV

Many Christians and Muslims do not bother with the details of their God, but as contractually obligated, they have to abide by the terms of the contract within their holy book. Ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.

However, I don't believe any typical Christian will accept the Islamic God as claim to be absolutely perfect is greater than the Christian God.
As such, when pushed, Christians will resort to an absolute perfect God which is not an issue at all, but at least generate confidence and security for themselves.

Certain Hindus believe their God is perfect.

[Atla]

You still can't prove a negative. God may have all the omni-whatever attributes, because he's beyond human logic, because magic.

Actually I think, your negative noumenon philosophy could turn Islam into the world's leading religion, and then major wars could follow. There are so many atheists in the Christian world because the best way to get rid of God is to posit the real dual-object noumenon, and then notice that while science can find tables and cats, it can't find God and Santa in the external world.

Taking away this sanity check, I think Islam could outgrow the competition under the Quran-FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

However, I don't believe any typical Christian will accept the Islamic God as claim to be absolutely perfect is greater than the Christian God.

So what? That doesn't mean there isn't some vastly powerful deity. How humans behave in their competitive jousting over 'their' deity is not some ontological rule about the universe. You can't have a deity because some/many/most theists will want to think their deity is the best, so they will keep making their deity more perfect so no other deity can be presented as better. That makes no sense.

It's a category error.

No, your girlfriend cannot exist because you think she's perfect and more beautiful than any other girlfriend. No one can have a girlfriend because many people want their girlfriend to be the most perfectly beautiful. And no woman can be absolutely perfectly beautiful.

One can argue that they are positing a kind of greatness that cannot be. That argument could work. But that doesn't mean their girlfriend or their deity does not exist.

And if the response is 'there's no evidence for a deity' suddenly, this is sidestepping the problem with THAT SPECIFIC argument.

[seeds]

• iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP is applicable to those who claimed their God must be of absolute perfect or necessary have to have such a claim, e.g. Muslims and the Christians which comprised of approximately 5 billion out of nearly >7 billion theists, i.e. 71% which is sufficient to eliminate the critical mass for theism and other theistic beliefs will eventually follow suit.

For those who are not within the above categories and yet claim their God exists as real, there are other arguments against their existence elsewhere.
Arguments against the existence of God or gods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence ... od_or_gods

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

• iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to point out to you the following before it finally sinks in...

If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.

Again, your thread premise is nothing more than a strawman that you have built out of the hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism.
_______

Note your strawman.
I stated
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
The critical word here is 'real' as defined in the OP above.

The onus in on you to prove your god is real, which I argued is impossible.

Why you are driven to believe in something that is illusory beyond realness is the cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.

[Harbal]

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.

Did you make this up yourself?

iii. For theists [all types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

How do you know that there aren't some theists who believe in a less than perfect God, and find that adequate to soothe their cognitive dissonance? And what if it didn't soothe their cognitive dissonance; what difference would that make to whether such a God existed or not?

For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real

No, it is absolutely possible to believe in a God that isn't perfect.

But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

I'm sure it is, but you can't make an argument for that without defining what perfection would be. Even if it were only theoretical perfection, how could it even be said what that would amount to?

I'm no expert on logic, but even I can see that your so called argument is rubbish.

[Harbal]

I think Islam could outgrow the competition under the Quran-FSK.

Anything is possible if you have the right FSK.

[Age]

But God is real. As I have already proved irrefutably True.