New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[bahman]

Note my improved argument re why god is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument:

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 [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.

Actually, I agree with you. But to complete your proof you need to show that P2 is correct!

I have defined what is real above;

• 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.

I simply do not agree with this.

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.[/list]

I don't agree with this either.

Note whatever is claimed to be absolute perfect like a perfect circle, square, triangle, other geometric shapes, perfect pure water, pure gold, CANNOT exists as real [as defined above] at all.

A perfect circle may not exist. But that does not tell that absolute perfect does not exist.

Such perfect merely exist as perfect things in term of numbers and the measurements of the ideals.

Take any supposedly perfect circle, when expanded a million times, it will be exposed with an irregular perimeter of molecules, atoms, quarks and particles. There will be no diameter or radius which is consistent throughout the circle.
Therefore there is no perfect circle that is real [as defined]; it is the same for all other things that are claimed as absolutely real.

The absolute perfection, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent as claimed for a God cannot exist as real [as defined above].

Thus my P2 is justified
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

Thus you fail to justify P2.

[seeds]

absolute perfection....cannot exist as real

Nonsense!

Your whole approach to philosophy and debate is an absolute "perfect" example of the sentiment expressed in the following quote which proclaims that there are...



And yes, that particular assessment of your persona has been tested over and over again by many different people in this forum and it always yields the same (as in scientifically repeatable) results.

You are the absolute "perfect" example of a person whom Neil Degrasse Tyson was referring to in the following quote:

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

Indeed, you are the absolute "perfect" example of a person who is under the thrall of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

My goodness, V, the fact that you yourself embody "absolute perfection" in so many different ways, makes you a walking/talking refutation of the key (P2) premise of your syllogism.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

My goodness, V, the fact that you yourself embody "absolute perfection" in so many different ways, makes you a walking/talking refutation of the key (P2) premise of your syllogism.

Leaving aside the VA issue and just focusing on perfect and absolutely perfect, I think you are raising a good issue. Perfect is a value judgment. Unless we are talking about geometry and perhaps even then, perfect as a label is not enough information: perfect for what and for whom.

For example: There's a circle of oak trees where I sit in the park often with my wife. Each tree is perfect (for me, as company). I don't know what 'absolutely' adds to perfect, but sure, absolutely perfect. There might be other perfect trees for that companionship, but there is not a single flaw.

That's not the only problem with his argument. First he tells theists and non-theists alike what a God would have to be, so that his argument works or he thinks it does.

IOW because, as he argues, other theists might say that their God is better, God has to be perfect. This is conflating ontology with social strategies.

[seeds]

My goodness, V, the fact that you yourself embody "absolute perfection" in so many different ways, makes you a walking/talking refutation of the key (P2) premise of your syllogism.

Leaving aside the VA issue and just focusing on perfect and absolutely perfect, I think you are raising a good issue. Perfect is a value judgment. Unless we are talking about geometry and perhaps even then, perfect as a label is not enough information: perfect for what and for whom.

For example: There's a circle of oak trees where I sit in the park often with my wife. Each tree is perfect (for me, as company). I don't know what 'absolutely' adds to perfect, but sure, absolutely perfect. There might be other perfect trees for that companionship, but there is not a single flaw.

That's a good point, Iwannaplato, something of which the both of us can understand as being an obvious counter to VA's argument.

However, he will no doubt try to say that someone else will insist that a particular circle of willow trees in their park is "more perfect" than your circle of oak trees,...

...therefore - ipso facto - God is an impossibility to be real.

And that, I suggest, is an absolutely "perfect" example of the same sort of brazen non sequitur implicit in the lame syllogism that VA has spent years promoting and defending.

What he...

(being the absolute "perfect" example of insufferable human stubbornness)

...cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that if humans had never come into existence, and thus no concept of God had ever been formulated by any being on this planet (or anywhere else in this universe),...

...it still would not have any bearing on the issue of whether or not God exists as a "real" entity.

As it pertains to the issue of "perfection," the bottom line is that VA is launching his attacks from a fortress he has erected somewhere in the realm of Plato's Ideal Forms and has invested so much time and effort (and personal pride) in this farce that he can never admit to being wrong,...

...lest it crush his soul in the "cognitive dissonance of an existential crisis."
_______

[Iwannaplato]

However, he will no doubt try to say that someone else will insist that a particular circle of willow trees in their park is "more perfect" than your circle of oak trees,...

...therefore - ipso facto - God is an impossibility to be real.

Yes, the consequence of a motivation to compete with other groups and attribute a certain quality to a deity is conflated with necessary ontological rules.

It's a category error.

[Veritas Aequitas]

absolute perfection....cannot exist as real

Nonsense!

Your whole approach to philosophy and debate is an absolute "perfect" example of the sentiment expressed in the following quote which proclaims that there are...

And yes, that particular assessment of your persona has been tested over and over again by many different people in this forum and it always yields the same (as in scientifically repeatable) results.

You are the absolute "perfect" example of a person whom Neil Degrasse Tyson was referring to in the following quote:

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

Indeed, you are the absolute "perfect" example of a person who is under the thrall of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

My goodness, V, the fact that you yourself embody "absolute perfection" in so many different ways, makes you a walking/talking refutation of the key (P2) premise of your syllogism.
_______

Note I wrote above, repeat ..
viewtopic.php?p=647893#p647893

• 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.

The most you can label me is 'perfect' in the relative sense, but I don't accept your sort of perfection above.
I have achieved 'perfection' before like scoring 100/100 in objective tests, but that is relative perfection as conditioned within the objective test is set.

Example of God absolute perfection;

• In Meditation 5, Descartes’ argument for the existence of God looks something like this:
  1. My idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being.
  2. Existence is a perfection.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
  Link

In any discussion of God, the majority of of theists will claim [so easy] their God is absolutely perfect.
They [Abrahamic, especially Muslims] will claim their God is superior than yours and that your God is an inferior asshole.
To avoid your God being an inferior asshole, it is so easy to avoid your god being labelled an inferior asshole by claiming [so easy, just saying it] your God is absolutely perfect.
In that case, no theists who claimed their God is absolutely perfect can put down your or another's God is who is also absolutely perfect, i.e. God is a being than which no greater perfection can be conceived.

Are you insisting you will accept the condemnation of your God as an inferior asshole by other theists who claim their God is of absolute perfection?

It is very rational to claim your God is of absolute perfection to avoid your God being condemned as an inferior asshole or of worst vulgarities; it is just a belief and merely claiming [expressing it] so, there is no need for proofs to convince other theists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually, I agree with you. But to complete your proof you need to show that P2 is correct!

I have defined what is real above;

• 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.

I simply do not agree with this.

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.[/list]

I don't agree with this either.

Note whatever is claimed to be absolute perfect like a perfect circle, square, triangle, other geometric shapes, perfect pure water, pure gold, CANNOT exists as real [as defined above] at all.

A perfect circle may not exist. But that does not tell that absolute perfect does not exist.

Such perfect merely exist as perfect things in term of numbers and the measurements of the ideals.

Take any supposedly perfect circle, when expanded a million times, it will be exposed with an irregular perimeter of molecules, atoms, quarks and particles. There will be no diameter or radius which is consistent throughout the circle.
Therefore there is no perfect circle that is real [as defined]; it is the same for all other things that are claimed as absolutely real.

The absolute perfection, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent as claimed for a God cannot exist as real [as defined above].

Thus my P2 is justified
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

Thus you fail to justify P2.

You merely state 'I do not agree' to the above but give no justifications of why.
This request is critical.

Can you give me as idea how absolute perfection [as defined] is possible to be real [as defined]?

[Iwannaplato]

In any discussion of God, the majority of of theists will claim [so easy] their God is absolutely perfect.

And the fans of Lebron James will say that their hero is better than Michael Jordan. And if they exaggerate, as humans are wont to do, this has nothing to do with the skills or existence of either basketball player. This is a continued many-year-long caterory error.

They [Abrahamic, especially Muslims] will claim their God is superior than yours and that your God is an inferior asshole.

Even if this was a rule...same as above. Category error.

To avoid your God being an inferior asshole, it is so easy to avoid your god being labelled an inferior asshole by claiming [so easy, just saying it] your God is absolutely perfect.

So, notice...
a good strategy for one-upping other kinds of theists is being conflated with the ontology of the deity by VA.

In that case, no theists who claimed their God is absolutely perfect can put down your or another's God is who is also absolutely perfect, i.e. God is a being than which no greater perfection can be conceived.

So, notice...
a good strategy for one-upping other kinds of theists is being conflated with the ontology of the deity by VA.

Are you insisting you will accept the condemnation of your God as an inferior asshole by other theists who claim their God is of absolute perfection?

I'm insisting that how people strategize one-upping other theists bears not the slightest on the ontology of a deity.

It is very rational to claim your God is of absolute perfection to avoid your God being condemned as an inferior asshole or of worst vulgarities; it is just a belief and merely claiming [expressing it] so, there is no need for proofs to convince other theists.

Just as it is very rational to claim that an argument is doing something when it isn't. Saying that your God is absolutely perfect cannot then be taken as the only possible God.

Saying that your argument makes sense when it doesn't is a good strategy because if one admitted that the above is a category error, maybe other people will think, perhaps even you will think, there are more flaws in your position. Of course, this is not the case.

My dad can beat up your Dad.

Might be a great thing to say in arguments between two kids. They both say it. One is probably wrong.
Not everyone's dad can be the strongest.

But the dads exist. Their existence has nothing to do with the foibles of competitive humans.

There's no connection between the two realms.

And, of course, there are theists who do not play these games.

Just as most believers in evolution think it means survival of the fittest, which is skewed. Or would cast aside epigenetics and heresy.

It's a very weird ad populum argument that then leads to conclusions about

ONTOLOGY.

It doesn't even raise the feathers of a theist who thinks, for example, that there are many paths to God.

[Age]

I have defined what is real above;

• 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.

I simply do not agree with this.

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.[/list]

I don't agree with this either.

Note whatever is claimed to be absolute perfect like a perfect circle, square, triangle, other geometric shapes, perfect pure water, pure gold, CANNOT exists as real [as defined above] at all.

A perfect circle may not exist. But that does not tell that absolute perfect does not exist.

Such perfect merely exist as perfect things in term of numbers and the measurements of the ideals.

Take any supposedly perfect circle, when expanded a million times, it will be exposed with an irregular perimeter of molecules, atoms, quarks and particles. There will be no diameter or radius which is consistent throughout the circle.
Therefore there is no perfect circle that is real [as defined]; it is the same for all other things that are claimed as absolutely real.

The absolute perfection, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent as claimed for a God cannot exist as real [as defined above].

Thus my P2 is justified
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

Thus you fail to justify P2.

You merely state 'I do not agree' to the above but give no justifications of why.
This request is critical.

Can you give me as idea how absolute perfection [as defined] is possible to be real [as defined]?

LOL

I define some 'thing' as IMPOSSIBLE, to be real. So, now can you give me as an idea how this 'thing', as defined, is POSSIBLE to be real.

The ABSURDITY of 'this' here speaks for itself?

That is; I define God, for example. to be IMPOSSIBLE to be real. Therefore, for EVERY one ELSE God MUST ALSO be IMPOSSIBLE to be real.

The ONLY ones these people were FOOLING were "them" 'selves'.

[Age]

absolute perfection....cannot exist as real

Nonsense!

Your whole approach to philosophy and debate is an absolute "perfect" example of the sentiment expressed in the following quote which proclaims that there are...



And yes, that particular assessment of your persona has been tested over and over again by many different people in this forum and it always yields the same (as in scientifically repeatable) results.

VERY True.

You are the absolute "perfect" example of a person whom Neil Degrasse Tyson was referring to in the following quote:

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

What this quote is in regards to EXACTLY needs to be BROUGHT TO LIGHT and DISCUSSED FURTHER, for it to make True sense.

What was that human being even referring TO, EXACTLY?

Are you here suggesting that you KNOW, enough, about 'the subject' that is; the Fact that "veritas aequitas" is an absolute perfect example of one who is BLINDED and DEAFENED by its OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you KNOW that you are also wrong here?

Indeed, you are the absolute "perfect" example of a person who is under the thrall of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

My goodness, V, the fact that you yourself embody "absolute perfection" in so many different ways, makes you a walking/talking refutation of the key (P2) premise of your syllogism.
_______

Just the Universe, Itself, is LIVING PROOF AGAINST "veritas aequitas" OWN BELIEF here.

[Iwannaplato]

The category error, shorthand...
1 - When humans discuss their deities, they will be competitive and assert their God is best. This will lead to the way they talk about God including God's absolute perfection.
2 - God can't exist because he has to be absolutely perfect if he exists.

Shorter...
1 - Given theists competitiveness have to say God is X.
2 - God can't exist because God would have to be X.

And of course 1 isn't even true/universal in either case. But even if it were....confused argument.

[Atla]

Once the Book is done and published, I wonder how many atheists will be driven to theism, due to the sheer horror of seeing that a fellow atheist wrote the Book. The resulting existential crysis could be too much to bear without God's help to soothe the pain.

And other atheists could just accept the Book, and develop some kind of solipsism because of it. Then they could go on and feel special and chosen, as if the world was solely created for them. Created by some sort of powerful entity, perhaps. Perhaps by God. Actually, it all makes perfect sense now. All that evil and suffering of others - just an illusion, created by the perfect God, in order to teach me something valuable!

[Veritas Aequitas]

When someone claimed Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan there are real statistics to compare with in relation to their skills and real achievements.
Same with someone claiming their dad is better than another's dad, there is ultimately something physical to compare with where necessary.

As with God, there is nothing physical to show but merely based on beliefs and no real physical ontology, as such there is room for anyone to belief just about anything.
There is no real ontology in God to conflate with anything real because the ontology of God is merely a beliefs and is illusory.

Another point is the invention of God is tied to the soothing of one's subliminal pains from cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent innate existential crisis.
To ensure one is secured from the subliminal pains, it is so easy just to believe in an absolute perfect without the need for proofs.

The fact is such claims are already happening where Islam claim Allah is the greatest with absolute perfection and the Christians are doing the same with their ontological perfect God. This is a very natural phenomenon which has effected >5 billion theists.

There are those who claim their gods who are not absolute perfect, e.g. the Greek gods, pagan gods, eros, etc. and accept the limitations of such inferior gods.

However those who believe in a monotheistic God as creator of the Universe, they are likely to be sensitive to condemnations by other monotheists that their God is an inferior God. As such to counter such condemnations they have to claim their God is absolutely perfect.

There maybe SOME monotheists who would not be bothered when others condemn their God as inferior. They claim such condemnation do not affect their confidence in the ontology of their God.
But what is the real state of ontology of the belief of their God, it has to be either not perfect, or absolutely perfect, or simply 'no comments'.

The point is when one believe in a monotheistic God, it is likely the would claim God created the Universe. To ensure the Universe is not created shoddily, their God would have to be absolute perfect cater for whatever question to be thrown at them.

If they really do not have any comments at all, then the syllogism in the OP do not apply to them.
However they will face other counters that God does not exist based on other arguments against God existence.

There are many paths to the North Pole, but they all end up in only ONE North Pole.

[bahman]

I have defined what is real above;

• 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.

I simply do not agree with this.

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.[/list]

I don't agree with this either.

Note whatever is claimed to be absolute perfect like a perfect circle, square, triangle, other geometric shapes, perfect pure water, pure gold, CANNOT exists as real [as defined above] at all.

A perfect circle may not exist. But that does not tell that absolute perfect does not exist.

Such perfect merely exist as perfect things in term of numbers and the measurements of the ideals.

Take any supposedly perfect circle, when expanded a million times, it will be exposed with an irregular perimeter of molecules, atoms, quarks and particles. There will be no diameter or radius which is consistent throughout the circle.
Therefore there is no perfect circle that is real [as defined]; it is the same for all other things that are claimed as absolutely real.

The absolute perfection, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent as claimed for a God cannot exist as real [as defined above].

Thus my P2 is justified
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

Thus you fail to justify P2.

You merely state 'I do not agree' to the above but give no justifications of why.
This request is critical.

Can you give me as idea how absolute perfection [as defined] is possible to be real [as defined]?

That is you who should prove that the only viable option for knowing the truth is science.

[Iwannaplato]

When someone claimed Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan there are real statistics to compare with in relation to their skills and real achievements.
Same with someone claiming their dad is better than another's dad, there is ultimately something physical to compare with where necessary.

That was not the point. And it's much harder to compare statistics than we think. How do we compare the skills of the eras and opponents they faced.

But anyway the point was that the way fans speak
and the reality and the possibilities
are two different realms.

You cannot draw conclusions from how people speak because of their competitiveness and fears with the facts or possibilities of what they speak about. It's a category error.

The category error, shorthand...
1 - When humans discuss their deities, they will be competitive and assert their God is best. This will lead to the way they talk about God including God's absolute perfection.
2 - God can't exist because he has to be absolutely perfect if he exists.

Shorter...
1 - Given theists competitiveness they have to say God is X. ( something that a subset of theists do)
2 - God can't exist because God would have to be X. (conclusion about ontology)

And of course 1 isn't even true/universal in either case. But even if it were....confused argument.