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

[Sam26]

Skeptics tend to ignore theists and conceive God in such a way that it's absurd or God is simply defined out of existence.

Yes, it's true that sometime skeptics make this mistake. However, there are also those like myself who just don't believe there is enough evidence to warrant belief in a God, Christian or otherwise. I was a Christian for over 40 years, and it's just been in the last 7-8 years that I gave those beliefs up, and I changed my beliefs based on a lack of evidence, and too many self-sealing arguments. I was amazed at how easy it is to see the problems with religious belief when looking from an outside prospective. It's very difficult to free oneself from a lifetime of religious thinking, especially when many of your friends and family remain believers.

[Spectrum]

(Nested quote removed.)

That was my point from the very beginning.

I understand your point, and I've read your argument. It's based on a particular understanding of perfection, that is, a definition. You give your reasons why, based on "absolute perfection," that God couldn't exist, and again I understand. But your argument is saying that God doesn't exist, period, based on this argument. I'm saying something more, that is, all it does, is say that a being with the attributes as put forward by the argument doesn't exist. No being does or does not exist based on a concept, especially a concept as vague as perfection. That's why the ontological argument for God's existence doesn't work, you can't prove God exists based on the concept that existence is a perfection, and since God is perfect, therefore, God exists.

Also there is a difference between saying a being as described in your argument doesn't exist, as opposed to saying that any conceptual framework for a God existing is false, which I assume that ultimately that is what you're saying. It's logically possible that a being called God could exist, but just not with the property you're ascribing to him/her. I'm not sure you're following my point.

I don't think you have fully understood my points.

I had argued, every which way/idea God is presented, by default is it will culminate to an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God.
So my argument is not based on any particular definition of God but rather it cover any definition or conception of God one can think of.

No being does or does not exist based on a concept, especially a concept as vague as perfection.

You got this wrong.
All real things are based on 'concept' and is justified by empirical proofs [e.g. Scientific and the likes].
In addition, all concepts must be empirical based [Kantian].

If an element is not empirical-based it is not a concept but rather it is an idea [philosophical] which arise purely from thoughts only.

I don't agree 'perfection' is vague in this case, I have explained in details the various forms of 'perfection' i.e.

• 1. Empirically based perfection - perfect exam score
  2. Empirically possible perfection - perfect aliens
  3. Empirically impossible perfection - ideals. a perfect circle
  4. Non-empirical, pure reason based absolute perfection. - an absolutely perfect God

I have also explained and demonstrated how empirical perfection is an impossibility.

You seem think God is a possibility.
Show me, other than in thought-only, what other ways is a necessarily absolutely perfect God a possibility?

-- Updated Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:05 pm to add the following --

Spectrum:
I think that Sam26 is right.

Note my reply to Sam26 above.

As an example: I think that a particular snowflake is perfect, can you explain why it isn't through logical argument?

In the case of a 'perfect snowflake' it is definitely empirically-related.

As I had mentioned there are various perspective to 'perfection' we need to deliberate on.

• 1. If you assert a particular snowflake is 'perfect' merely based on your observation, that would merely be an opinion, i.e. subjective empirical-based perfection.
  
  2. If you had observed the shape and structure conformed with a what is defined as a snowflake and there are no damages to the structure, that would subjective perfection with some degree of objectivity.
  
  3. If you get 1000 people to observe the same snowflake and confirm its structure is not damaged, then this 'perfection' has a high degree of objectivity but albeit it is only intersubjective.

In the above case, your claim 'this snowflake is perfect' can be objective but it is very relative to the circumstances above.
In the case of a snowflake, you cannot defined an absolute ideal snowflake like we can do with an absolutely ideal perfect circle because there is too much variations in its form at the fringes.

With an circle [empirically possible] we can define a perfect circle based on geometrical measurements.
But I had explained before, there is no way one can produced an absolutely perfect circle in empirical reality as there is no constancy at the subatomic levels.

I'll will ask you the same question I raised to Sam26:

• You seem think God is a possibility.
  Show me, other than in thought-only, what other ways is a necessarily absolutely perfect God a possibility?

Note an anthropomorphic God is an empirical possibility, since anthropomorphic is an empirical. But we are aware such a possibility is very very low. An anthropomorphic God is an inferior God to another. However I have argued whichever God is conceived, ultimately a theist will have to settle for a non-empirical absolutely perfect God - an ontological God - which I have proven to be an impossibility.

[Dark Matter]

Skeptics tend to ignore theists and conceive God in such a way that it's absurd or God is simply defined out of existence.

Yes, it's true that sometime skeptics make this mistake. However, there are also those like myself who just don't believe there is enough evidence to warrant belief in a God, Christian or otherwise. I was a Christian for over 40 years, and it's just been in the last 7-8 years that I gave those beliefs up, and I changed my beliefs based on a lack of evidence, and too many self-sealing arguments. I was amazed at how easy it is to see the problems with religious belief when looking from an outside prospective. It's very difficult to free oneself from a lifetime of religious thinking, especially when many of your friends and family remain believers.

No offense, but your use of “evidence” implies the kind of god I don’t believe in, either. If you don’t know what I mean, read David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

If you had observed the shape and structure conformed with a what is defined as a snowflake and there are no damages to the structure, that would subjective perfection with some degree of objectivity.

What if the damage to the snowflake occurs in a pattern which makes the snowflake more beautiful to my perception, but someone else thinks that the damage to the snowflake means that it's not perfect? How can you reasonably decide who is right? My point is, no matter how much damage there is to the snowflake, someone can still perceive that it is perfect. Objectively, the damages can be seen as making the snowflake imperfect, but even if you have an objective point, arguing against someone's subjective perception of perfection seems pointless. Since we can agree that objective perfection doesn't (seem to) exist and that the closest we can get to objective perfection is if something is universally recognised as being perfect, any argument around the concept of perfection unavoidably becomes subjective.

You seem think God is a possibility.

I think there's a slight possibility that God could exist.

Show me, other than in thought-only, what other ways is a necessarily absolutely perfect God a possibility?

You're asking for something that know one has been able to do, you're asking for the existence of a perfect God to be demonstrated empirically. However, an inability to do this does not preclude the existence of God or demonstrate that your argument is a sound proof. It is possible that there are things that can exist outside of our inability to justify their empiricism. I don't know what those things could be, its just a point. Your argument is in the form of a logical syllogism, but I don't think that logic is necessarily binding upon reality when applied to universals. As an example, logic dictates that a singular universe either came from "nothingness" or an infinite regression of causes, which do you think is correct?

For your logical argument to be proof of God's non-existence (as you're claiming) it must be absolutely perfect, but you're claiming that absolute perfection doesn't exist. That's why I asked how you would falsify your argument. What do you think is imperfect about your argument?

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

If you had observed the shape and structure conformed with a what is defined as a snowflake and there are no damages to the structure, that would subjective perfection with some degree of objectivity.

What if the damage to the snowflake occurs in a pattern which makes the snowflake more beautiful to my perception, but someone else thinks that the damage to the snowflake means that it's not perfect? How can you reasonably decide who is right? My point is, no matter how much damage there is to the snowflake, someone can still perceive that it is perfect. Objectively, the damages can be seen as making the snowflake imperfect, but even if you have an objective point, arguing against someone's subjective perception of perfection seems pointless. Since we can agree that objective perfection doesn't (seem to) exist and that the closest we can get to objective perfection is if something is universally recognised as being perfect, any argument around the concept of perfection unavoidably becomes subjective.

As far as 'perfection' is a personal view, it carry little or no weight at all, until as you say "it is universally recognised as being perfect."
Here [you missed this?] I would remind again, 'perfection' must be deliberated within;

• 1. Empirically based perfection - perfect exam score
  2. Empirically possible perfection - perfect aliens
  3. Empirically impossible perfection - ideals. a perfect circle
  4. Non-empirical, pure reason based absolute perfection. - an absolutely perfect God

It is wrong to say at best whatever is universally agreed upon is 'subjective' in general.
Whatever is universally agreed upon is subjective in a away, but it is actually inter-subjective, i.e. it is objective.
Note objectivity = inter-subjectivity. There is no such thing as absolute objectivity.

In this case, objectivity = inter-subjectivity.
Obviously a verified perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test has to be 'objective' which can be verified [within its conditions] by any one.

You seem think God is a possibility.

I think there's a slight possibility that God could exist.

As I had proven, the idea of God which is non-empirical is an impossible empirical reality.
Firstly one cannot prove God empirically, but the idea of God is not even an empirically possible to start with.
It is empirically possible for human-liked aliens billions of light years away to exists as real, because all these elements stated are empirically possible, albeit of very very low probability.
The hypothesis - God exists as real - entails no empirical elements but merely God as an idea [illusory] which is not even a concept. God is taken as transcendent and thus must be empirically impossible.

Show me, other than in thought-only, what other ways is a necessarily absolutely perfect God a possibility?

You're asking for something that know one has been able to do, you're asking for the existence of a perfect God to be demonstrated empirically. However, an inability to do this does not preclude the existence of God or demonstrate that your argument is a sound proof.
It is possible that there are things that can exist outside of our inability to justify their empiricism.
I don't know what those things could be, its just a point. Your argument is in the form of a logical syllogism, but I don't think that logic is necessarily binding upon reality when applied to universals. As an example, logic dictates that a singular universe either came from "nothingness" or an infinite regression of causes, which do you think is correct?

For your logical argument to be proof of God's non-existence (as you're claiming) it must be absolutely perfect, but you're claiming that absolute perfection doesn't exist. That's why I asked how you would falsify your argument. What do you think is imperfect about your argument?

As I had argued the idea of God is within the transcendent, thus there is no way we can impute the idea of God into the empirical. Nb: note Hume's "no IS from OUGHT".
As such it is impossible to justify the existence of God within empiricism.

My argument is a logical syllogism that argue 'the idea of God' is a non-starter and moot for any consideration that God can be empirically real nor empirical possible, thus God is an impossibility to be real empirically.

IF one can prove my major premise [absolute perfection is an impossibility] is wrong, then my argument is not deductive to conclude as I did.
Note I have argued very extensively in this thread on how 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility within empiricism. One can only generate the idea of absolute perfection for a god in thoughts.

Whilst the idea of God is an impossibility to be real, I had offered an alternative solution how this idea emerged into human consciousness.
The idea of God as an absolute perfection emerged and culminated when driven and compelled by psychological factors within the human brain.
In reality and practice, non-theistic Eastern spiritualities has recognized this psychological elements and dealt with them appropriately.

Note the typical saying 'there are no atheists in foxholes' exemplify and amplify the compulsion of the terrible psychological existential forces that drive theists spontaneously to believe in a God.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

Whatever is universally agreed upon is subjective in a away, but it is actually inter-subjective, i.e. it is objective.

I'm not so sure. If empirical data informs us that something is perfect, like a 100% test score - then I think that is an example of objective perfection, but relative to the test. If something is universally perceived as being perfect like an absolutely perfect God would have to be, then it is a matter of human perception, not empirical data, meaning that it is subjective.

As I had proven, the idea of God which is non-empirical is an impossible empirical reality.

According to our current techniques of examining reality yes. But if God isn't empirical, and is something like a "spirit" we can't subject it to empirical methods of examination. Meaning that you're correct in saying that God cannot be demonstrated empirically, but that may be a given if it doesn't have any empirical qualities.

The hypothesis - God exists as real - entails no empirical elements but merely God as an idea [illusory] which is not even a concept.

God may exist as more than an idea, we simply cannot know for sure. Concepts can be based upon thought, there are entire frameworks for God such as Christianity, where the evidence is anecdotal, meaning that we either believe or we don't. The evidence is not strong enough to make non-belief unreasonable, but if a person is so inclined, they can believe.

God is taken as transcendent and thus must be empirically impossible.

What if it doesn't want there to be empirical evidence of it's existence?

IF one can prove my major premise [absolute perfection is an impossibility] is wrong, then my argument is not deductive to conclude as I did.

I don't think that you can logically, completely rule out the existence of something that you cannot be sure cannot exist. As I've stated, we haven't encountered absolute perfection yet, but we could do in the future. Your major premise is not a given.

Note I have argued very extensively in this thread on how 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility within empiricism. One can only generate the idea of absolute perfection for a god in thoughts.

I agree. There's no empirical evidence of an absolutely perfect God and thoughts are the only way we can conceive of such a being. But that doesn't preclude the existence of such a being. A point which I think has been made by others.

Whilst the idea of God is an impossibility to be real

I don't agree. It may be unlikely, but I think impossible is used to define 0 chance. There is a chance that God exists even if it is small. If God's existence was by definition an impossibility, I think it's non-existence would be demonstrable or axiomatic.

[Dark Matter]

You can't get an is from an ought. The question is, what is the is? Empiricism is not the sole determiner of what is or what's possible. "Depth in philosophy" requires more than empirical evidence.

-- Updated November 9th, 2017, 3:12 pm to add the following --

But neither is it contrary to it.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

Whatever is universally agreed upon is subjective in a away, but it is actually inter-subjective, i.e. it is objective.

I'm not so sure. If empirical data informs us that something is perfect, like a 100% test score - then I think that is an example of objective perfection, but relative to the test. If something is universally perceived as being perfect like an absolutely perfect God would have to be, then it is a matter of human perception, not empirical data, meaning that it is subjective.

That is not subjective in general.
An absolutely perfect God cannot be perceived [empirically] at all. 'Perception' [based on sense data] is limited to the empirically only.
'Imagination' and 'Conception' arise from thoughts and 'reason' only but again this is limited to empirical possible elements.

Kant argued an absolute perfect God cannot be perceived, imagined nor conceived because God is non-empirical.
An absolutely perfect God cannot be a concept but only can be an "idea" [philosophical & non-empirical] arising out of thought and primal reason.

The point is whatever arise from subjects [human beings], it is basically subjective, but we have to consider the context and degree of subjectivity or inter-subjectivity.

What is an absolutely perfect God is reasoned by subjects to be objective, i.e. inter-subjective.
An ontological God will not exists empirically, but no rational person will dispute the definition of an ontological God, i.e. "a Being than which no greater can be thought/reasoned of."
Because such a definition [reason based] can be inter-subjectively agreed upon, it is objective.
Note 'objectivity' = intersubjectivity.

In the above, you claimed such a definition is "subjective" but it is in the wrong context/sense. It is subjective [basic] but nevertheless intersubjective, therefore it is objective.

As I had proven, the idea of God which is non-empirical is an impossible empirical reality.

According to our current techniques of examining reality yes. But if God isn't empirical, and is something like a "spirit" we can't subject it to empirical methods of examination. Meaning that you're correct in saying that God cannot be demonstrated empirically, but that may be a given if it doesn't have any empirical qualities.

If it is not empirically possible, under what perspective [other than reason] can be be possible?
If it is not empirical-based spirit, then what else. You are not sure and thus merely wishing and speculating. If you are waiting for Science to reveal any clue, ultimately whatever is Scientific has to be directly empirically based or empirically possible supported by justifiable reasons.
Note Eduk's explanation of Einstein's hypothesis based purely on reason but accepted as a theory only when proven empirically.

The hypothesis - God exists as real - entails no empirical elements but merely God as an idea [illusory] which is not even a concept.

God may exist as more than an idea, we simply cannot know for sure. Concepts can be based upon thought, there are entire frameworks for God such as Christianity, where the evidence is anecdotal, meaning that we either believe or we don't. The evidence is not strong enough to make non-belief unreasonable, but if a person is so inclined, they can believe.

Yes, we cannot simply know for sure. But when it is known for sure or to be possible, it has to be empirically based with justified verifiable evidence or arguments.

God is taken as transcendent and thus must be empirically impossible.

What if it doesn't want there to be empirical evidence of it's existence?

If one do not insist on empirical evidence, one must acknowledge it cannot be real empirically but at most accept it is a possibility in thought only. If this idea and belief is kept private and personal there is no big issue for humanity to deal with.

The problem arise when theists insist their God is empirically real to the extent of sending human prophets, sons, and messenger with a divine message in a holy book which must be followed without exception in order to reap the salvation of eternal life and paradise as promised.
Such a belief by the majority of theists provide implicit moral support for the evil prone believers to commit terrible evils, terrors and violence upon non-believers and others, as a divine duty.

IF one can prove my major premise [absolute perfection is an impossibility] is wrong, then my argument is not deductive to conclude as I did.

I don't think that you can logically, completely rule out the existence of something that you cannot be sure cannot exist. As I've stated, we haven't encountered absolute perfection yet, but we could do in the future. Your major premise is not a given.

I have argued it is impossible for absolute perfect to exists within empirical reality, thus that is ruled out now or in the future.
The only possibility for an absolute perfect to arise is via thoughts and reason but per Hume one cannot get "IS" from "OUGHT."

Note I have argued very extensively in this thread on how 'absolute perfection' is an impossibility within empiricism. One can only generate the idea of absolute perfection for a god in thoughts.

I agree. There's no empirical evidence of an absolutely perfect God and thoughts are the only way we can conceive of such a being. But that doesn't preclude the existence of such a being. A point which I think has been made by others.

It is only wishful thinking that an absolutely perfect God can exists as real any where else other than the empirical.
Despite the absence of evidence and I have proven absolute perfect is an impossibility to be real, why theists insist there may be slight possibility is due to psychological factors arising from an existential crisis. This psychological reason is a more tenable line to explore and many Eastern spiritualities had already embarked on this approach.

Whilst the idea of God is an impossibility to be real

I don't agree. It may be unlikely, but I think impossible is used to define 0 chance. There is a chance that God exists even if it is small. If God's existence was by definition an impossibility, I think it's non-existence would be demonstrable or axiomatic.

As I had argued, the desperate impulse for the existence of God [despite its impossibility] is due to psychological existence factors.
That Eastern spiritualities had dealt with this specific existential crisis without God [non-theistic] is an indication and demonstrate God's non-existence.

I believe your belief that God is possible must be empirically-based.
Whatever is empirically based is empirically possible subject to verification and justification.

If your God is attributed with anthropomorphic qualities, then it is possible it may exist empirically. God as 'man with a beard in the sky' is an empirically possibility but the probability of such an empirical possible God is negligible to almost impossible. In addition, which theist proper at present would believe in such an empirically based God.

But I have argued extensively, the idea of God imperatively must be of absolute perfection.
Since absolute perfection is an impossibility within empirical reality [an there are no other real reality], God is an impossibility within an empirical justified reality.

Since God is an impossibility, God cannot be a ground and authority for anyone to commit evils and violence in God's name.

-- Updated Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:05 am to add the following --

You can't get an is from an ought. The question is, what is the is? Empiricism is not the sole determiner of what is or what's possible. "Depth in philosophy" requires more than empirical evidence.
But neither is it contrary to it.

If there is no direct empirical evidence, then it must be justified as empirical possible.
Beside thought and reason, what other basis can you rely upon to justify & prove God exists or is possible.
If you have covered Philosophy [Western, Eastern, etc.] you will note there is no other perspectives available for you to justify & prove God exists or is possible.
I have already highlighted the very popular dichotomy between Empiricism versus Rationalism. The other is Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism. There are many others but none of them [other than thought and reason] can support your belief 'God exists or is a possibility.'

As I had claimed the most tenable and viable basis why theists believe God exists is fundamentally for psychological reasons to deal with an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

[Sam26]

You got this wrong.
All real things are based on 'concept' and is justified by empirical proofs [e.g. Scientific and the likes].
In addition, all concepts must be empirical based [Kantian].

What does it mean to say, "All real things are based on concepts[?]" Are you saying all real things are associated with concepts, or all real things are dependent on concepts? Moreover, how do you define "real?" Do you consider abstract objects to be "real things?" And if you do, how do you justify numbers by empirical proofs? It's true that objects (abstract and otherwise), at least those we have identified, have concepts associated with them, but nothing that has existence is dependent on a concept. It certainly possible (logically and metaphysically) that things exist for which we have no concepts, and furthermore, it's certainly logically and probably metaphysically possible for a being to exist in which our concepts are muddled. To say that "All real things are based on concepts" is to say that if there is no concept for X, then X can't exist, which is patently false. When we discover things, then we apply a concept to it, and the thing surely existed prior to the concept.

There are many ways of having knowledge, you seem to have a limited view of knowledge, although I'm not sure based on what you've written. We can justify a belief in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the following: Logic (inductive and deductive reasoning), sensory experience, linguistic training (the knowledge of how to use words/concepts correctly), testimony, etc. I can have a direct experience with something, and know that it exists apart from scientific experiment, or the use of logic.

If an element is not empirical-based it is not a concept but rather it is an idea [philosophical] which arise purely from thoughts only.

Not sure what you mean by "element," maybe the existence of a "real thing" that you mentioned above. This I believe is a confusion. You seem to think that things can't exist if there are no concepts that apply. Again, as I said above there are a multitude of things that exist for which there is no empirical evidence, and for which we have no concepts. To rule out the existence of something based our concepts, or based on present knowledge is just folly. Moreover, the possibility of the existence of something, which is an idea, falls under modal logic (possibility and necessity).

I don't agree 'perfection' is vague in this case, I have explained in details the various forms of 'perfection' i.e.

• 1. Empirically based perfection - perfect exam score
  2. Empirically possible perfection - perfect aliens
  3. Empirically impossible perfection - ideals. a perfect circle
  4. Non-empirical, pure reason based absolute perfection. - an absolutely perfect God

Your first definition is how we use perfect in relation to exams, so I agree on this use of the word. Your second definition of perfection is definitely vague, what does "perfect alien" even mean? The perfect alien is a very subjective term. Your third definition, which I understand in terms of what's physically possible, but it doesn't make sense in terms of what is logically possible, or again, what's ontologically possible. You seem to limit what's possible to what's physically possible. And finally, your fourth definition, an "absolutely perfect God," I have no idea what this means, it's about as vague as you can get. Again, it's very subjective an open to interpretation. As I said in a previous post, usually when Christians talk about perfection in relation to God, it has to do with moral perfection. Maybe lay people would talk about God in this way, but it's a misunderstanding of the traditional way in which God has been described. I can't make any sense out what it means to say that something is "absolutely perfect," so yes, if you describe God in this way, such a being couldn't exist. This is why I keep saying that your argument is dependent on a certain view of God, which is why your argument doesn't work.

In terms of being an atheist, there are good reasons to suppose the Christian God doesn't exist, namely, there is not enough evidence to support such a belief, period. The kind of arguments you put forward just doesn't work, and their linguistically confusing.

You seem think God is a possibility.
Show me, other than in thought-only, what other ways is a necessarily absolutely perfect God a possibility?

Again, you're ideas of what's possible don't seem to take into account modal logic. We're talking about what's possible, and this is guided by what can be thought. It's guided by concepts and ideas, and other possible existences.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 6:19 am to add the following --

One further point. Spectrum your argument is doing what you accuse theists of, namely, your trying to disprove the existence of God using the same concepts that don't work for them. How would they work for you? The concept of "absolute perfection" doesn't work for either argument.

[Spectrum]

I can't make any sense out what it means to say that something is "absolutely perfect," so yes, if you describe God in this way, such a being couldn't exist. This is why I keep saying that your argument is dependent on a certain view of God, which is why your argument doesn't work.

...
One further point. Spectrum your argument is doing what you accuse theists of, namely, your trying to disprove the existence of God using the same concepts that don't work for them. How would they work for you? The concept of "absolute perfection" doesn't work for either argument.

You raised a lot of questions here and if you get the answers to the questions it will definitely broaden and deepen your philosophical knowledge.
I have the answers but they are rather tedious to reply as the subject is getting a bit deeper than usual, but I will answer them later.

In the meantime re the idea [not concept] of "absolute perfection."
I have presented here why "absolute perfection" is a necessary quality of God by default.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 35#p298635
i.e.;

Humans can be both good and evil but it make no rational sense for a God to be both good and evil. Note this argument;

• Whatever God or gods are presented, a God by default ultimately has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God - a Being than which no greater can be 'conceived.*'
  * thought of and reasoned.
  
  If a person accept a non-absolute God then that god is opened to be subordinated and inferior to another superior and Absolute God as claimed by other believers.
  
  If say a Christian claims his/her god is not absolute but a Muslim claims his/her God is absolutely perfect God [actually as claimed in the Quran], then it is implied the Christian God is inferior to Allah.
  
  When one accept one's god as not-absolute and perfect, it open up an inferiority gap where anything goes. A Muslim will claims the Christian God being inferior is kissing the ass of Allah and it can be any thing derogatory as Allah dominates the Christian God.
  
  Therefore it is only rational both the Christian and Muslim must claim their God is absolutely perfect as an ontological God thus giving no gap for the Islamic God to dominate the Christian God and vice-versa.
  
  Besides Christians versus Muslims, all other theists, when faced with the above dilemma, have to claim their God to be an absolutely perfect God or an ontological God so that it refer to the same on-par-God, ontological and monotheism

So I'll repeat;
Whatever God or gods are presented, a God by default ultimately has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God - a Being than which no greater can be 'conceived.*'
* thought of and reasoned.

So the point is if any theists accept any god lesser than an absolutely perfect God, then his/her god will be an inferior god vulnerable to be kissing the ass of another superior or absolute perfect God.

I'll address the other points later, most of them will be from Kant who is one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

An absolutely perfect God cannot be perceived [empirically] at all. 'Perception' [based on sense data] is limited to the empirically only.

I was speaking hypothetically.

Kant argued an absolute perfect God cannot be perceived, imagined nor conceived because God is non-empirical.
An absolutely perfect God cannot be a concept but only can be an "idea" [philosophical & non-empirical] arising out of thought and primal reason.

Then how do you explain Christianity?

The point is whatever arise from subjects [human beings], it is basically subjective, but we have to consider the context and degree of subjectivity or inter-subjectivity.

I think we agree that perfection is a subjective observation. What do you mean by context and degree? How do they effect what is perceived as perfect?

In the above, you claimed such a definition is "subjective" but it is in the wrong context/sense. It is subjective [basic] but nevertheless intersubjective, therefore it is objective.

How does subjective perfection become objective perfection?

If it is not empirically possible, under what perspective [other than reason] can be be possible?

Not everything that exists, may exist empirically. I'm not claiming that non-empirical things exist, but they could do and we don't know it. I'm speculating yes, but it is not impossible. Human knowledge is not binding upon the extent of all reality, it attempts to explain and define reality. There may be things that exist in states that we are not and cannot currently be aware of.

If it is not empirical-based spirit, then what else. You are not sure and thus merely wishing and speculating. If you are waiting for Science to reveal any clue, ultimately whatever is Scientific has to be directly empirically based or empirically possible supported by justifiable reasons.

I don't know. I'm not waiting for science to reveal the existence of God, as you say I'm speculating. You think that are doing something more than speculating, but where the existence of God is discussed/debated - theist, agnostics and atheists are speculating based upon their own personal views and what we currently know. No one has proved or disproved the existence of God, so speculation is reasonable.

Yes, we cannot simply know for sure. But when it is known for sure or to be possible, it has to be empirically based with justified verifiable evidence or arguments.

If you think that only things with empirical qualities can exist that's perfectly reasonable and rational. Others may disagree with you, but in terms of debate, as such claims cannot be evidenced any further than anecdotally, they cannot be presented as facts. You aren't going to get empirical evidence for non-empirical claims, so you may be chasing a ghost there .

I have argued it is impossible for absolute perfect to exists within empirical reality, thus that is ruled out now or in the future.
The only possibility for an absolute perfect to arise is via thoughts and reason but per Hume one cannot get "IS" from "OUGHT."

You insist this, but I don't agree. Even accurate scientific theories don't claim such authority. Surely you realise that you are fallible?

It is only wishful thinking that an absolutely perfect God can exists as real any where else other than the empirical.
Despite the absence of evidence and I have proven absolute perfect is an impossibility to be real, why theists insist there may be slight possibility is due to psychological factors arising from an existential crisis. This psychological reason is a more tenable line to explore and many Eastern spiritualities had already embarked on this approach.

Again you are insisting. Whilst I agree that belief in God may be wishful thinking, and that one of the causes (amongst other causes) are existential factors, I wouldn't claim for certain that is the only reason. It is well documented that you think God's existence is an impossibility, but what you think and what actually is may not tally. I think God's existence is unlikely, but I don't believe that the existence or non-existence of God can be proven, and I don't think that your argument from perfection proves that God cannot exist.

I believe your belief that God is possible must be empirically-based.
Whatever is empirically based is empirically possible subject to verification and justification.

Given the empirical and non-empirical depth and complexity of the reality we live in, I think that maybe there's more to reality than we can account for with empiricism or what empiricism informs us is possible. It is problematic to ask for verification and justification of things that are anecdotal in nature. We are all sceptical of anecdotal claims, but 1 in 100 claims may have a degree of veracity.

If your God is attributed with anthropomorphic qualities, then it is possible it may exist empirically. God as 'man with a beard in the sky' is an empirically possibility but the probability of such an empirical possible God is negligible to almost impossible. In addition, which theist proper at present would believe in such an empirically based God.

I don't believe that there's a sky father, but I do believe that there may be an inherent intelligence in nature which constitutes a being of some kind, something that "crunches the numbers" so to speak. I don't believe that the likelihood of such an entity existing is high, but I think there's a slight chance. I think there are some intelligible signs of an intelligence (although that may be anthropomorphism on my part), but there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence. Some see God where others see pure mechanics – I couldn't say for certain which view is more justified, but I do agree that belief can be or is wishful thinking, as the greater the belief, the greater the anthropomorphism, until we have a man in the sky.

But I have argued extensively, the idea of God imperatively must be of absolute perfection.
Since absolute perfection is an impossibility within empirical reality [an there are no other real reality], God is an impossibility within an empirical justified reality.

Why must an idea of God necessarily be absolutely perfect? That doesn't seem to follow; "a being than which no greater can be conceived of" doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, just greater than anything else that can be conceived of, you've added "absolute perfection" to the idea. From my perspective, you've created an ideal and are insisting that ideal is a reflection of reality. If you're 100% correct there should be no room for disagreement, but others are disagreeing with you - justifiably so.

[Sam26]

I've made my argument and I'll stick to it, we'll have to disagree.

Broaden and deepen my philosophical understanding, that's funny. I see, your correct because you have such a deep understanding, and those who disagree with your arguments must not understand philosophy. The mere fact that you think these arguments work, shows/demonstrates who it is that lacks understanding. Moreover, the mere fact that you would suggest such a thing demonstrates an arrogance that doesn't even deserve a response.

[Dark Matter]

You can't get an is from an ought. The question is, what is the is? Empiricism is not the sole determiner of what is or what's possible. "Depth in philosophy" requires more than empirical evidence.
But neither is it contrary to it.

If there is no direct empirical evidence, then it must be justified as empirical possible.
Beside thought and reason, what other basis can you rely upon to justify & prove God exists or is possible.
If you have covered Philosophy [Western, Eastern, etc.] you will note there is no other perspectives available for you to justify & prove God exists or is possible.
I have already highlighted the very popular dichotomy between Empiricism versus Rationalism. The other is Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism. There are many others but none of them [other than thought and reason] can support your belief 'God exists or is a possibility.'

As I had claimed the most tenable and viable basis why theists believe God exists is fundamentally for psychological reasons to deal with an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What do you mean by "evidence"? The fact that something exists rather than nothing? The fact that the universe is comprehensible or that the odds against it being able to support life as we know it is thousands of trillions to one?

Or do you mean evidence in the sense of seeing a child being born or a hummingbird in flight?

Or do you mean evidence in the sense of being quantified in some way?

The first two makes your claim an empty sham; the last is just asinine -- a straw man.

[Spectrum]

Then how do you explain Christianity?

All humans has the potential for an existential crisis and its arising angst.
Religions and theism are instant solutions to soothe the pulsating psychological angst.
Christianity based on the person of Christian was established as a religion to provide 'salvation' as a solution to the existential crisis.
Christianity do not explicitly claimed an absolutely perfect God like Islam is doing.
However since absolutely perfect God is the default and ultimate [note the above I argued why] philosopher theologians like St. Anselm and Descartes resorted to the absolutely perfect God to sustain integrity for Christianity.

I think we agree that perfection is a subjective observation. What do you mean by context and degree? How do they effect what is perceived as perfect?

Nope not purely 'observation' but rather rationalized from observations. Re context and degrees, I have already presented a listing of the various categories of 'perfection' from empirical, empirically possible to absolute perfection you seem to have missed them.

How does subjective perfection become objective perfection?

I have also explain this.

One person's views or conclusion is personal subjectivity. This is merely an opinion [low degree] or if self-justified it is a personal belief. For example when Einstein is so convinced his theory based on justified computation is true, but it is at best only a personal belief. The degree of this personal truth will depend on the degree of rational justification.

When Einstein personal subjective belief was proven by empirical evidences and the test repeated by others, the theory is accepted by many subjects, i.e. subjective beliefs. This meant there is intersubjective consensus on Einstein Theory of Gravity and therefrom is it deemed to be objective, as it can be independently tested and verified by anyone who wish to test it.

The above is similar to based perfection where individual[s] personal belief of perfection are agreed intersubjectively by many others who has the same view.
Therefore a definition of absolute perfection can be "objective" when agreed intersubjectively by many others. Note in this case 'objective' do not mean it is knowledge nor real.

The above is how subjective perfection become objective [intersubjective] perfection.

Not everything that exists, may exist empirically. I'm not claiming that non-empirical things exist, but they could do and we don't know it. I'm speculating yes, but it is not impossible. Human knowledge is not binding upon the extent of all reality, it attempts to explain and define reality. There may be things that exist in states that we are not and cannot currently be aware of.

The point is as long as any states is possible, it has to be ultimately empirical + rationally justifiable. There cannot be any states [besides reason and thoughts]. There are other sub-states, like logic, psychological, moral and the likes, but ultimately it has to be empirical + rationally justifiable.
You are speculating on the impossible, like Plato's Forms and Universals which philosophers has argued to be impossible.

You merely insist [wishful thinking] God is a possibility but provide no arguments nor clues about such possibility. This wishful thinking I belief is controlled by existential psychological impulse within [albeit not as forceful as those of theists], i.e. that "zombie parasite" within.

I dare to speculate, it is possible there are apple-liked fruits being cultivated in a planet billions of light years away. This speculation makes sense because all the elements has equivalent empirical reality we know, but obviously the probability of such a speculation is very very low. This speculation is possible to be confirmed by evidence.

But your speculation of a God which by default by must be an absolutely perfect God is a certain impossibility because it is purely reasoned based as can never have any empirical possibility at all. Such a speculation is moot to start with.

Why theists insist God exists and agnostic insist God is a possibility is purely based on psychological factors. This point is supported by extensive research on the issue.

I don't know. I'm not waiting for science to reveal the existence of God, as you say I'm speculating. You think that are doing something more than speculating, but where the existence of God is discussed/debated - theist, agnostics and atheists are speculating based upon their own personal views and what we currently know. No one has proved or disproved the existence of God, so speculation is reasonable.

If the speculation is really based on what we currently know (empirical-rational), I have no issue with that but to point out the possibility is very very low.
But as I had argued [above] the idea of God has to be an absolutely perfect God.

If you think that only things with empirical qualities can exist that's perfectly reasonable and rational. Others may disagree with you, but in terms of debate, as such claims cannot be evidenced any further than anecdotally, they cannot be presented as facts. You aren't going to get empirical evidence for non-empirical claims, so you may be chasing a ghost there .

Obviously there will not be empirical evidence for non-empirical claims. This would be a fallacy of conflation or equivocation.
But as I had argued there is no way for a non-empirical-rational thing to be real and when claimed as absolutely perfect, it is an impossibility.

You insist this, but I don't agree. Even accurate scientific theories don't claim such authority. Surely you realise that you are fallible?

It is so obvious scientific theories do not involve the issue of IS-OUGHT at all.

Again you are insisting. Whilst I agree that belief in God may be wishful thinking, and that one of the causes (amongst other causes) are existential factors, I wouldn't claim for certain that is the only reason. It is well documented that you think God's existence is an impossibility, but what you think and what actually is may not tally. I think God's existence is unlikely, but I don't believe that the existence or non-existence of God can be proven, and I don't think that your argument from perfection proves that God cannot exist.

I am not expecting what I have reason to tally with reality [not with empirical rational].
I have argued with logical and reason, God is an impossibility, i.e. it is a non-starter. As such there is no room for any one to even think there is any possibility God can exists.

Given the empirical and non-empirical depth and complexity of the reality we live in, I think that maybe there's more to reality than we can account for with empiricism or what empiricism informs us is possible. It is problematic to ask for verification and justification of things that are anecdotal in nature. We are all sceptical of anecdotal claims, but 1 in 100 claims may have a degree of veracity.

The only solid reality we have is the empirical-rational reality. As I had argued there is no possibility at all, i.e. an impossibility, for a God to exists.
One may speculate or propose a God can exists is sub-reality to the above, i.e. in thoughts, dreams, psychological, moral, theological, and the likes, but these are merely qualified and conditional sub-realities.
In your case, you are resorting and banging on the sub-reality of the psychological to console yourself there is a possibility [no matter how slight] a has-to-be absolute perfect god may exists.

I don't believe that there's a sky father, but I do believe that there may be an inherent intelligence in nature which constitutes a being of some kind, something that "crunches the numbers" so to speak. I don't believe that the likelihood of such an entity existing is high, but I think there's a slight chance. I think there are some intelligible signs of an intelligence (although that may be anthropomorphism on my part), but there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence. Some see God where others see pure mechanics – I couldn't say for certain which view is more justified, but I do agree that belief can be or is wishful thinking, as the greater the belief, the greater the anthropomorphism, until we have a man in the sky.

As I had stated, if your speculated God has anthropomorphic qualities, then it is an empirically-rational for such a God to exists, albeit of very low probability.
But as I had argued an empirical-based God is an inferior and has to kiss the ass of an absolutely perfect God. No normal thinking theist would opt for such a God when in the face of such a dilemma.

Why must an idea of God necessarily be absolutely perfect? That doesn't seem to follow; "a being than which no greater can be conceived of" doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, just greater than anything else that can be conceived of, you've added "absolute perfection" to the idea. From my perspective, you've created an ideal and are insisting that ideal is a reflection of reality. If you're 100% correct there should be no room for disagreement, but others are disagreeing with you - justifiably so.

Btw, I did not insist that ideal necessarily created by theists [not me] is a reflection of reality. That ideal is an illusion, a transcendental illusion.

I have argued why God must be an absolutely perfect God.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 47#p298647
As argued, any lesser God cannot be a God per se.
Since

• a God by default must be absolutely perfect and
  that absolute perfection is an impossibility [to be real],
  God is an impossibility to be real.

-- Updated Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:11 am to add the following --

What do you mean by "evidence"? The fact that something exists rather than nothing? The fact that the universe is comprehensible or that the odds against it being able to support life as we know it is thousands of trillions to one?
Or do you mean evidence in the sense of seeing a child being born or a hummingbird in flight?
Or do you mean evidence in the sense of being quantified in some way?
The first two makes your claim an empty sham; the last is just asinine -- a straw man.

Empirical evidence is obvious.
If you assert an apple on the table exists, then that apple should exists on that table for anyone to observe, feel it or test it in anyway to confirm it is an apple as defined.
If someone think it is possible s/he saw a fruit like an apple but not sure, s/he can then describe fully what s/he has seen, tasted, smelled or felt. If all the evidence described conform to what is defined as an apple [biologically] then we can confirm it is most likely to be an apple.

But the fact that an apple exists as proven with evidence cannot be used as evidence a God [which must be absolutely perfect] exists.
Because there is something, therefore God, is a frivolous argument.
If you insist a God exists, the most convincing proof is to bring direct evidence of a God.
If you insist it is possible for a God to exists as real, then present your arguments rationally to support your thesis.
You have not provided any arguments at all.

OTOH, I have argued rationally why God, which ultimately must be absolutely perfect, is an impossibility to exist as a real entity.

-- Updated Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:31 am to add the following --

Broaden and deepen my philosophical understanding, that's funny. I see, your correct because you have such a deep understanding, and those who disagree with your arguments must not understand philosophy. The mere fact that you think these arguments work, shows/demonstrates who it is that lacks understanding. Moreover, the mere fact that you would suggest such a thing demonstrates an arrogance that doesn't even deserve a response.

It is your lost not mine.

What does it mean to say, "All real things are based on concepts[?]" Are you saying all real things are associated with concepts, or all real things are dependent on concepts? Moreover, how do you define "real?"

You got a lot to cover philosophically when you ask the above questions.

Note Philosophical Realism:

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Philosophical Realism view that things in reality are absolutely independent of our conceptual scheme.

As you has raised the question;
Are you saying all real things are associated with concepts, or all real things are dependent on concepts?
Yes, I assert ALL real things are dependent on concepts.

This meant my view is opposed to Philosophical Realism, i.e. I hold a Philosophical Anti-Realism view.

If you understand [not necessary agree] the full controversy between the views of the Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism philosophers you will get to the answers of the questions you raised.

Because it is a long story, I will not go into the details.
Generally, "God" [by default must be an absolutely perfect God - as argued] is an 'idea' [philosophical] and is never a 'concept', thus can never exists as a real thing in reality.

Why 'God' emerged as an idea [illusory] is due to psychological reasons.

[Dark Matter]

What do you mean by "evidence"? The fact that something exists rather than nothing? The fact that the universe is comprehensible or that the odds against it being able to support life as we know it is thousands of trillions to one?
Or do you mean evidence in the sense of seeing a child being born or a hummingbird in flight?
Or do you mean evidence in the sense of being quantified in some way?
The first two makes your claim an empty sham; the last is just asinine -- a straw man.

Empirical evidence is obvious.
If you assert an apple on the table exists, then that apple should exists on that table for anyone to observe, feel it or test it in anyway to confirm it is an apple as defined.
If someone think it is possible s/he saw a fruit like an apple but not sure, s/he can then describe fully what s/he has seen, tasted, smelled or felt. If all the evidence described conform to what is defined as an apple [biologically] then we can confirm it is most likely to be an apple.

But the fact that an apple exists as proven with evidence cannot be used as evidence a God [which must be absolutely perfect] exists.
Because there is something, therefore God, is a frivolous argument.
If you insist a God exists, the most convincing proof is to bring direct evidence of a God.
If you insist it is possible for a God to exists as real, then present your arguments rationally to support your thesis.
You have not provided any arguments at all.

OTOH, I have argued rationally why God, which ultimately must be absolutely perfect, is an impossibility to exist as a real entity.

So, you choose to go the way of the infantile straw man. You have no argument apart from your arrogance and conceit.

You can't define perfection or God for theists and then base your argument on that without appealing to a straw man.

To define something is to set boundaries, but the power of being itself is without boundaries. That's why "Traditional arguments for the existence of God actually deny the reality of God because the concept of existence is confining and because the process of arguing the reality of God demeans the grandeur of God. If God could be defined by the conclusion of an argument, then God would be reduced to the same categorical level as the other elements of the argument. Still, arguments for the existence of God function in a positive way because they show the seriousness of human concern about knowing God." (Tillich, by Donald Musser and Joseph Price)

-- Updated November 11th, 2017, 5:05 am to add the following --

"By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never." There is a reason the unknown author wrote that, and there is a reason why theists everywhere agree.