Philosophy Discussion Forums

I define perfection as impossible.

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 11:36 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 10:40 am
So what?

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

Great, so you can't actually answer.

Eduk wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 12:11 pm I define perfection as impossible.

I thought I already said that?

I wasn't replying to you TH

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 2:06 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 11:36 am

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

Great, so you can't actually answer.

Oh I thought, "so what?" was a rhetorical question (as it typically is on the schoolyard, where it is commonly used).

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 3:45 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 2:06 pm

Great, so you can't actually answer.

Oh I thought, "so what?" was a rhetorical question (as it typically is on the schoolyard, where it is commonly used).

Stop prevaricating and answer the question.

What is the point in going to all the bother to post on a philosophy forum if you have no apparent interest in discussing anything? LuckyR's point is obvious and if it isn't you need to do more work than two word posts demanding that LuckyR answer you in the exact way you wish to be answered.
For example why don't you take a guess at what LuckyR meant and then ask if you were right? This would at least give you a chance of an actual conversation.

Felix wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 12:07 pm

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.

IMO, P1 is inherently true because "absolute perfection" is subjective by nature, it is P2 which theism needs to defend. Either god does not exist or god is not absolute perfection, or as Craig lane puts it "a maximally great being".
All ontological arguments fail in that they assert an unfalsifiable claim in an attempt to define god.

Eduk wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 3:58 pm What is the point in going to all the bother to post on a philosophy forum if you have no apparent interest in discussing anything? LuckyR's point is obvious and if it isn't you need to do more work than two word posts demanding that LuckyR answer you in the exact way you wish to be answered.
For example why don't you take a guess at what LuckyR meant and then ask if you were right? This would at least give you a chance of an actual conversation.

Lucky has not answered AT ALL. I don't care in what way the question is answered. If lucky does not know why s/he made the point, why make the point.
I think it is a bit rich attacking ME for not having an interest, as I am the one asking questions, and Lucky is the one prevarication.
DO you even know what the issue is here?

Think it over!

DO you even know what the issue is here?

I thought the issue was you asking non questions and failing to communicate (as your response to me demonstrates nicely). Your response to Karpel of 'So what?' was taken as a rhetorical question by Lucky (and presumably Karpel). If it was not meant as a rhetorical question then I have attempted to explain why it might seem rhetorical. It is up to you if you wish to take feedback or not (although maybe it's not up to you).
For example Lucky said

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

and Karpel said (trying to answer your other non question to Lucky)

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,

Now as to the point Lucky and Karpel are making (and please correct me if I am wrong) I think they are saying that God doesn't have to be perfect and as proof they give conceptions of God which are not perfect. Now that seems extremely obvious to me, so either I am dumber than I think or.....

Eduk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2018, 6:57 am

DO you even know what the issue is here?

I thought the issue was you asking non questions and failing to communicate

No the issue is that you are carrying an issue over from another thread, seeking to have a go at me for no good reason.

Lucky is quite capable of speaking for themselves.
So either get back on topic or bugger off and mind your own business.

So you see no issues with your 'conversation' style? Other than telling people what they 'actually' think and then telling them to do exactly what you want or 'bugger off'.
My earlier question wasn't rhetorical. I fail to see what you are gaining here? Admittedly what you are getting out of the forum isn't 'on topic' but sometimes I feel sorry for people and try (normally vainly) to help.

My answer:

Absolution is nowhere to be measured or define but only in the mind and Perfection is nowhere to be found or define but only in the mind. It has been invented/thought by humans. Nothing in the world is perfect. Perfection hasn't been found anywhere but in men's head. (Example: A perfect triangle, a circle, etc). God by definition is not human. Perfection is a human trait imagined and assigned to God by humans. Humans are perfect, like a triangle is real. A triangle is only real if a human makes it real. A God can only be perfect if a humans deems it.

So since "Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real"
P2 can no longer be valid
therefore C cannot occur.

Perfection is simply impossible. I see imperfections everywhere but haven't seen perfection. In a way, so many imperfections in this world, yet I feel like I see perfection everywhere. "Perfect Imperfections" makes the idea of "perfection" possible to me but that is purely subjective.

Eduk wrote: ↑August 14th, 2018, 6:57 am Now as to the point Lucky and Karpel are making (and please correct me if I am wrong) I think they are saying that God doesn't have to be perfect and as proof they give conceptions of God which are not perfect. Now that seems extremely obvious to me, so either I am dumber than I think or.....

I am saying a couple of things. One, it is possible to believe in a not mathematically infinite and omnipotent deity. We have done that and many, pagans, for example, still do. Two, I see no reason to assume that ONLY a perfectly omnipotetent God could exist. I can't see how one can draw that conclusion via deduction. Perhaps God is from our perspective unimnaginably powerful, capable of making universes miracles, etc. But cannot unmake itself. CAnnot make a human completely happy AND devastatingly depressed at the same time. Whatever paradoxes one wants to come up with. Perhaps this entity does not know everything that is going to happen. Still it made the universe.

I am not saying this is the case. I am saying I see no reason why we MUST assume some perfection in all possible and impossible qualities.

Talk about perfection being impossible makes my head hurt. What kind of moron can even suggest such a thing?