Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spectrum]

For those who are unsure of what I meant by an 'absolutely perfect' God.

Note this basic exercise in understanding the meaning of words;
(ref: Google Dictionary)

perfect
adjective
ˈpəːfɪkt/Submit
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
"she strove to be the perfect wife"
synonyms: ideal, model, without fault, faultless, flawless, consummate, quintessential, exemplary, best, best-example, ultimate, copybook More

2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
"a perfect stranger"
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed; More

verb
pəˈfɛkt/Submit
1. make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"
synonyms: improve, make perfect, bring to perfection, better, polish (up), burnish, hone, refine, consummate, put the finishing/final touches to, ameliorate, brush up, fine-tune; raremeliorate
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"

absolute
ˈabsəluːt/Submit
adjective
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More

noun -PHILOSOPHY
1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

The relevant meaning to absolutely perfect is related to the above, i.e.

• perfect
  2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
  synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed; More
  
  absolute
  adjective
  1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
  synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
  2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
  "absolute moral standards"
  synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More
  
  noun -PHILOSOPHY
  1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

An absolutely perfect God is thus a Being that is absolute, perfect, total, complete, totally unconditional and unqualified to other things.

The "absolutely perfect" is reified as The Absolute, note this;
https://en.wik1pedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

[Sy Borg]

So then a perfect God can never get better, never develop or improve, just pointlessly morph from moment to moment (albeit perfectly)?

[Spectrum]

So then a perfect God can never get better, never develop or improve, just pointlessly morph from moment to moment (albeit perfectly)?

Yes, an absolutely perfect God is not expected to get better, develop nor need to improve.
With omnipotency, omniscient, omnipresence, omni-whatever there is no need for an absolutely perfect God to be better.
With such perfect qualities, a theistic can confidently expect his God to fulfill all his needs especially salvation with eternal life in Paradise.

The point is a God per-se must be absolutely perfect, else with the slightest imperfection, it open room for it to be an inferior and be dominated by another's God which claim absolute perfection. The idea of an imperfect God will raise doubts in a theist's mind especially when the underlying psychological state of a theist is so flimsy.
So eventually for any normal theist, it is only rational to opt for an absolutely perfect God since thinking and hoping it is real [by faith] is so easy.

In their yearning for an necessary absolutely perfect God, the catch is, it logically leads to the point that God is an impossibility.

The fact is there was never a God in existence in the first place. What is real is there is merely an existential psychological impulse that drive humans toward a higher power to seek solace with a God from animism to polytheism and then to monotheism.

What I have proven is to reflect the original state, there is no God but only a psychological state and that God is an impossibility.

[Dark Matter]

Ie. so you mean the perfection is not absolute but there is an appropriate state of perfection for each moment?

Take your pick or formulate your own idea of perfection:

Divine Perfection: Possible Idea of God (PDF)

-- Updated November 13th, 2017, 1:01 pm to add the following --

BTW, I have no problem with an absolutely perfect God.

-- Updated November 13th, 2017, 4:54 pm to add the following --

Something exists

The ground of everything that exists cannot not exist

That ground is what people call "God"

Ergo, God cannot fail to exist

[Atreyu]

The point is a God per-se must be absolutely perfect, else with the slightest imperfection, it open room for it to be an inferior and be dominated by another's God which claim absolute perfection.

Not true.

If, as I've posited here many times, the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being) then no other entity could dominate it, nor could any other entity be "superior" to it, even if it is not said to be "perfect" (regardless of how one defines "perfect").

The only "God" which is an impossibility is the "God" as defined and explained by the typical theists of our times.

The "God" I define is not only possible, but dare I say is by far the most likely, and coherent, scenario....

[Dark Matter]

The point is a God per-se must be absolutely perfect, else with the slightest imperfection, it open room for it to be an inferior and be dominated by another's God which claim absolute perfection.

Not true.

If, as I've posited here many times, the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being) then no other entity could dominate it, nor could any other entity be "superior" to it, even if it is not said to be "perfect" (regardless of how one defines "perfect").

The only "God" which is an impossibility is the "God" as defined and explained by the typical theists of our times.

The "God" I define is not only possible, but dare I say is by far the most likely, and coherent, scenario....

That must make me atypical.

[Spectrum]

Ie. so you mean the perfection is not absolute but there is an appropriate state of perfection for each moment?

Take your pick or formulate your own idea of perfection:

Divine Perfection: Possible Idea of God (PDF)

Thanks for the link.
I read 3/4 of it including the conclusions.
Generally all the 'perfections' attributed to a God explicitly or implicitly lead to God being ultimately an absolutely perfect God which allow no other entities or gods to dominate or be superior over God per se.

BTW, I have no problem with an absolutely perfect God.

This idea is represented explicitly in many of the views in the above link and implied in the others. No theists would rationally accept their God to be inferior to the God of another, thus imperatively their God must be an 'absolutely perfect God than which no greater can dominate.'

Something exists

The ground of everything that exists cannot not exist

That ground is what people call "God"

Ergo, God cannot fail to exist

Note Kant's famous argument, Existence cannot be a predicate by itself.
'Exist' is meaningless when standing alone.
In 'Something exists' that 'something' has to exists presumably and necessarily within a framework of conditions which is the ground [no ontological ground].

Say 'apples exist' imply they exist within the grounds of the common-sense framework which can be very contentious or the exists within the Scientific Framework which is more credible but still contentious.

For you to jump to conclude the ground is "God" without evidences and proofs is hasty and a fantasy. My thesis why theists jump hastily and take the leap to conclude God exists as the ground of all things is purely psychological similar to what Hume had explained with Induction.

-- Updated Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:02 pm to add the following --

The point is a God per-se must be absolutely perfect, else with the slightest imperfection, it open room for it to be an inferior and be dominated by another's God which claim absolute perfection.

Not true.

If, as I've posited here many times, the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being) then no other entity could dominate it, nor could any other entity be "superior" to it, even if it is not said to be "perfect" (regardless of how one defines "perfect").

The only "God" which is an impossibility is the "God" as defined and explained by the typical theists of our times.

The "God" I define is not only possible, but dare I say is by far the most likely, and coherent, scenario....

In your,
"the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being)"
you need to analyze the elements above in detail.

1. The Universe
The 'Universe' is generally a scientific concept verifiable only within the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, limitations, assumptions, various process and consensus by Peer Review.
Generally all scientists are aware of the limitations and assumptions underlying the human-made Scientific Framework. So what is scientifically true is only valid within the Scientific Framework and no scientist would dare to claim certainty for their theory.
Popper had asserted scientific theories [albeit credible and very useful] are at best 'polished conjectures.'
So when you used the term 'Universe' it is at best a polished conjecture.

I have other counter arguments in reserved.
Kant argued there are 3 ideas [only] that are illusory and impossible, i.e.

1. 1. the soul,
   2. God &
   3. the 'Whole-Universe' created by God,

all these are impossibilities in real terms. Note you have to prove God exists as real first before you claim God created a real Universe.


"The Universe is a sentient being"

• sentient
  adjective
  able to perceive or feel things.
  "she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
  synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive

To rely on a scientific concept 'the Universe' and assert it is a sentient being [as defined above] without proof is too far-fetched.
If you bring in the non-scientific Universe, that would be worse as you do not have any credible support for its existence.

Your thesis with the above holes is not tenable.

[Dark Matter]

My thesis why theists jump hastily and take the leap to conclude God exists as the ground of all things is purely psychological similar to what Hume had explained with Induction.

I know what your thesis is, but for psychological reasons, it’s based on hope rather than rational thought. You can’t bear the idea that you might be wrong and so cling mightily to the notion that God must be what YOU think he must be — a being alongside other beings.

[Atreyu]

In your,
"the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being)"
you need to analyze the elements above in detail.

1. The Universe
The 'Universe' is generally a scientific concept verifiable only within the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, limitations, assumptions, various process and consensus by Peer Review.
Generally all scientists are aware of the limitations and assumptions underlying the human-made Scientific Framework. So what is scientifically true is only valid within the Scientific Framework and no scientist would dare to claim certainty for their theory.
Popper had asserted scientific theories [albeit credible and very useful] are at best 'polished conjectures.'
So when you used the term 'Universe' it is at best a polished conjecture.

I have other counter arguments in reserved.
Kant argued there are 3 ideas [only] that are illusory and impossible, i.e.

1. 1. the soul,
   2. God &
   3. the 'Whole-Universe' created by God,

all these are impossibilities in real terms. Note you have to prove God exists as real first before you claim God created a real Universe.


"The Universe is a sentient being"

• sentient
  adjective
  able to perceive or feel things.
  "she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
  synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive

To rely on a scientific concept 'the Universe' and assert it is a sentient being [as defined above] without proof is too far-fetched.
If you bring in the non-scientific Universe, that would be worse as you do not have any credible support for its existence.

Your thesis with the above holes is not tenable.

Basic errors in red.

The idea of the "Universe" can exist outside the boundaries of science. It can be a philosophical idea, and was one long before modern science existed. The idea of "Everything" did not begin with the Enlightenment. Men have been thinking about, and defining, the Universe outside of science for eons. In fact, ever since man could think about it. So you are quite wrong that the idea of thinking of Everything existing as a sort of whole (Universe) is a scientific idea. It's not a theory. It's an idea, a concept, and that is all that is required in philosophy.

There could be no proof that the Universe is sentient. What proof could there be? The idea cannot be verified or disproved empirically. Again, it's not a theory, so it's not science. It's a philosophical idea, and this is a philosophy board. This isn't a science board. In philosophy, we are not constrained in our ideas by the principles of empiricism.

And, at any rate, the idea is hardly "far fetched". IMO, I think what is really far-fetched is thinking that the Universe is merely a gigantic collection of mindless and mechanical matter and energy, in which, somehow, through very strange, esoteric, and inexplicable processes, arose life, awareness, intelligence, and consciousness, up to the level that we ourselves can ponder the reason for our existence.

Nothing is more far-fetched than many current scientific models, including abiogenesis, as well as the general idea that "mindless" and "dead" matter can suddenly become aware and alive solely due to a series of physical and chemical processes, particularly when it has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory.

[Spectrum]

In your,
"the Universe is God (i.e. is a sentient being)"
you need to analyze the elements above in detail.

1. The Universe
The 'Universe' is generally a scientific concept verifiable only within the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, limitations, assumptions, various process and consensus by Peer Review.

So when you used the term 'Universe' it is at best a polished conjecture.

To rely on a scientific concept 'the Universe' and assert it is a sentient being [as defined above] without proof is too far-fetched.
..
Your thesis with the above holes is not tenable.

Basic errors in red.
The idea of the "Universe" can exist outside the boundaries of science. It can be a philosophical idea, and was one long before modern science existed. The idea of "Everything" did not begin with the Enlightenment. Men have been thinking about, and defining, the Universe outside of science for eons. In fact, ever since man could think about it. So you are quite wrong that the idea of thinking of Everything existing as a sort of whole (Universe) is a scientific idea. It's not a theory. It's an idea, a concept, and that is all that is required in philosophy.

What is generally understood as the 'Universe' is [see Wiki or elsewhere for more details];

The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.

Point is whatever ideas of the Universe before Science and before the discovery of the telescope, most were never justifiable and on hindsight very unreliable. Note the case of the Flat Earth, geocentric -Sun move over the Earth.

Note a philosophical proposition in general is more demanding than a proof for a scientific theory. This is why we have Philosophy of Science which oversee Science.

If you present a philosophical proposition with reference to the Universe, you must start from the empirical proofs as a base and speculate therefrom, e.g. the Big Bang Theory.

If you use 'philosophical idea' literally, then such an idea is without any empirical basis and this is merely a speculated illusion. Here is what Kant demonstrated with solid arguments on what are 'philosophical ideas' [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 [reference to philosophical ideas re God, soul, whole Universe] 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 [reference to philosophical ideas re God, soul, whole Universe] 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

There could be no proof that the Universe is sentient. What proof could there be? The idea cannot be verified or disproved empirically. Again, it's not a theory, so it's not science. It's a philosophical idea, and this is a philosophy board. This isn't a science board. In philosophy, we are not constrained in our ideas by the principles of empiricism.

And, at any rate, the idea is hardly "far fetched". IMO, I think what is really far-fetched is thinking that the Universe is merely a gigantic collection of mindless and mechanical matter and energy, in which, somehow, through very strange, esoteric, and inexplicable processes, arose life, awareness, intelligence, and consciousness, up to the level that we ourselves can ponder the reason for our existence.

Nothing is more far-fetched than many current scientific models, including abiogenesis, as well as the general idea that "mindless" and "dead" matter can suddenly become aware and alive solely due to a series of physical and chemical processes, particularly when it has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory.

Note the meaning of 'sentient,'

• sentient
  able to perceive or feel things.
  synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive

In a way you are assigning 'agency' to a Universe that is capable of perception, feel things, consciousness, etc. This is what is far-fetched without any grounding at all.
Point is how far do you want to go with such 'agency' capabilities. It is in direction that you [when push with limits] will ultimately end up with an absolutely perfect agent, i.e. God.

IMO, I think what is really far-fetched is thinking that the Universe is merely a gigantic collection of mindless and mechanical matter and energy, in which, somehow, through very strange, esoteric, and inexplicable processes, arose life, awareness, intelligence, and consciousness, up to the level that we ourselves can ponder the reason for our existence.

I had not agreed to the above. Why should I believe primarily in the above that you are throwing at me.

There are many other viable explanations for the 'meaning of life'.
I believe reality is a Spontaneous Emergent Reality and my 'empirical self' [not the I AM] exists to 'dance' interdependently in complementarity within such an emergent Reality.
While we note the past and future in mind, what is of focus is living dynamically and optimally in the 'NOW.'

-- Updated Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:05 pm to add the following --

My thesis why theists jump hastily and take the leap to conclude God exists as the ground of all things is purely psychological similar to what Hume had explained with Induction.

I know what your thesis is, but for psychological reasons, it’s based on hope rather than rational thought. You can’t bear the idea that you might be wrong and so cling mightily to the notion that God must be what YOU think he must be — a being alongside other beings.

Where did I say God "must be — a being alongside other beings."
I have proven in this OP, God is an Impossibility to be real, thus a non-starter & moot for any consideration of God within reality.

Note we are in a philosophical discussion which entails critical thinking [which you have not displayed], defending one's hypothesis and if anyone can prove I am wrong convincingly, I will accept it.

-- Updated Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:50 pm to add the following --

Some point to the above;

There are a range of gods within polytheism.
Note the point I brought up, i.e. the idea of God is inherent and has naturally evolved from animism to polytheism to monotheism and ultimately to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God.
Those who are into polytheism are in a way ignorant and grabbed what that came and by cultural and traditions many are still stuck to it at present.
Given the rational choice, theists will rationally adopt a progressively greater God that will ultimate be an absolutely perfect God. This is why 5.4 billion theists are believing in a monotheistic God and the progress will ultimately be an absolutely perfect God.

I have stated, an absolutely perfect God is the ultimate because when cornered no theist will accept their God to be dominated by another. The theists' natural progression to avoid one's God being dominated will lead one to an absolutely perfect God with an optimism that such a God is real. No theists will concede to accept their God has to kiss the ass of another.

If any theist were to postulate an anthropomorhic God, which is empirically based, I agree such an empirically based God is empirically possible. But such possibility would be extremely negligible. To prove such a God, all one need to to bring the verifiable and justifiable evidence. The limitation of the empirically-based God is there will always be a greater empirical God than the one that is claimed.
So whatever empirical God a theist claim, another will claim another empirical God is greater and this culminate in an infinite regression.

To avoid an infinite regression and kissing the ass of another God, it is only logical that the smarter thinker theists had introduced an absolutely perfect God than which no other God can be greater in perfection. This is St. Anselm's definition of an ontological God.
There is no other way for a thinking theist to get out of the above dilemma of infinite regression and having to kiss the ass of another God than to resort to an absolute perfect God.

When a theist claims;
"my God is a Being than which no greater in perfection can exists"
it give no room for another God to dominate it nor command the lesser god to kiss his ass.
Ultimately all educated and thinking theists will end up with an absolutely perfect God [the default definition of what is a God].

But I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real, i.e. empirically + rationally real because absolute perfection [as argued] is impossible to be real.

[Namelesss]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

Your 'argument' already fails before you even launch that ship.
It must be an argument from ignorance!

The Universal attribute of God is Omni-!
That means ALL inclusive, transcendental!
That means that all that exists, in totality, fulfills that quality of Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc...!
Thus the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universe, and all in it, must be God!
There is no argument against this Reality!

[Sy Borg]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

Your 'argument' already fails before you even launch that ship.
It must be an argument from ignorance!

The Universal attribute of God is Omni-!
That means ALL inclusive, transcendental!
That means that all that exists, in totality, fulfills that quality of Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc...!
Thus the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universe, and all in it, must be God!
There is no argument against this Reality!

There is an argument against the labelling, though. What logical reason is there to call The All "God" rather than "the universe"?

[Spectrum]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

Your 'argument' already fails before you even launch that ship.
It must be an argument from ignorance!

The Universal attribute of God is Omni-!
That means ALL inclusive, transcendental!
That means that all that exists, in totality, fulfills that quality of Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc...!
Thus the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universe, and all in it, must be God!
There is no argument against this Reality!

Btw, do you understand the Principles of Arguments and logic.
You should critique my syllogism and the respective premises before concluding why my argument failed.

The attribute of God cannot be "Omni-" - God is omni-evil?
Whatever the omni- it has to be the attributes that are essential and positive to God.
Whatever the positive 'omni' it has to be perfect and absolutely perfect because you do not want your God to be dominated by another more perfect God, thus is owned and has to kiss the ass of the more superior God when commanded.

But as I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real empirically and rationally.

[Namelesss]

(Nested quote removed.)

Your 'argument' already fails before you even launch that ship.
It must be an argument from ignorance!

The Universal attribute of God is Omni-!
That means ALL inclusive, transcendental!
That means that all that exists, in totality, fulfills that quality of Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc...!
Thus the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universe, and all in it, must be God!
There is no argument against this Reality!

Btw, do you understand the Principles of Arguments and logic.
You should critique my syllogism and the respective premises before concluding why my argument failed.

I do understand that if you claimed to have bottled unconditional Love, and will now tell me how, I feel perfectly free to discount that which is offered in defiance of Knowledge/experience. If I Know that it is not possible on the face of it, I am free to glissand over all attempted 'theories' in refutation of Knowledge.
The 'definition' that I offered is Universal, and irrefutable.
I'll be waiting for your refutation.

The attribute of God cannot be "Omni-" - God is omni-evil?
Whatever the omni- it has to be the attributes that are essential and positive to God.

Why, yes, Omni means ALL INCLUSIVE!!
All prett y, all ugly, all in between, all 'good', all 'evil', all stuff that makes you feel pleasant and all stuff that hurts!
ALL inclusive!
It is your own arbitrary limitations that you place on the Omni, if it feels good to you, it's 'good'. If it hurts, it's bad. Are you a child? Don't you know that the best medicine hurts, and we do it anyway, and be grateful!
All this judgment that you display is your own biases and psychology at work, your own ego.
There is not anything that exists that is not God/Self!
That includes passing feelings that are uncomfortable.
'Good' and 'evil' exist in the judgmental eye of the beholder!
When we see either, we are looking in the mirror! What we 'see', is God!

But as I had argued, an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility to be real empirically and rationally.

That is simply because, (and, yes, it is true) the Omni is completely transcendental, unconditional, One!, and cannot possibly be defined (limited) in an inherently limited dualistic system of observation.

By the way, an absolutely perfect God (the very definition of Perfection; Truth/Reality/Universal... ALL inclusive) is certainly 'rationally' produced! I have just done so! *__-

-- Updated November 19th, 2017, 1:49 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Your 'argument' already fails before you even launch that ship.
It must be an argument from ignorance!

The Universal attribute of God is Omni-!
That means ALL inclusive, transcendental!
That means that all that exists, in totality, fulfills that quality of Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc...!
Thus the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universe, and all in it, must be God!
There is no argument against this Reality!

There is an argument against the labeling, though. What logical reason is there to call The All "God" rather than "the universe"?

To speak is to lie (why literalists remain clueless)!
In discussion, all is metaphor. We just pick a metaphor relate-able to the widest demographic, when writing/discussing.
It doesn't matter the Perspective (metaphor), they all refer to the same thing;

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

[Dark Matter]

Great said:

“What logical reason is there to call The All “God” rather than “the universe”?

Nameless said:

“Omni” is completely transcendental, unconditional, One.

I don’t understand why there’s a question.