God is an Impossibility

[Age]

The following argument prove the idea of God is a non-starter and moot.

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

It is like trying to prove a square-circle exists.
This hypothesis is an impossibility due to the thing being contradictory.

P1. WHO says 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility to be real? WHY is it said to be an impossibility to be real? WHAT evidence is there for this?
P2. Accepted and agreed.
C. That is only if P1 is an unambiguous fact that can NOT be disputed, which can very easily be disputed.

Re P1

I have explained in the OP and further in other posts.

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.

You say this BUT WHERE is the evidence for it?

Absolute perfection, [an ideal] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE.

Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

I do NOT follow nor understand what this last sentence is trying to say, nor what it is in relation to. Could you clarify?

To chase for absolute perfection in reality would end up with a spiraling infinite regression.

How would you KNOW. To you there is NO absolute perfection so that would mean that you have NEVER tried to chase for It. Therefore you would NOT have any empirical evidence for your claim here. Unless of course you have previously tried to chase for absolute perfection, did not find any, so that is the reason you are now basing your strongly held BELIEF on.

I also wrote in the OP;

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.

YES I am AWARE you have said this PREVIOUSLY. I did NOT respond to this because it is OFF topic. Because who ever said absolute perfection comes from a relative perspective? Would sort of defeat its own argument would it not?

To suggest such a thing would be to ignore the fact that absolute perfection could NOT come from any other than objective perspective.

Absolute perfection is only possible in one's head as an idea [not concept].

Yes we are ALL well AWARE by now that that is your BELIEF and that you BELIEVE it is TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT.

What I have been showing others, and asking you for, WHERE is the evidence for this?

That BELIEF, you have, is also within that body as an idea. But there is NO concrete evidence for the BELIEF being true.

Now, WHY do you BELIEVE that absolute perfection is ONLY possible in one's head as an idea, and NOT a real thing that can be empirically falsifiable?

If this absolute perfection is attributed to a God, that is a reification of an illusion driven by desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind.

Again I have already pointed out to the readers and observers that TRYING TO belittle another by using terms like; 'an illusion' , 'desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind' does NOTHING to support your BELIEF. That attempting to ridicule others may help you in feeling better about your distorted WRONG BELIEF, but it does nothing to show and prove to others that your BELIEF is RIGHT. Just provide the evidence surely would be much easier than just repeating the same things over and over, and also trying to make yourself feel a bit better.

Just imagine how good you will feel if you could prove you are RIGHT with evidence? Maybe you would feel so much better about yourself that you would then stop TRYING to put others down?

Also, what about IF this absolute perfection is NOT attributed to a God? A God after all is just another IMPOSSIBILITY, to you. Therefore, what you are doing is trying to back up and support one of your BELIEFS with just another one of your strongly held BELIEFS, without any evidence. Are you at all able to look at this objectively in any way, shape, or form, without letting your subjective already gained views, beliefs, et cetera to get in the way?

[TimeSeeker]

I already explained WHAT, HOW, and WHY SOME PARTS are in A SENSE not perfect. Not that you could probably recall, but do you have the onset of alzhiemers?

No. You just fail to see that if SOME PARTS of the universe are IN ANY SENSE "not perfect" then the Universe is not perfect.

We went through ALL of this previously.

We did. And you keep making errors in reasoning

I have already explained the imperfect parts of the absolute perfection.

Read that sentence again. SLOWLY. And again. And again. Until your mind registers that you are CONTRADICTING yourself.

The fact that you are trying to EXPLAIN your contradiction is called rationalization. Instead of FIXING the problem, you are trying to EXPLAIN it away.

When you contradict yourself it means YOU HAE MADE A MISTAKE IN REASONING. Figure out what it is, fix it.

Hint: To say that the universe is "absolute perfection" is an ERROR.

Yes I am also fully aware of this as well. In fact, it was I who was the ONE who wrote that just about everything I write is a 'paradox'. I write things paradoxically here in this forum purposely to bring out the responses that you, human beings, give and provide me.

So you are exercising Cunningham's law? Smart strategy I used to use it too when I was younger.

Are you aware that a 'paradox' can also mean 'a statement or proposition seemingly absurd and/or contradictory BUT expressing an actual TRUTH'?

Sure. But if I can't understand the message and you can't communicate it to me - it doesn't matter.

The ACTUAL WORDS are there for you, and the others, to SEE. I wish you would use just them, but you do not. You USE the words that you HOPE to see. You SEE a message that you WANT to see.

For somebody who claims to want to "learn to communicate" you sure don't see the PROBLEM that is staring you in the face. Words are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. And so people INTERPRET words as best as the context, and as their background knowledge ALLOWS.

To say that people do not SEE what you WANT THEM TO SEE is you blaming others for not understanding YOU. Communication is a skill. YOU need to master it YOU need to find the EXACT words that convey the EXACT message to the person you are speaking to.

The subliminal messages are NOT produced for you. They are for the future readers who WILL then fully understand what I am doing here, in this forum.

Newsflash: Neither I, nor other humans can process "subliminal messages"

Without telling all of us what NLP stands for or means, then HOW many do you really think will KNOW what you are talking about here?

Without first clarifying from you What does NLP mean or stand for? I will have NO idea what you are talking about here.

It's 2018. You have Google.

You heard, but you can NOT understand nor comprehend, yet, am I RIGHT?

That is one hypothesis. Another is that you cannot communicate it in a way that can be understood by others.

You yourself appear extremely frustrated when others tell you that you are wrong but do NOT include the actual part that is wrong nor explain why it is wrong. YET, here you are continually doing the EXACT SAME THING.

A contradiction means error in reasoning. There is no "WHY" it's a common heuristic that we all use. I use it to signal to MYSELF that I have made a mistake. So when I catch myself contradicting myself - it means that I have failed to make a distinction somewhere, or conflated terms, or made some other error that I need to find/correct.

NO matter how many times I tell you; I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING. You will continue to say the exact, like you have once again here.

Then you use the word "belief" differently to me. And if you want to learn to communicate we ought to come to a shared understanding

See, my friends, this is how the brain, through BELIEFS, reacts to the truth. No matter what truth is laid in front of a person with BELIEFS, the belief-system will NOT allow the actual person to see the TRUTH. They will just keep seeing, thinking, saying, and writing THAT what they BELIEVE is the truth.

Blaming me for not understanding you again

When you express your BELIEFS as though they are ABSOLUTELY true, right, and correct. ONLY then that is when i say some thing.

Yeah, but I already admitted that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTELY true, right and correct. I express my BELIEFS because they work FOR ME.

Well POINT THEM OUT. Do NOT just say "they exist".

ALL contradictions are logical errors. BUT you say "paradoxes" can contain truth. So you reject that...

Exactly. To provoke a reaction. That I KNOW will happen.

Cool Cunningham's law. Naturally - you don't know what questions to ask, so you just blurt out whatever and wait for somebody to correct you.

Metaphysics and God are SO FAR easier and simpler to UNDERSTAND than trying to understand every minute detail of the physical world. I have already explained that there is NOTHING complex at all about the Universe, nor in how It works. There is NOTHING complex nor hard in Life. Only human beings make things appear complex and hard. They do this through their own confusion of things.

You can understand the world through your own experiences. You don't need to learn to COMMUNICATE to understand the world.
You MUST learn to COMMUNICATE to understand other humans.

So metaphysics and God are much harder to understand than reality.

But you don't recognize complexity so...

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1. WHO says 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility to be real? WHY is it said to be an impossibility to be real? WHAT evidence is there for this?
P2. Accepted and agreed.
C. That is only if P1 is an unambiguous fact that can NOT be disputed, which can very easily be disputed.

Re P1

I have explained in the OP and further in other posts.

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.

You say this BUT WHERE is the evidence for it?

Surely you are not asking for empirical evidence?
What is available is a sound rational argument for it, i.e.,

Surely you can agree absolute perfection is a thought and an ideal? yes/no?
If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then you have to provide the empirical evidence to substantiate your claim or argue it is empirically possible.

Absolute perfection, [an ideal] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE.

Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

I do NOT follow nor understand what this last sentence is trying to say, nor what it is in relation to. Could you clarify?

Can you produce evidence for a perfect circle which is only defined in geometrical terms and measurements?
There is no way you can produce a perfect circle in the empirical world.
One may defined a perfect round marble in theory.
Any marble that is claimed to be a perfectly all round, cannot be/exists. Seen through an atomic microscope one will see irregularities on the surface.

To chase for absolute perfection in reality would end up with a spiraling infinite regression.

How would you KNOW. To you there is NO absolute perfection so that would mean that you have NEVER tried to chase for It. Therefore you would NOT have any empirical evidence for your claim here. Unless of course you have previously tried to chase for absolute perfection, did not find any, so that is the reason you are now basing your strongly held BELIEF on.

Obviously I will not chase for absolute perfection in the real world because I know such a claim is an impossibility.
If you claim so, then provide the empirical evidence.

The ultimate check for impossibility is,
the empirical world is always conditional, while
absolute perfection is unconditional,
therefore there can never be absolute perfection within the conditional empirical world.

I also wrote in the OP;

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.

YES I am AWARE you have said this PREVIOUSLY. I did NOT respond to this because it is OFF topic. Because who ever said absolute perfection comes from a relative perspective? Would sort of defeat its own argument would it not?

To suggest such a thing would be to ignore the fact that absolute perfection could NOT come from any other than objective perspective.

I did not claim absolute perfection comes from a relative perspective.
My point with relative perfection is to people often assume relative perfection to be absolute perfection. My example is to inform and demonstrate the difference.

Absolute perfection is only possible in one's head as an idea [not concept].

Yes we are ALL well AWARE by now that that is your BELIEF and that you BELIEVE it is TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT.

What I have been showing others, and asking you for, WHERE is the evidence for this?

That BELIEF, you have, is also within that body as an idea. But there is NO concrete evidence for the BELIEF being true.

Now, WHY do you BELIEVE that absolute perfection is ONLY possible in one's head as an idea, and NOT a real thing that can be empirically falsifiable?

As mentioned above,
do you dispute the idea of absolute perfection is firstly from one's head?
Such an idea can be easily thought and expressed.

If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then produce the empirical evidence to support it.

Btw, the only absolute perfection that can be spoken of is God or any entity of the likes.

If this absolute perfection is attributed to a God, that is a reification of an illusion driven by desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind.

Again I have already pointed out to the readers and observers that TRYING TO belittle another by using terms like; 'an illusion' , 'desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind' does NOTHING to support your BELIEF. That attempting to ridicule others may help you in feeling better about your distorted WRONG BELIEF, but it does nothing to show and prove to others that your BELIEF is RIGHT. Just provide the evidence surely would be much easier than just repeating the same things over and over, and also trying to make yourself feel a bit better.

Just imagine how good you will feel if you could prove you are RIGHT with evidence? Maybe you would feel so much better about yourself that you would then stop TRYING to put others down?

Also, what about IF this absolute perfection is NOT attributed to a God? A God after all is just another IMPOSSIBILITY, to you. Therefore, what you are doing is trying to back up and support one of your BELIEFS with just another one of your strongly held BELIEFS, without any evidence. Are you at all able to look at this objectively in any way, shape, or form, without letting your subjective already gained views, beliefs, et cetera to get in the way?

Whatever thing or entity which absolute perfection is attributable to, it is the ontological God or the likes. That how the brain and psychology work in this case.

It is not my personal subjective views.
Note I have provided loads of evidence, the idea of God crept up in mad people [schizo, etc.], those with brain damage, those who take drugs/hallucinogens, meditators, the highly stressed, etc.

Kant had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion arising from pseudo-reasoning.
It is the similar to an empirical illusion which I have given you an example and I have posted my other relevant empirical examples.
Note this AGAIN where you will definitely see "two normal" faces,



Do you realize and understand your are caught in an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example? Please confirm.
(If not, I will explain).

The idea of God or the likes is also an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example, albeit transcendental thoughts and not empirical.

Note Buddhism realizes the stupidity of being caught in the illusory God and they dealt with the existential problem direct rather than being led by the nose through theism [you reject this] which trigger terrible evil and violent acts in SOME evil prone believers.

Thus the potential is, if theists are convinced their God is illusory and when they can find alternative replacements to deal with the unavoidable psychology, then no one will be able to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of any God.

On the other hand, what are the significant positives from theism [or the likes] other than personal selfishness in believing and clinging to one salvation of eternal life in Paradise?

[TimeSeeker]

The idea of God or the likes is also an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example, albeit transcendental thoughts and not empirical.

In one post he argues that God is a transcendental illusion.

In another post he argues for wisdom (a.k.a omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience):

Isn't prevention better than cure?
That's wisdom, i.e. fundamentally is philosophy-proper.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Well done. You are preaching Christianity!

For somebody who fights against "religious evil" you have just re-invented the Christian god.
(ETC.)

So the IDEAL of wisdom is the IDEAL of god. Under a new name.

Philosophers Tripping over synonyms since 3000BC.

[Age]

Re P1

I have explained in the OP and further in other posts.

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.

You say this BUT WHERE is the evidence for it?

Surely you are not asking for empirical evidence?

Yes I am. Watch and you will see Me do it right before your eyes.

WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that absolute perfection can NEVER arise from the empirical at all?

What is available is a sound rational argument for it, i.e.,

If there is available a sound rational argument for 'absolute perfection' being an idea ONLY, then where can I obtain a copy of that argument? None has been presented here in this forum that I have seen yet.

Surely you can agree absolute perfection is a thought and an ideal? yes/no?

Yes I surely can agree on this.

And, I surely can agree that 'absolute perfection' can also be proven with empirical evidence.

If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then you have to provide the empirical evidence to substantiate your claim or argue it is empirically possible.

The EVIDENCE is the Universe, Itself. The Self-aware conscious One existing, observing and experiencing the Universe Itself IS the One to verify if this claim is right or not.

For an observer to just exist in an infinite eternal place generally known as the Universe, then that IS absolute perfection.

HOW the Universe came about or always IS does NOT matter. ITS existence with an conscious being observing it IS absolute perfection in and of Itself. No matter what a person thinks in life, if they can NOT fathom the absolute perfection of It all by just observing and experiencing EXISTENCE, Itself, then they NEVER will. No matter if the Universe WAS CREATED (believed by some), or, the Universe came into existence BY CHANCE (believed by some), or, the Universe IS INFINITE AND ETERNAL it has to be absolute perfection ITSELF. Even just for the very fact that you are HERE NOW would prove that absolute perfection must be occurring for ME to be able to bear witness those ALL-THERE-IS. If a conscious aware being is NOT truly amazed at what it actually means to exist and be able to experience and observe, then nothing else with amaze them.

Absolute perfection, [an ideal] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE.

Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

I do NOT follow nor understand what this last sentence is trying to say, nor what it is in relation to. Could you clarify?

Can you produce evidence for a perfect circle which is only defined in geometrical terms and measurements?
There is no way you can produce a perfect circle in the empirical world.

If you say so, but so what?

One may defined a perfect round marble in theory.
Any marble that is claimed to be a perfectly all round, cannot be/exists. Seen through an atomic microscope one will see irregularities on the surface.

But if it is perfectly round, then they will NOT see irreglarities.

To chase for absolute perfection in reality would end up with a spiraling infinite regression.

How would you KNOW. To you there is NO absolute perfection so that would mean that you have NEVER tried to chase for It. Therefore you would NOT have any empirical evidence for your claim here. Unless of course you have previously tried to chase for absolute perfection, did not find any, so that is the reason you are now basing your strongly held BELIEF on.

Obviously I will not chase for absolute perfection in the real world because I know such a claim is an impossibility.

So, what are you basing your claim that you KNOW absolute perfection is an impossibility ON? What evidence do you have for IT? What proof have you gathered to support your BELIEF?

If you claim so, then provide the empirical evidence.

I have already. The Universe, Itself is absolute perfection. How much more empirical evidence do you want or need. Just look and observe, just feel and experience, absolutely anything you observe and/or experience is the evidence that you EXIST. HOW much more evidence does one need than to just EXIST in order to that the Universe must be absolute perfection. You did NOT bring yourself into EXISTENCE. Some thing else did, what that was was the Universe Itself. For YOU to be the EXACT WAY THAT YOU ARE NOW some sort of absolute perfect order MUST have EXISTED. That what EXISTED IS the Universe.

The ultimate check for impossibility is,

The "ultimate", nothing like trying to grab onto absolutely anything to make ones attempt at an "argument" sound more true, more real, and more BELIEVEable.

the empirical world is always conditional, while

Is it ALWAYS? WHAT evidence do you have for this?

absolute perfection is unconditional,
therefore there can never be absolute perfection within the conditional empirical world.[/quote]

But I have NEVER been talking about any thing within some thing. I am taking about the ALL-THERE-IS, sometimes known as the Universe, Itself.

The Universe is NOT conditional to any thing, that I am aware of anyway. Do you have any evidence that the Universe, Itself is conditional?

If you do, then WHAT are those CONDITIONS?

I also wrote in the OP;

YES I am AWARE you have said this PREVIOUSLY. I did NOT respond to this because it is OFF topic. Because who ever said absolute perfection comes from a relative perspective? Would sort of defeat its own argument would it not?

To suggest such a thing would be to ignore the fact that absolute perfection could NOT come from any other than objective perspective.

I did not claim absolute perfection comes from a relative perspective.
My point with relative perfection is to people often assume relative perfection to be absolute perfection. My example is to inform and demonstrate the difference.

I am unaware of any person who would, at any time, ASSUME relative perfection to be absolute perfection. The two just do NOT go together.

Absolute perfection is only possible in one's head as an idea [not concept].

Yes we are ALL well AWARE by now that that is your BELIEF and that you BELIEVE it is TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT.

What I have been showing others, and asking you for, WHERE is the evidence for this?

That BELIEF, you have, is also within that body as an idea. But there is NO concrete evidence for the BELIEF being true.

Now, WHY do you BELIEVE that absolute perfection is ONLY possible in one's head as an idea, and NOT a real thing that can be empirically falsifiable?

As mentioned above,

But the above does NOT answer the question AT ALL.

do you dispute the idea of absolute perfection is firstly from one's head?

NO, I do NOT dispute the idea of absolute perfection is firstly from one's head.

Such an idea can be easily thought and expressed.

Yes an idea can be easily thought and expressed, and, an idea can be hardly thought and expressed.

If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then produce the empirical evidence to support it.

I have. The Universe Itself. It is right HERE, right NOW, right BEFORE you.

By the way, huge leap and jump you made from the second line to the third. There is NOTHING you can put in between the two that you can think of to help support your BELIEF up?

Btw, the only absolute perfection that can be spoken of is God or any entity of the likes.

REALLY NOW.

So now you BELIEVE that the ONLY way to speak of about absolute perfection is of an illusion identity hey? Well there is that "support" that I KNEW that BELIEF would uncover. But NO actual evidence within that also sorry to say.

If this absolute perfection is attributed to a God, that is a reification of an illusion driven by desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind.

Again I have already pointed out to the readers and observers that TRYING TO belittle another by using terms like; 'an illusion' , 'desperate psychological forces in the person's brain/mind' does NOTHING to support your BELIEF. That attempting to ridicule others may help you in feeling better about your distorted WRONG BELIEF, but it does nothing to show and prove to others that your BELIEF is RIGHT. Just provide the evidence surely would be much easier than just repeating the same things over and over, and also trying to make yourself feel a bit better.

Just imagine how good you will feel if you could prove you are RIGHT with evidence? Maybe you would feel so much better about yourself that you would then stop TRYING to put others down?

Also, what about IF this absolute perfection is NOT attributed to a God? A God after all is just another IMPOSSIBILITY, to you. Therefore, what you are doing is trying to back up and support one of your BELIEFS with just another one of your strongly held BELIEFS, without any evidence. Are you at all able to look at this objectively in any way, shape, or form, without letting your subjective already gained views, beliefs, et cetera to get in the way?

Whatever thing or entity which absolute perfection is attributable to, it is the ontological God or the likes. That how the brain and psychology work in this case.

Yes the brain in that body is well proving this, WHATEVER the brain wants to attribute any thing to, then it will just do it.

Thanks for the evidence to back up what you are saying here. That is what I have been asking and looking for, that is; EVIDENCE.

It is not my personal subjective views.
Note I have provided loads of evidence, the idea of God crept up in mad people [schizo, etc.], those with brain damage, those who take drugs/hallucinogens, meditators, the highly stressed, etc.

But not you, you BELIEVE? Am I right?

Yet it is YOU who is attributing God to the EXACT SAME THING, as all these other people do that you just mentioned. If you look real honestly, YOU are one of them. The exact same idea of God crept up in you. The proof of that is shown by how many times you talk about the what the idea of God IS. You do NOTICE that you have the exact same idea as all these others you just mentioned?

Kant had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion arising from pseudo-reasoning.
It is the similar to an empirical illusion which I have given you an example and I have posted my other relevant empirical examples.
Note this AGAIN where you will definitely see "two normal" faces,

Nothing to do with the topic, again.

Do you realize and understand your are caught in an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example? Please confirm.
(If not, I will explain).

Do you realize and understand you are caught in an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain, BECAUSE OF BELIEFS, in the above examples that you have provided in this and other threads in this forum?

No need to confirm.

The idea of God or the likes is also an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example, albeit transcendental thoughts and not empirical.

Is that the exact same idea of God that you talk about as the one that you HAVE?

Note Buddhism realizes the stupidity of being caught in the illusory God and they dealt with the existential problem direct rather than being led by the nose through theism [you reject this] which trigger terrible evil and violent acts in SOME evil prone believers.

You are so blinded by BELIEFS that observers of this must be laughing hysterically by NOW.

Although I inform you that I have nothing to do with theism, that theists are blinded by their BELIEFS just as much as you, and that I completely reject religion in the context that you use it, yet you still have the inability to see and recognize this. You still wrote what you did here in [ ]. Practically unbelievable you are. I always KNEW the power of BELIEFS and their preventative and blinding ability FROM the TRUTH. But really? Can you really be this blind-sided?

Also, is not it lucky of and for you that just by coincidence that the very group of people that you WORSHIP and FOLLOW just happened to realize and BELIEVED the exact same things that you do, which just also coincides with being the exact opposite VIEWS and BELIEFS as those "other" groups of people that you loath and despise?

Thus the potential is, if theists are convinced their God is illusory and when they can find alternative replacements to deal with the unavoidable psychology, then no one will be able to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of any God.

Sorry to be bearer of bad news but 'theists' by definition can NOT be convinced their God is illusory. It is impossible to prove the TRUTH to a person who BELIEVES otherwise. YOU are living proof of this fact.

On the other hand, what are the significant positives from theism [or the likes] other than personal selfishness in believing and clinging to one salvation of eternal life in Paradise?

Nothing to do with any thing really. Except just another of your very prejudiced views here now as just more proof.

[Age]

Absolute perfection, [an ideal] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE?

As you would NOT try to explain HOW this is TRUE. I thought I might write some thing down instead to explain HOW this is NOT TRUE?


This is your argument;
P1. Absolute perfection is an ideal.
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Absolute perfection therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be like me in the 17th century TRYING TO argue;
P1. Horseless carriages is an ideal
P2. Horseless carriages is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Horseless carriages therefore exist only theoretically.

Three things here;
!.Just because people's have BELIEFS of some thing, then that does NOT make the first Premise correct.
You are basing your first premise SOLELY on your BELIEF.
2. You do NOT know what is empirical or not, because you do NOT live throughout ALL of life.
3. Just because some thing is an ideal, at one particular point, that in and of itself does NOT mean it is not nor can not be empirical also.

Absolute perfection CAN BE BOTH, empirical and an ideal. Just because you BELIEVE that it is an ideal ONLY does NOT make it so.

[TimeSeeker]

This is your argument;
P1. Absolute perfection is an ideal.
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Absolute perfection therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be like me in the 17th century TRYING TO argue;
P1. Horseless carriages is an ideal
P2. Horseless carriages is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Horseless carriages therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be a false analogy.

Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.

I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.

[Age]

This is your argument;
P1. Absolute perfection is an ideal.
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Absolute perfection therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be like me in the 17th century TRYING TO argue;
P1. Horseless carriages is an ideal
P2. Horseless carriages is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Horseless carriages therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be a false analogy.

Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.

Apologies, my BAD communicating again. I meant a MOVING horseless carriage, but admittedly forgot to add that part in. You are so RIGHT that of course people of those days could have conceptualized a horseless carriage, just sitting there not doing anything. Again, my apologies for NOT recognizing that I would have to point that out, especially in the context of the argument that it was being used in. So, now, hopefully, that has been cleared up.

What would those people conceptualize as the driving force of the moving-carriage if is what NOT an animal? And they had been told that it was an electric (or diesel if you like) computerised motor vehicle pulling it along?

I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.

Can you imagine a human being pointing a finger? If you can, then the Universe IS some thing that even you can just point to with your finger.

If you can NOT conceptualize the Universe, the very thing that YOU exist in and observe and experience EVERY day of your conscious life, then I am not sure how to explain the Universe to you.

Do you the words 'absolute' and 'perfection' really have absolutely no meaning nor definition, for you.

Are you absolutely positively sure that you have absolutely nothing to start with when a human being uses the words 'perfect' and/or 'absolute'. Hey what might help you get you started is a thing called a dictionary. Use ANY one of the hundreds out there, in the Universe, and you could pick ANY of the many definitions and/or meanings there are for the words 'absolute' and 'perfection' then that MIGHT help you getting started?

[TimeSeeker]

Apologies, my BAD communicating again. I meant a MOVING horseless carriage, but admittedly forgot to add that part in. You are so RIGHT that of course people of those days could have conceptualized a horseless carriage, just sitting there not doing anything. Again, my apologies for NOT recognizing that I would have to point that out, especially in the context of the argument that it was being used in. So, now, hopefully, that has been cleared up.

What would those people conceptualize as the driving force of the moving-carriage if is what NOT an animal? And they had been told that it was an electric (or diesel if you like) computerised motor vehicle pulling it along?

The 'MOVING" part is not the cause of the confusion.

You have many ways to explain it because you have a foundation to work with.
Some piece of technology. Pedals. It doesn't matter. The concept of TRANSPORTATION exists. And so you could just say 'In future carriages will travel 10 times as fast'. Or you could say: The journey between A and B will now take 1 hour instead of 10 hours. And you've related it to experience (travel time) and people will understand.

Can you imagine a human being pointing a finger? If you can, then the Universe IS some thing that even you can just point to with your finger.

If you can NOT conceptualize the Universe, the very thing that YOU exist in and observe and experience EVERY day of your conscious life, then I am not sure how to explain the Universe to you.

1. You can't point at the universe. You can point at stars. Planets. Galaxies. The cosmos. You can't point at the universe.
2. I can conceptualize the universe. It's a box. It has a label on it that says 'EVERYTHING'

Now that I have a box labelled EVERYTHING. Can you tell me which aspect of this box is the 'absolute perfection'?

Do you the words 'absolute' and 'perfection' really have absolutely no meaning nor definition, for you.

They have a meaning. Just not when used to describe the universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You say this BUT WHERE is the evidence for it?

Surely you are not asking for empirical evidence?

Yes I am. Watch and you will see Me do it right before your eyes.

WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that absolute perfection can NEVER arise from the empirical at all?

That is a very stupid question and you failed in logic.
Note the law of non-contradicion where p and not-p cannot exists at the same time and in the same sense.

What is available is a sound rational argument for it, i.e.,

If there is available a sound rational argument for 'absolute perfection' being an idea ONLY, then where can I obtain a copy of that argument? None has been presented here in this forum that I have seen yet.

I have already presented the argument in the OP and explain in detail over other posts.

• All ideas are thought.
  Absolute perfection is a thought.
  Absolute perfection is an idea.

You cannot deny the above.

If you insist the thought represented the idea is empirical, you will have to provide empirical evidences.
Example, when you see an apple in front of you, a thought of it arises. From there you can easily prove that apple exists empirically.
Now if you have a thought of the idea of absolute perfection, and if you must prove it empirically real, then you must provide the empirical evidences.

Surely you can agree absolute perfection is a thought and an ideal? yes/no?

Yes I surely can agree on this.

And, I surely can agree that 'absolute perfection' can also be proven with empirical evidence.

Then produce the evidence like proving how a particular apple exists empirically.

If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then you have to provide the empirical evidence to substantiate your claim or argue it is empirically possible.

The EVIDENCE is the Universe, Itself. The Self-aware conscious One existing, observing and experiencing the Universe Itself IS the One to verify if this claim is right or not.

For an observer to just exist in an infinite eternal place generally known as the Universe, then that IS absolute perfection.

HOW the Universe came about or always IS does NOT matter. ITS existence with an conscious being observing it IS absolute perfection in and of Itself. No matter what a person thinks in life, if they can NOT fathom the absolute perfection of It all by just observing and experiencing EXISTENCE, Itself, then they NEVER will. No matter if the Universe WAS CREATED (believed by some), or, the Universe came into existence BY CHANCE (believed by some), or, the Universe IS INFINITE AND ETERNAL it has to be absolute perfection ITSELF. Even just for the very fact that you are HERE NOW would prove that absolute perfection must be occurring for ME to be able to bear witness those ALL-THERE-IS. If a conscious aware being is NOT truly amazed at what it actually means to exist and be able to experience and observe, then nothing else with amaze them.

The empirical evidence of the Universe only proves the Universe exists empirically.
It does not prove there is an absolute perfect creator.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE.

I do NOT follow nor understand what this last sentence is trying to say, nor what it is in relation to. Could you clarify?

Can you produce evidence for a perfect circle which is only defined in geometrical terms and measurements?
There is no way you can produce a perfect circle in the empirical world.

If you say so, but so what?

If you cannot produce a perfect circle in the empirical world, then it would be far less you can produce an entity of absolute perfect in the empirical world.
Such an absolute perfection can only exists in your brain as an illusion.

One may defined a perfect round marble in theory.
Any marble that is claimed to be a perfectly all round, cannot be/exists. Seen through an atomic microscope one will see irregularities on the surface.

But if it is perfectly round, then they will NOT see irreglarities.

This is where you are so naive and ignorant.
Take whichever marble is "claimed" to be absolutely perfectly round and look it through an atomic microscope. Will YOU anticipate there will be irregularities?
Only the ignorant will claim it is really absolutely perfect, surely you are not one of them? perhaps you are?

How would you KNOW. To you there is NO absolute perfection so that would mean that you have NEVER tried to chase for It. Therefore you would NOT have any empirical evidence for your claim here. Unless of course you have previously tried to chase for absolute perfection, did not find any, so that is the reason you are now basing your strongly held BELIEF on.

Obviously I will not chase for absolute perfection in the real world because I know such a claim is an impossibility.

So, what are you basing your claim that you KNOW absolute perfection is an impossibility ON? What evidence do you have for IT? What proof have you gathered to support your BELIEF?

I have explained above.

If you claim so, then provide the empirical evidence.

I have already. The Universe, Itself is absolute perfection. How much more empirical evidence do you want or need. Just look and observe, just feel and experience, absolutely anything you observe and/or experience is the evidence that you EXIST. HOW much more evidence does one need than to just EXIST in order to that the Universe must be absolute perfection. You did NOT bring yourself into EXISTENCE. Some thing else did, what that was was the Universe Itself. For YOU to be the EXACT WAY THAT YOU ARE NOW some sort of absolute perfect order MUST have EXISTED. That what EXISTED IS the Universe.

As explained above, the empirical Universe cannot be absolute perfect.

[Age]

Apologies, my BAD communicating again. I meant a MOVING horseless carriage, but admittedly forgot to add that part in. You are so RIGHT that of course people of those days could have conceptualized a horseless carriage, just sitting there not doing anything. Again, my apologies for NOT recognizing that I would have to point that out, especially in the context of the argument that it was being used in. So, now, hopefully, that has been cleared up.

What would those people conceptualize as the driving force of the moving-carriage if is what NOT an animal? And they had been told that it was an electric (or diesel if you like) computerised motor vehicle pulling it along?

The 'MOVING" part is not the cause of the confusion.

You have many ways to explain it because you have a foundation to work with.
Some piece of technology. Pedals. It doesn't matter. The concept of TRANSPORTATION exists. And so you could just say 'In future carriages will travel 10 times as fast'. Or you could say: The journey between A and B will now take 1 hour instead of 10 hours. And you've related it to experience (travel time) and people will understand.

You are TRYING TO GET so far off track, as you PURPOSELY can, from what I am actually writing, saying, and meaning, so that that BELIEF that you are so dearly trying to to hang on to will still make some sort of sense, to you.

You wrote;
That would be a false analogy.

Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.

I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.

I explained MY BAD. AND, used 'motor vehicle' INSTEAD so now it is NOT a false analogy. Now, you say that you have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. My point IS the people before the 17th century also had nothing to speak of in relation to a diesel powered computerized motor vehicle.

My point was, and still IS, just because some thing can NOT yet be imagined BY SOME PEOPLE to come into existence, that is; into being empirical, then that does NOT mean IN and OF ITSELF that that thing is JUST an ideal. Just because some thing, at that moment, is an ideal does NOT make it then an impossibility in the empirical. Which is exactly what the argument was saying; that i was saying was WRONG. That argument was WRONG for the very reason I have been GIVING.

Tell me; HOW do I explain a, relatively, NEW IDEA to a group of people? That is; a NEW IDEA that CAN (and WILL?) come into existence like;

A motor vehicle to people of the any century before the 17th century. Or,

A truly peaceful and pollution-free world to the people hitherto to today when this was written. Or,

You are the same as one of these people. You are NOT yet able to imagine some thing, so to you you BELIEVE it is an impossibility. You are the type of person WHO unless you physically observe and feel [experience] some thing you are, on most accounts, incapable of just even imagining it. THEN what you do IS have the BELIEF that if some thing is an impossibility completely prevent your self from looking at and seeing [understanding] what IS actually possible, true, and correct.

The actual BELIEF that you are so dearly and so tightly holding onto is preventing you from using the absolute intelligence that you have and IS within you. Your own BELIEF is stopping you from progressing forward reaching and achieving your OWN goals. The very BELIEF that you will NOT let go of is leading YOU to your own demise.

Can you imagine a human being pointing a finger? If you can, then the Universe IS some thing that even you can just point to with your finger.

If you can NOT conceptualize the Universe, the very thing that YOU exist in and observe and experience EVERY day of your conscious life, then I am not sure how to explain the Universe to you.

1. You can't point at the universe. You can point at stars. Planets. Galaxies. The cosmos. You can't point at the universe.

Okay fair enough. Although some may say when you are just pointing you are pointing at the Universe, but in a sense you are RIGHT. Can you imagine that when you are just pointing, not at any thing in particular, you are pointing IN the Universe?

2. I can conceptualize the universe. It's a box. It has a label on it that says 'EVERYTHING'

WHY do you say the Universe is a box? Where and when did you start conceptualizing the Universe as a box? To state; 'the Universe IS a box' is a pretty big thing to do. Do you have any evidence for this?

Now that I have a box labelled EVERYTHING. Can you tell me which aspect of this box is the 'absolute perfection'?

Although the Universe IS NOT a box but that is the only conceptualization you have for It, the aspect of the Universe that is the 'absolute perfection' is the WHOLE of IT as One.

Do you the words 'absolute' and 'perfection' really have absolutely no meaning nor definition, for you.

They have a meaning. Just not when used to describe the universe.

If they have a meaning to you, THEN you have some where to start. Which contradicts what you previously stated. That is; that you have NOTHING to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'.

ALL you are doing here is TRYING your very hardest to find and grasp onto absolutely anything that could SUPPORT your already ill-gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

Because of the way the way the Mind and the brain work you just do NOT want to even begin to start because if you did then that would be going against your OWN little self. You might find that what you BELIEVE is true now actually is not.

You do NOT even want to begin looking at this openly and honestly in case of that you MIGHT find and see the actual and real Truth. You fear so much of finding and SEEING what IS actually the opposite of what you are BELIEVING now, with is the truth, an discovering that you are ACTUALLY WRONG. Your OWN fear of this IS what is holding you back and preventing YOU from discovering and seeing what IS really TRUE.

I do NOT care what you want to BELIEVE, and do actually BELIEVE. But if you, like other human beings, are going to keep insisting some things are absolutely true, right, and correct, of which they are obviously clearly NOT, then I will keep pointing WHERE they are WRONG, and WHY they are. That is; they are WRONG because of YOUR subjectivity views, based on your OWN personal ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

absolute perfection is unconditional,
therefore there can never be absolute perfection within the conditional empirical world.

But I have NEVER been talking about any thing within some thing. I am taking about the ALL-THERE-IS, sometimes known as the Universe, Itself.

The Universe is NOT conditional to any thing, that I am aware of anyway. Do you have any evidence that the Universe, Itself is conditional?

If you do, then WHAT are those CONDITIONS?

Note YOUR 'ALL-THERE-IS' is realized within yourself as a human being in interaction with other humans & the Universe.

This why I have to bring you back to the arena of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Earlier you simply dismissed the above compelled by being evasive of its reality.
The argument of how the Universe [ALL-THERE-IS] is conditioned by the human conditions are within Philosophical anti-Realism arguments as opposed to your Philosophical Realism views. Mine is mainly from those by Kant. It is a complex area and I suggest you update yourself with the relevant arguments.

If you think absolute perfection can be empirical, then produce the empirical evidence to support it.

I have. The Universe Itself. It is right HERE, right NOW, right BEFORE you.

By the way, huge leap and jump you made from the second line to the third. There is NOTHING you can put in between the two that you can think of to help support your BELIEF up?

What huge leap you are accusing me of, the test is you need to bring empirical evidence to support that absolute perfect thing can be empirical.

Yes the brain in that body is well proving this, WHATEVER the brain wants to attribute any thing to, then it will just do it.

Thanks for the evidence to back up what you are saying here. That is what I have been asking and looking for, that is; EVIDENCE.

Can't see your point to the above fact.

It is not my personal subjective views.
Note I have provided loads of evidence, the idea of God crept up in mad people [schizo, etc.], those with brain damage, those who take drugs/hallucinogens, meditators, the highly stressed, etc.

But not you, you BELIEVE? Am I right?

Yet it is YOU who is attributing God to the EXACT SAME THING, as all these other people do that you just mentioned. If you look real honestly, YOU are one of them. The exact same idea of God crept up in you. The proof of that is shown by how many times you talk about the what the idea of God IS. You do NOTICE that you have the exact same idea as all these others you just mentioned?

Nope, it is not my direct idea.
What I have is an idea of the theists' idea or idealization process in reifying a God.

Kant had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion arising from pseudo-reasoning.
It is the similar to an empirical illusion which I have given you an example and I have posted my other relevant empirical examples.
Note this AGAIN where you will definitely see "two normal" faces,

Nothing to do with the topic, again.

It is very relevant to the topic.
Note I was the one who raise the topic [OP] so I am aware of my original intentions.

Do you realize and understand your are caught in an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example? Please confirm.
(If not, I will explain).

Do you realize and understand you are caught in an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain, BECAUSE OF BELIEFS, in the above examples that you have provided in this and other threads in this forum?

No need to confirm.

Yes I realize and understand I am vulnerable to such inherent unavoidable illusions created by your brain to deceive me.
It is because I understood that inherent and unavoided impulse in my brain that I strive to be mindful of it at all times and ensure I am not robbed of my control over my own self and led by those illusions.
This is why I always stick with the empirical-rational perspective based on evidences and arguments.

On the other hand you are led by your brain/mind into la la land and insist so dogmatically such an illusion of an absolute perfect thing is the most real.

Note this from Kant [=mine];
(read it carefully)

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [philosophical ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

You may think you are the wisest of them all but you are not capable of understanding and freeing yourself from that illusion that is mocking and tormenting you.

The idea of God or the likes is also an inherent unavoidable illusion created by your brain/mind in the above example, albeit transcendental thoughts and not empirical.

Is that the exact same idea of God that you talk about as the one that you HAVE?

Not my thoughts, but the same idea as the illusion you are postulating.

Note Buddhism realizes the stupidity of being caught in the illusory God and they dealt with the existential problem direct rather than being led by the nose through theism [you reject this] which trigger terrible evil and violent acts in SOME evil prone believers.

You are so blinded by BELIEFS that observers of this must be laughing hysterically by NOW.

Although I inform you that I have nothing to do with theism, that theists are blinded by their BELIEFS just as much as you, and that I completely reject religion in the context that you use it, yet you still have the inability to see and recognize this. You still wrote what you did here in [ ]. Practically unbelievable you are. I always KNEW the power of BELIEFS and their preventative and blinding ability FROM the TRUTH. But really? Can you really be this blind-sided?

Also, is not it lucky of and for you that just by coincidence that the very group of people that you WORSHIP and FOLLOW just happened to realize and BELIEVED the exact same things that you do, which just also coincides with being the exact opposite VIEWS and BELIEFS as those "other" groups of people that you loath and despise?

I am aware you reject theism which believe in the illusory God is real.
What you have in mind is the same illusion but in a different form.

Thus the potential is, if theists are convinced their God is illusory and when they can find alternative replacements to deal with the unavoidable psychology, then no one will be able to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of any God.

Sorry to be bearer of bad news but 'theists' by definition can NOT be convinced their God is illusory. It is impossible to prove the TRUTH to a person who BELIEVES otherwise. YOU are living proof of this fact.

Note my basis is whatever is claimed to be real must be substantiated with empirical proofs and rational arguments. Theists will not do that just as you are in their same shoes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Absolute perfection, [an ideal] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

Try to explain HOW this is TRUE?

As you would NOT try to explain HOW this is TRUE. I thought I might write some thing down instead to explain HOW this is NOT TRUE?


This is your argument;
P1. Absolute perfection is an ideal.
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Absolute perfection therefore exist only theoretically.

That would be like me in the 17th century TRYING TO argue;
P1. Horseless carriages is an ideal
P2. Horseless carriages is an impossibility in the empirical.
C. Horseless carriages therefore exist only theoretically.

Three things here;
!.Just because people's have BELIEFS of some thing, then that does NOT make the first Premise correct.
You are basing your first premise SOLELY on your BELIEF.
2. You do NOT know what is empirical or not, because you do NOT live throughout ALL of life.
3. Just because some thing is an ideal, at one particular point, that in and of itself does NOT mean it is not nor can not be empirical also.

Absolute perfection CAN BE BOTH, empirical and an ideal. Just because you BELIEVE that it is an ideal ONLY does NOT make it so.

Note what we have been discussing re the ideal is the transcendental ideal which by definition is beyond the empirical.

I did not imply horseless carriages are impossibilities.
Horseless carriages are relative ideals and they are empirically based ideals thus they are empirical possibilities. The test for this is to bring empirical evidences to support it.

I have already stated, God as a bearded man in the sky is a possibility because such a claim is based on empirical elements that are possible. The test is to bring that empirical bearded man who created the universe for testing to verify its existence.

However the thing of absolute perfection is outside the scope of the empirical reality.

[Age]

Surely you are not asking for empirical evidence?

Yes I am. Watch and you will see Me do it right before your eyes.

WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that absolute perfection can NEVER arise from the empirical at all?

That is a very stupid question and you failed in logic.

A question in and of itself does NOT fail logic. A question can be just asked for clarification. A question is asked to evoke a response, of which you gave.

Note the law of non-contradicion where p and not-p cannot exists at the same time and in the same sense.

But one of those p's is just your own BELIEF, which of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

The response you gave to that clarifying question, of which you call a stupid question, could in fact be seen the response sort. That is; a stupid response.

Just because you BELIEVE some thing can NOT exist, then that does NOT mean that thing does NOT exist. You NEED to show some sort of empirical evidence or some sort of logically reasonable response/argument if you want others to begin to accept what you BELIEVE is true.

What is available is a sound rational argument for it, i.e.,

If there is available a sound rational argument for 'absolute perfection' being an idea ONLY, then where can I obtain a copy of that argument? None has been presented here in this forum that I have seen yet.

I have already presented the argument in the OP and explain in detail over other posts.

• All ideas are thought.
  Absolute perfection is a thought.
  Absolute perfection is an idea.

You cannot deny the above.

You know I am laughing now do you not?

Of course I CAN and WILL deny the above.

I wrote; If there is available a sound rational argument for 'absolute perfection' being an idea ONLY, But obviously you missed the word ONLY. I am NOT sure how you could but obviously you DID. I did write it there in CAPITALS so it was easier for you to SEE.

Your so called "argument" does NOT in any way, shape, nor form, show 'absolute perfection' is an idea, nor a thought, ONLY. Capitals, bold, and underlined this time, just for more clarity.

Obviously;
All ideas are thought.
Obviously;
Absolute perfection is a thought, BUT just as obvious is;
Absolute perfection CAN be a thought, and, exist empirically. The Universe Itself is one example of absolute perfection.

Ah now I have got it. Maybe you are under some sort of distorted illusion that things CAN only be looked at one way. That way being YOUR WAY of course. IF some thing does NOT fit in with your way of looking at and seeing things, then it is incorrect or an impossibility. Is this correct?

If a human beings SEES the absolute perfection that the Universe is or not, then that my friends is entirely UP TO THEM. Which is WHAT I have been SAYING all along, for those who have NOT picked up on this yet. By now most of you would have.

If you insist the thought represented the idea is empirical, you will have to provide empirical evidences.

BUT I do NOT have to provide any evidence whatsoever BECAUSE I would NOT insist any thing as ridiculous as that.

Example, when you see an apple in front of you, a thought of it arises. From there you can easily prove that apple exists empirically.
Now if you have a thought of the idea of absolute perfection, and if you must prove it empirically real, then you must provide the empirical evidences.

I have given you the Universe, you know that one that YOU are existing in NOW that you are empirically observing and experiencing NOW, as EVIDENCE for absolute perfection. As I have asked earlier; HOW much more evidence do you WANT and NEED?

Yes I surely can agree on this.

And, I surely can agree that 'absolute perfection' can also be proven with empirical evidence.

Then produce the evidence like proving how a particular apple exists empirically.

To prove how a particular apple exists I PLACE the physical apple in front of you. If you WANT to, you then allow the body to experience the apple through any of the five senses. If you experience the apple, then you can or can not accept the evidence I provided for you. Just like I have placed the physical Universe in front of you. If you WANT to, you can now allow the body to experience the Universe through any of the five senses. If you experience the Universe, then can or can not accept the evidence I provided for you. If you do or do not accept the evidence, then that is up to you SOLELY.

I can ONLY give you evidence. I can NOT make you believe any thing or not. I NEITHER want to make you believe any thing. You are completely and absolutely FREE to choose whatever you want to.

The EVIDENCE is the Universe, Itself. The Self-aware conscious One existing, observing and experiencing the Universe Itself IS the One to verify if this claim is right or not.

For an observer to just exist in an infinite eternal place generally known as the Universe, then that IS absolute perfection.

HOW the Universe came about or always IS does NOT matter. ITS existence with an conscious being observing it IS absolute perfection in and of Itself. No matter what a person thinks in life, if they can NOT fathom the absolute perfection of It all by just observing and experiencing EXISTENCE, Itself, then they NEVER will. No matter if the Universe WAS CREATED (believed by some), or, the Universe came into existence BY CHANCE (believed by some), or, the Universe IS INFINITE AND ETERNAL it has to be absolute perfection ITSELF. Even just for the very fact that you are HERE NOW would prove that absolute perfection must be occurring for ME to be able to bear witness those ALL-THERE-IS. If a conscious aware being is NOT truly amazed at what it actually means to exist and be able to experience and observe, then nothing else with amaze them.

The empirical evidence of the Universe only proves the Universe exists empirically.

YES, NOW you are getting (seeing) the picture.

It does not prove there is an absolute perfect creator.

WHY the side track. I do KNOW it is the topic heading of this thread BUT we are discussing absolute perfection now, are we not?

If you cannot produce a perfect circle in the empirical world, then it would be far less you can produce an entity of absolute perfect in the empirical world.

When YOU use the word 'you' here YOU are referring to a human being, right?

Now re-read what you wrote.

But if when YOU use the word 'you' you are referring to some thing else, then what is that thing that you are referring to?

Such an absolute perfection can only exists in your brain as an illusion.

IF you so BELIEVE.

I have already explained that you, human beings, are free to BELIEVE whatever you so choose.

This is where you are so naive and ignorant.

Am I? WHY?

Take whichever marble is "claimed" to be absolutely perfectly round and look it through an atomic microscope. Will YOU anticipate there will be irregularities?

I will NEVER anticipate any thing BECAUSE I do NOT have such narrow nor closed view of things.

What you are saying is so obvious and so predictable, BUT WHY can you NOT see what I am saying? My words are actual written down and BEFORE you. So, they can NOT be misread. Did you once again miss some thing? Did you miss the 'if'? Maybe I will start having to write the word 'if' in capital, bold, underlined, and in ' ' marks also so you do NOT miss that as well. 'IF' and only 'IF' some thing IS perfectly round, then what IS it?

I am NOT asking what YOU or some other human being "anticipates", "thinks", "assumes", "believes" or any other "forecast". I asked what IS it?

This is going to be one very long process.

Only the ignorant will claim it is really absolutely perfect, surely you are not one of them? perhaps you are?

Sure it is obvious to most observers here now just HOW much BELIEFS are blinding this person from SEEING what IS actually before them. That is; what I have PLACED before them.

I have explained above.

You have "explained" and even provided "support" to YOU and your BELIEF ONLY.

As explained above, the empirical Universe cannot be absolute perfect.

Laughing again. The only thing you have shown above, and NOT explained, is your BELIEFS.

[TimeSeeker]

You are TRYING TO GET so far off track, as you PURPOSELY can, from what I am actually writing, saying, and meaning, so that that BELIEF that you are so dearly trying to to hang on to will still make some sort of sense, to you.

You need stop accusing me of "purposefully getting off the track" when i am trying to explain to you how and why you are wrong. I need to find a way to EXPLAIN it to you in a way you can RELATE to the issue at hand.

You wrote;
That would be a false analogy.

Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.

I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.

I explained MY BAD. AND, used 'motor vehicle' INSTEAD so now it is NOT a false analogy. Now, you say that you have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. My point IS the people before the 17th century also had nothing to speak of in relation to a diesel powered computerized motor vehicle.

No matter how far you move the goalpost (motorized vehicle, flying airplane, rocket ship). People do have something to relate to - EXPERIENCE.

As I already pointed out (and you dismissed): I could explain the CONCEPT to people by saying "It will take 1 hour instead of 10 hours to get from A to B". I don't have to tell them HOW that will work (diesel powered computer vehicle, airplane OR rocket ship). Those are specifics.

I have explained to them in ways that:
1. They can relate to
2. They understand HOW that thing will make their life better ( reduce travel time! )

My point was, and still IS, just because some thing can NOT yet be imagined BY SOME PEOPLE to come into existence, that is; into being empirical, then that does NOT mean IN and OF ITSELF that that thing is JUST an ideal.

It does.

"Horseless carriage" relates to experience as "10 times faster travel from A to B"
"absoute perfection" = ???

Just because some thing, at that moment, is an ideal does NOT make it then an impossibility in the empirical. Which is exactly what the argument was saying; that i was saying was WRONG. That argument was WRONG for the very reason I have been GIVING.

Tell me; HOW do I explain a, relatively, NEW IDEA to a group of people? That is; a NEW IDEA that CAN (and WILL?) come into existence like;

Relate it to experience and human needs.

You are the same as one of these people. You are NOT yet able to imagine some thing, so to you you BELIEVE it is an impossibility.

Ad hominem.I am nothing like that. I told you what "impossible" means to me - it violates the laws of physics.

So what you need to tell me is how you intend to do all of the following without violating the laws of physics:
1. Manufacture electricity to meet global demand without pollution
2. Sustain industry to feed, clothe, house, educate, transport and employ all people on Earth without pollution
3. Ensure that human needs are met at some minimum standard SO THAT wars do not occur.

You are the type of person WHO unless you physically observe and feel [experience] some thing you are, on most accounts, incapable of just even imagining it (ETC...)

Ad hominem. I am nothing like that. I am the type of person who can actualise his ideas. Or recognise what prevents him from actualising his ideas. I build things.

Tell me how you would bring your idea into being.

WHY do you say the Universe is a box? Where and when did you start conceptualizing the Universe as a box? To state; 'the Universe IS a box' is a pretty big thing to do. Do you have any evidence for this?

I don't need evidence for my concepts. The universe is a box for exactly the same reason why you say "you are pointing IN the Universe". We are inside the universe. But also the CONCEPT of "the universe" is inside OUR heads. Inside our heads the CONCEPT of "The Universe" is the category for "everything that exists".

Although the Universe IS NOT a box but that is the only conceptualization you have for It, the aspect of the Universe that is the 'absolute perfection' is the WHOLE of IT as One.

You are violating the law of identity. The universe is "the whole lot of it". The one. The Universe is Everything.

To say that the universe is "absolute perfection" is to describe an ADDITIONAL aspect of the thing which is not conveyed in its original description.
Example: I am TimeSeeker - I am human. At this point you assert that I have a head, eyes etc.

My eyes are blue <----- new information that was not contained in the description of "human".

When you say "absolute perfection" what NEW INFORMATION about The Universe are you giving me? What property OF the universe you describing that is not already included in the definition of "The Universe" which means "everything".

If they have a meaning to you, THEN you have some where to start. Which contradicts what you previously stated. That is; that you have NOTHING to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'.

It's not a contradiction. You are just jumping to conclusions. I use the word "absolute" in certain contexts. I use the word "perfection" to describe my desires/feelings. I don't use the two together. And I definitely don't know how to use them in relation to the universe.

ALL you are doing here is TRYING your very hardest to find and grasp onto absolutely anything that could SUPPORT your already ill-gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

Because of the way the way the Mind and the brain work you just do NOT want to even begin to start because if you did then that would be going against your OWN little self. You might find that what you BELIEVE is true now actually is not.

I think you are projecting your feelings onto me.

I do NOT care what you want to BELIEVE, and do actually BELIEVE. But if you, like other human beings, are going to keep insisting some things are absolutely true, right, and correct, of which they are obviously clearly NOT, then I will keep pointing WHERE they are WRONG, and WHY they are.
That is; they are WRONG because of YOUR subjectivity views, based on your OWN personal ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

See. I have a much easier way for you to say the above paragraph to people you meet. And in a way that they WILL understand you.
You can just utter this phrase and they will understand you INTANTLY. Ready? Here it is.

"You are wrong and I am right. You MUST listen to me!"