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

[Spectrum]

Re
God is an Impossibility
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 11&t=24704

The Syllogism:

• 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.

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived. Note Descartes, St Anselm and the likes.

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

Another point I need to qualify is the 'god' in this argument is that of the theological God, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I am not referring to gods of the Greeks, e.g. and hundreds of the likes;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures
There are probably thousands of God over various cultures around the world and any claims of their existence as real can be easily argued away.

This is why whenever there is the question of the realness of these of other gods, the argument will always veer towards the perfect God.

One point to take note is the evolution of the idea of God over history of mankind will inevitably lead to the perfect God.

Any counters to P2 above.

[Spectrum]

Sorry.. posted in the wrong site.
No intention to discuss the above here.

[Eduk]

Oh God.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Precisely because we know people worshipped specific gods in polytheistic systems, we know that one can worship a God that is not perfect. People would even worship gods, then, who were not as powerful as, other gods in the pantheon, because they felt they has a special relationship with that one. Further just because one does not have a mathematical conception of the perfection of one's God, does not mean one must acknowledge the mathematical perfection of someone else's God.

Perfection is attributed to lovers.
It does not have to be the omni perfection that theologians came up with much later than the scriptures were written. The OT God clearly is just like the Greek gods, in temperment, frustration, impulsive acts, negotiating, testing people...I mena why would a perfect God with all the omni characteristics need to test someone or get angry when someone breaks his rules?

The deductive argument doesn't work even if everyone had this theologian created idiocy of mathematically perfect deities. But its premises do not hold, and telling us to keep the Greek gods out of it only heightens the problems in it.

[LuckyR]

Omniscient and omnipotent gods are a relatively more recent invention

[ThomasHobbes]

Re
God is an Impossibility
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 11&t=24704

The Syllogism:

• 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.

Often after I have countered and never conceded my P2, posters still claim and insist they have debunked P2.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God.
Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived. Note Descartes, St Anselm and the likes.

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

Another point I need to qualify is the 'god' in this argument is that of the theological God, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I am not referring to gods of the Greeks, e.g. and hundreds of the likes;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G ... al_figures
There are probably thousands of God over various cultures around the world and any claims of their existence as real can be easily argued away.

This is why whenever there is the question of the realness of these of other gods, the argument will always veer towards the perfect God.

One point to take note is the evolution of the idea of God over history of mankind will inevitably lead to the perfect God.

Any counters to P2 above.

Concluding God cannot exist get's my vote.

Perfection has to entail OMNI_everything. omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnievil, omnibad, omnigood, omni-temporal, omnishambolic, omnitidy.
To be perfect in any aspect has to involve being less than perfect is the converse of that aspect.
QED perfection can only be partial.

[ThomasHobbes]

Omniscient and omnipotent gods are a relatively more recent invention

But any claim of perfection have to include both.

[LuckyR]

Omniscient and omnipotent gods are a relatively more recent invention

But any claim of perfection have to include both.

Of course, but perfection was not part of the original model

[Karpel Tunnel]

And, of course, one could believe that one's God was not absolutely in some mathematical sense perfect
and
when someone else says 'Then my God is better, because he's perfect'
you simply say and think
'either you're God is not the real God or it is the real God and therefore also mine and not mathematically perfect.'

We are not utterly compelled by the claims of others, which the OP seems to assume for some reason.

[ThomasHobbes]

But any claim of perfection have to include both.

Of course, but perfection was not part of the original model

What are you talking about?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Of course, but perfection was not part of the original model

What are you talking about?

These ideas of mathematical omni God qualities came later via theologians. Of course people referred to great God this and all powerful, but they were not thinking in mathematical type perfection terms. Look at the OT we have a cranky God testing people as if he doesn't know what would happen, getting angry over things he should have known beforehand and, Jeez, he's God, why get upset, just fix it. Or prevent it. He's much more like Zeus or Mars. As time went on long after written scriptures, these incredible powers got hardened and defined in ways that lead to all the paradoxes that atheists love to taunt theists with, and theist seem to think they have to defend, so they deserve it. Those theist who buy these kinds of perfections.

When we woo, we say all sorts of superlative stuff.
When we kiss secular powers ass - look at any entourage - we use terms that we know are not applicable in a mathematical way.

Someone who can create a universe might as well be omnipotent from our perspective. But this does not mean, necessarily to those believers who wrote, say, the Bible, that God could make something both A and not A, make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it, undo even himself...etc. Possibly some of them thought of it that way, but they were probably academics, not mystics, fiddling with the ideas, in thinky wanking.

[Karpel Tunnel]

and even Jesus, so we are talking NT, doubted on the cross, got pissed off and smashed stuff, and did a bunch of other moody, cranky **** that no perfect being would bother with or find themselves triggered into.

[ThomasHobbes]

What are you talking about?

These ideas of mathematical omni God qualities came later via theologians. Of course people referred to great God this and all powerful, but they were not thinking in mathematical type perfection terms. Look at the OT we have a cranky God testing people as if he doesn't know what would happen,

So what?

[LuckyR]

These ideas of mathematical omni God qualities came later via theologians. Of course people referred to great God this and all powerful, but they were not thinking in mathematical type perfection terms. Look at the OT we have a cranky God testing people as if he doesn't know what would happen,

So what?

Congrats, you've hit upon the best reply to all of the tough philosophical theories through the millennia!! Kudos to you!

[Felix]

The Syllogism:
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.

Completely meaningless. You did not define your terms, e.g., "absolute perfection," and once you do, you'll need to prove that your initial premise P1 is true.