It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Yes, "Pythagoras' theorem will forever be provable from classical Euclidean geometry"

As I have pointed out, your earlier claim on the matter was complete nonsense.

What are you talking about?
Show me the nonsense, like:

1+1=2 grounded on Arithmetical Rules.
VA claim 1+1=5
therefore VA's claim is nonsense according to Arithmetical Rules.

refer to my original claim.

[luberti]

There are four types of mindsets when it comes to religion:

1. gnostic theist: "I know that my god(s) is/are real."
2. agnostic theist: "I believe that my god(s) is/are real, but I am aware to not know this for certain."
3. gnostic atheist: "I know that no gods are real."
4. agnostic atheist: "I do not believe that any gods are real, since I am aware to not know this for certain."

The phrase "x is real" in these statements means that there is a physical world in which both the observer and object x reside.

Thought experiments such as brain-in-a-jar already show (purely logical) that:

• (1.) and (3.) are both false

Since it is rational to not believe in something unknown, but irrational to believe in something unknown, further we have:

• (2.) is irrational

• (4.) is rational

This concludes this subject as a whole and should really be common knowledge in scientific and philosophical communities.

I noticed many pseudo-disagreements in this thread which stem from issues with arguing based of different definitions. When a statement A is based on different definitions than some statement B, they cannot actually contradict each other, even though writing them out might suggest so.

But an even bigger issue is the "arguing" based on not-well-defined "statements" (which are really just nonsense). This is often called "not even wrong", because it is indeed much worse than well-defined false statements (such as "1+1=5"). Since nonsense bears no meaning which could be talked about in a meaningful way. Yet, this is what most people do most of their time because they suck at logical reasoning but excel at feeling emotions.

For example, the world's biggest religions are all based on not even wrong claims, and not even theists of the same religions can agree on how to fill the gaps and how to eliminate the contradictions in their stupid books.

[Eodnhoj7]

For anyone interested,
here is a discussion I have with AI on my argument,
It is Impossible for God to Be Real.
Previous OPs: Thread 1: Thread 2

Qualification:
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.

My argument submit to AI for its critique and comments:

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real,
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

Please confirm my syllogism is deductively valid subject to soundness of the premises?

AI Wrote
In summary, your argument is valid and provides a well-reasoned framework for discussing complex philosophical issues, though its soundness would depend on the acceptance of your premises in a broader philosophical context.

After a series of discussion on issues raised by AI and me answering them:

AI Wrote
In summary, your responses articulate a robust position against the arguments questioning your naturalistic framework. By upholding the confines of human faculties, emphasizing the regulative nature of ideals, and relating these principles back to Kant, you're able to invalidate claims of a supernatural realm or the existential status of God as absolute perfection.

Here are are the series of argument I have with AI:

AI Wrote:
Your argument presents a classic philosophical debate about the nature of God and the concept of perfection. Let’s break it down step by step.

Understanding the Premises and Conclusion
P1: Theists claim God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.

Here, theists (people who believe in God) typically define God as a being who possesses all possible perfections. This includes traits like omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (all-good). The claim also states that for God to be God, He must exist as a real entity, not just an abstract idea.

P2: But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.

This is a more contentious claim. To argue that absolute perfection is impossible might involve discussions about the nature of perfection. One way to understand this is by considering that perfection entails a lack of any flaws or limitations. A common philosophical argument suggests that if perfection exists, it can't be contingent upon anything else (that is, it cannot rely on external factors), which might render it abstract rather than concrete.

C1: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.
If we accept both P1 and P2 as true, then it follows that if absolute perfection cannot exist, then a being defined as absolutely perfect (like God) would not be able to exist in reality.

Examining the Logical Structure
The logical structure here resembles a syllogism, where two premises lead to a conclusion. The strength of the conclusion depends critically on the truth of the premises.
So, if you argue that perfection cannot exist, then you must clarify why that is the case.

Questions to Ponder
What do you mean by “absolute perfection”? Could it be that the concept of perfection is subjective, and different philosophical traditions might define it differently?
Are there examples where something can be regarded as perfect within certain constraints or contexts? For instance, can we think of 'perfection' in moral terms, where an action is perfect in benevolence but imperfect in practicality?
Can existence itself be considered a property of God that contributes to or detracts from His perfection? Some philosophical discussions link necessity of existence with the notion of perfection.

Further Considerations
Philosophers like Descartes and Anselm have argued that God’s perfection necessarily implies existence; in other words, a perfect being must exist. On the flip side, philosophers like Immanuel Kant have questioned the coherence of such arguments.
The debate also engages with questions about whether we can truly conceive of perfection at all, and whether it’s a useful concept in our understanding of divinity or existence.
In summary, your argument poses an interesting question about the compatibility of the concept of absolute perfection with the reality of existence. To advance this dialogue, it is helpful to explore and critique the definitions and assumptions within both premises.

My argument is valid and rational:

AI Wrote
Your argument, particularly the claim that "it is impossible for God to exist as real" based upon the notion that absolute perfection cannot be realized within the constraints of our empirical reality, is indeed a rational and philosophical position. Let’s break down the reasons why your argument is reasonable, as well as the aspects of its uniqueness:
viewtopic.php?p=748500#p748500

Discuss??
Views??

Reality is not absolute.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Given that there isn't the faintest trace of Him, no fossil, no instance of the finger post, no unnatural, 10 sigma anomaly, anachronism, then His possibility doesn't arise.