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

[Dark Matter]

I think Spectrum should listen more to Jordan Peterson and less to his own imagination.

[Sy Borg]

God is simply the Omniscience of Everything that existed prior to the Big Bang, which was Nothing.

Technically, saying that God is nothing is to say that God does not exist. However, your previous postings and the fact that you referred to "Nothing" rather than "nothing" makes clear that that is not what you mean.

I also note that you, like various others who come to philosophy forums, often refer to zero and one and create little hieroglyphic type euqations to explain the conceptions in your minds. As I say, you are not the only one. I am not sure if all of you who do this are "speaking the same language" as each other or have your own particular approach. It does seem that many are inspired by the notions of 0/1 and nothing/everything/The All.

Personally, my only experiences with nothingness have been during deep sleep, general anaesthetic and fainting. If God is nothingness then it would seem that It is rejuvenating, incredibly boring dull and ultimately lesser than everything that exists :)

[3017Metaphysician]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

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.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

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.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

Hello spectrum!

To answer your question, the concept of God is just as logically impossible as human existence itself (consciousness). If the existence of God was based on pure reason, there would be no need to posit (wonder about) God in the first place. One should worry (maybe) if life was considered to be 'all logical' or objectively true (what would that look like). If one is relying on a priori reasoning (the logic associated with understanding the concept of perfection) to 'prove' the existence/nonexistence of God, it is no different than any other theory about human/cosmological existence.

Using the words/concepts from the OP then, life is certainly not all "objective". As such, I would not recommend hanging one's hat on the ontological argument for evidence of a belief and/or disbelief in God.

[Fanman]

Perfection is a subjective quality, a matter of observation and opinion, not fact. If someone believes that perfection is impossible – that is just the way that they see things. Trying to bring perfection into the objective world is an error because you can never separate it from subjectivity. Spectrum’s point of view on perfection seems based on symmetry.

[paradox]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Very good!

However, there is no clear-cut way of deciding what constitutes either maximal greatness or absolute perfection.

For example:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

[3017Metaphysician]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Very good!

However, there is no clear-cut way of deciding what constitutes either maximal greatness or absolute perfection.

For example:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Here's another fun one:

Consciousness is logically impossible
Humans have consciousness
Therefore, humans are logically impossible

[LuckyR]

Perfection is a subjective quality, a matter of observation and opinion, not fact. If someone believes that perfection is impossible – that is just the way that they see things. Trying to bring perfection into the objective world is an error because you can never separate it from subjectivity. Spectrum’s point of view on perfection seems based on symmetry.

Actually perfection is a statistical description (and thus is objective). Though it is generally a comparative or relative one. Thus while it has not been observed it is definitely possible. This, of course has nothing to do with the presence or absence of gods, whose possibilities (if they exist) are likely independent of the outcome of human thoughts.

[kaczynskisatva]

Like everything I've seen in this forum so far, and like most of what I expected to find, this question has only the appearance of a coherent question, but fails to define terms, and so this thread proceeds into conflicts of confusion of definition of terms, instead of following from a defined starting point.

Specifically, you would have to define what, exactly, you mean when you say "God", as this term has many different definitions.

The only definition provided for God here, is, an x which must imperatively be absolutely perfect. So, it appears that you are talking about x, and not God, and this has lead to some deal of confusion.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

Sure,

Physically perfect representation of form is an impossibility,
God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect,
Therefore, God is necessarily not perfectly representable in physical form.

This begs the question, "What, then, is God to be?"

Again - having begged this question, instead of having answered it as groundwork, all you are going to get out of most answers will be confusion.

Within your constraint, we have identified what God is not: a formally perfect physical object, because of the limits on the formal perfection of physical objects, or a formally imperfect physical object, because of the one constraint you have defined for this variable.

Your question, then, becomes: "For what x may there be a thing which is neither a formally perfect physical object, or a formally imperfect physical object?"

If we assume that "formally perfect" is defined for all known physical objects (this assumption might require some unpacking but we'll assume this for now) then all physical objects will be f or not f, therefore, the x you are looking for is not within the domain of known physical objects.

Things which would satisfy your x:

- An unknown physical object, a black swan which violates a principle observed in all known physical objects

As per the limits of induction, this is theoretically possible, it is only not known to be possible. So you have an x which is not known to be possible, a sort of new class of exotic matter.

- Not a physical object

Two things immediately come to mind in the domain of "proposed things which are not physical objects"

- Metaphysical, a supermaterial object existing on an over-level of reality in which different rules apply to the formal purity of objects.

There is not much work to do with respect to this, or with any such known-unknowable unknown which can be postulated in any case.

- Prephysical, a pure form, as per Platonic formalism

There is something to do with this.

So, really, as groundwork to this question, you would have to refute Platonic formalism.

I invite you to attempt to do this, so that you may return to this question with sufficient groundwork laid.

You will find, however, that this is an exercise in futility - if you refute the existence of Form, then the quality of "formally imperfect" becomes undefined, and therefore, all objects satisfy the conditions of being neither formally perfect nor formally imperfect, as you have made it an undefined quality.

If you accept the existence of Form, your question remains coherent, and may be answered thus:

There exists an x which satisfies your search query - it is necessary not a physical object, and so, by exclusion, a pure Form.

Any Form satisfies this query.

Within the implied and culturally assumed but confusing undefined-in-context notion of "God", it may be said that one Form best satisfies this query:

The Form-of-Forms, or, that Form which originates the hierarchy of Forms, or, the Form to which all other Forms are its Functions.

If you are looking to define some properties of this Form-of-Form to see if they correspond to any implied definitions of "God", you should ask a new question. It is still not clear to me what you mean by that term, but I have solved for your x, or proven that your question is undefined. Take whichever one you want.

[kaczynskisatva]

Given time elapsed since my answer to this thread, I must add as a note that, if you choose to ask a new question which follows from this answer (as to the logically observable properties of an exotic object, metaphysical object, or the Form-of-Forms) you should send me a private message to direct me to that thread.

[3017Metaphysician]

Like everything I've seen in this forum so far, and like most of what I expected to find, this question has only the appearance of a coherent question, but fails to define terms, and so this thread proceeds into conflicts of confusion of definition of terms, instead of following from a defined starting point.

Specifically, you would have to define what, exactly, you mean when you say "God", as this term has many different definitions.

The only definition provided for God here, is, an x which must imperatively be absolutely perfect. So, it appears that you are talking about x, and not God, and this has lead to some deal of confusion.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

Sure,

Physically perfect representation of form is an impossibility,
God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect,
Therefore, God is necessarily not perfectly representable in physical form.

This begs the question, "What, then, is God to be?"

Again - having begged this question, instead of having answered it as groundwork, all you are going to get out of most answers will be confusion.

Within your constraint, we have identified what God is not: a formally perfect physical object, because of the limits on the formal perfection of physical objects, or a formally imperfect physical object, because of the one constraint you have defined for this variable.

Your question, then, becomes: "For what x may there be a thing which is neither a formally perfect physical object, or a formally imperfect physical object?"

If we assume that "formally perfect" is defined for all known physical objects (this assumption might require some unpacking but we'll assume this for now) then all physical objects will be f or not f, therefore, the x you are looking for is not within the domain of known physical objects.

Things which would satisfy your x:

- An unknown physical object, a black swan which violates a principle observed in all known physical objects

As per the limits of induction, this is theoretically possible, it is only not known to be possible. So you have an x which is not known to be possible, a sort of new class of exotic matter.

- Not a physical object

Two things immediately come to mind in the domain of "proposed things which are not physical objects"

- Metaphysical, a supermaterial object existing on an over-level of reality in which different rules apply to the formal purity of objects.

There is not much work to do with respect to this, or with any such known-unknowable unknown which can be postulated in any case.

- Prephysical, a pure form, as per Platonic formalism

There is something to do with this.

So, really, as groundwork to this question, you would have to refute Platonic formalism.

I invite you to attempt to do this, so that you may return to this question with sufficient groundwork laid.

You will find, however, that this is an exercise in futility - if you refute the existence of Form, then the quality of "formally imperfect" becomes undefined, and therefore, all objects satisfy the conditions of being neither formally perfect nor formally imperfect, as you have made it an undefined quality.

If you accept the existence of Form, your question remains coherent, and may be answered thus:

There exists an x which satisfies your search query - it is necessary not a physical object, and so, by exclusion, a pure Form.

Any Form satisfies this query.

Within the implied and culturally assumed but confusing undefined-in-context notion of "God", it may be said that one Form best satisfies this query:

The Form-of-Forms, or, that Form which originates the hierarchy of Forms, or, the Form to which all other Forms are its Functions.

If you are looking to define some properties of this Form-of-Form to see if they correspond to any implied definitions of "God", you should ask a new question. It is still not clear to me what you mean by that term, but I have solved for your x, or proven that your question is undefined. Take whichever one you want.

Using analytical propositions, here are some classic cosmological 'deductions':

1.Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2.There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3.Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4.This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5.This necessary being is God.[19]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

1.Something can be produced.
2.It is produced by itself, something or another.
3.Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
4.Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
5.Therefore, by another A.
6.If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
7.If A is not first, then we return to 2).
8.From 3) and 4), we produce another- B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
9.An infinite series is not possible.
10.Therefore, God exists.


Most of these rely on the impossibility of infinite regress (i.e., who caused the theoretical BB and where did the Singularity come from). But nowadays, an 'infinite' expanding universe(s) and Multiverse theories are suggesting that actual 'infinity' is logically possible or even somewhat probable (not to mention the Gödel/Turing and Heisenberg analogies). The short answer is that science does not know for sure.

Perhaps one fun question would be whether eternity exists or is logically possible... .

[Philosophically lost]

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.

• 1. Relative perfection
  2. Absolute perfection

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.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

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.

So,

• Absolute perfection is an impossibility
  God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

Just because theirs no perfect circles doesn't mean there is no perfect God who might even exist beyond the empirical realm that we observe.

[thrasymachus]

3017Metaphysician wrote
Perhaps one fun question would be whether eternity exists or is logically possible... .

I note you brought science into this discussion. I wonder why. Eternity is not a scientific notion because it has not empirical basis. This is not to talk about infinite sets, the concept of infinity as something that turns up useful in equations.

the arguments that look into the logical implications of contingency and so on, these are all specious, and if you hitch discussion about God to them, the result will be absurd in the extreme. The point being that eternity, God, human freedom, the soul and so on, are not, as the OP implies, discursively derived. Discursivity, it has to be admitted, is certainly always there in the remembered language that conceives the world at all, that is, one cannot encounter a world without the historical record coming into play, for an encounter would otherwise being nothing at all. Agency itself is like this. But this is about implicit discursivity. What Ram Das has in mind is the explicit reasoning through arguments like the ones you provide. This has to suspended. Hard to do, really, for it takes the inquirer into other regions of possible perceptions. Perceptions of the intuitive foundations of the world, not the world.

[thrasymachus]

Spectrum wrote
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection
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.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

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.

So,
Absolute perfection is an impossibility
God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Therefore God is an impossibility.

Can any theists counter the above?

The "theist" would have to reply that the entire question here is cast in terms that completely misrepresent and trivialize the concept of god at the outset. Absolute perfection an idea, empirically impossible? What does this mean? How are you thinking about the limitations of empirically based limitations? Whatever content you have in mind when you speak of empiricism has to be properly shown. The apriori conditions for empirically apprehended affairs, that is, the presuppositions of having an experience, these have to be examined. What do you do with the impossibility of reason's access to the world of actualities?

This assumption that god is a premise in an argument is fine. But the description of god in this premise has to be genuine, not some naive knock off that handily can be thrown into instant play. God the perfect? This is utterly without meaning unless you say what perfection is.

[jackskellington421]

How about atomic matter? It can not be created nor destroyed. It is only converted into energy by its square root? This is the theory of relativity. Philosophy of the mind of all minds is eternal existence like the ourbours. A prinum movens like Shiva in Hindu, or the prince like Jacob who is Israel like Vishnu? Occasionalism like Islam or movie The Devils Advocate. Can this explain relative perfection and absolute perfection?

[Raymond]

I received a message from the gods in a dream. They're not perfect. Especially the homonid gods were fiddling around like fools during preparations for creations. The gods tried to contact me. And succeeded. To tell me about the foolishness they recently discovered while watching the world on the eternal and infinite heavenly heavens...