Philosophy Discussion Forums

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?

Spectrum wrote: Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

The latter does not logically follow from the former.

Do I have to be a theist to counter this?

Anyway, you cannot present the idea of "absolute", from which we have made huge scientific leaps, and then deny it as being of no empirical use. Quite often completely abstract mathematical ideas fall effortlessly into place and help us understand the world in an empirical sense.

The entire universe may function under one simple principle that can be reduced to a mathematical equation. It also may not. We don't know, therefore you're making an assumption about how the universe works.

I am guessing you are referring to Kant's dialectical argumentation in some way in order to come up with this?

Burning ghost wrote:Do I have to be a theist to counter this?

Anyway, you cannot present the idea of "absolute", from which we have made huge scientific leaps, and then deny it as being of no empirical use. Quite often completely abstract mathematical ideas fall effortlessly into place and help us understand the world in an empirical sense.

The entire universe may function under one simple principle that can be reduced to a mathematical equation. It also may not. We don't know, therefore you're making an assumption about how the universe works.

I am guessing you are referring to Kant's dialectical argumentation in some way in order to come up with this?

As I had presented above, there are two types of 'perfection' i.e. 'relative' and 'absolute'.

Relatively one can achieve a 'perfect' score of 100 marks in an objective test, but that is a relative perfect as conditioned to the questions raised by humans.

We also have two types of absolute, i.e. relative absolute and absolutely absolute.
We have 'relative absolute' temperature in Science, but this is a man-made standard.
Other relative absolutes are absolute monarchy, absolute power, and the likes.

The absolutely-absolute is general attributable to God and stated in capital A, i.e. Absolute.

As I had raised the point, show me a perfect circle [reason, theory] in empirical reality. Can you even draw one?
You may draw one on paper in accordance to measurements [humanly accepted ones] but if you to magnify that drawn circle 10,000 times you will find a very irregular line. There is no perfect circle in this case.

1 + 1 = 2 is perfect mathematically but there is no absolute 1 + 1 = 2 in empirical reality, If you add one apple with another apple, you get two apples but both apples are never the same. One drop of water plus one drop of water equal one bigger drop of water.

There is no way absolute perfection can exists in empirical reality.
Since God must be absolutely perfect [exists in theory only] it is an impossibility in reality.
God is only made possible in theory for psychological sake to deal with an existential dilemma driven by "zombie parasites."

Yes, I am relying on principles propounded by Kant, but he did not use the concept of perfection in his argument.

-- Updated Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:58 am to add the following --

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:

Spectrum wrote: Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.

The latter does not logically follow from the former.

Your point has no basis/argument at all.

I have explained in details how absolute perfection cannot exist in the empirical except only as an ideal [reasoned thought].

Maybe they got it wrong. Perhaps God doesn't have to be absolutely perfect in order to exist, surely it would be better to accept God as being slightly less than perfect than to lose him altogether.

Albert Tatlock wrote:Maybe they got it wrong. Perhaps God doesn't have to be absolutely perfect in order to exist, surely it would be better to accept God as being slightly less than perfect than to lose him altogether.

Point is once a less than perfect gap is open, then there is a possibility of a great hole [opportunity] for others to counter.

If one claimed a 99.99 percent perfect god, then others will claim a 99.999 % perfect and this will go on indefinitely, i.e. infinite regression. This is why a 100% absolutely perfect God is claimed to stop all these claims, counter claims and never ending toppings.

Thus an absolutely perfect God is imperative as there is no other choice when reasoning and logic is brought into the picture.

Spectrum wrote: Thus an absolutely perfect God is imperative as there is no other choice when reasoning and logic is brought into the picture.

I can see how this may be the case for an institutional God, particularly in the past, where the religious authorities needed to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak. These days it seems to be more acceptable to have your own personal version of God and the rules governing his attributes are much more relaxed.

Albert Tatlock wrote:

Spectrum wrote: Thus an absolutely perfect God is imperative as there is no other choice when reasoning and logic is brought into the picture.

I can see how this may be the case for an institutional God, particularly in the past, where the religious authorities needed to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak. These days it seems to be more acceptable to have your own personal version of God and the rules governing his attributes are much more relaxed.

"own personal version of God"?? a personal subjective god?
A personal god is a taboo in our modern philosophical age.

There is no issue with one having a personal god but it will not stand up to any proper argument at all. Where a god is private and personal, there is no issue since it not brought forward to the public domain.
If one claim Trump, Dalai Lama, Hitler, Mt. Everest, etc. as his/her personal god there is no issue if this is strictly personal and private, but if claimed in public, then it has to be subjected to critiques and argument. Such claims will never pass at all.

My argument applies to God per-se, i.e. ultimately an ontological God [perfect in any sense] which can be theistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic, or any theological concept of God.

Spectrum wrote: My argument applies to God per-se, i.e. ultimately an ontological God [perfect in any sense]

The term "perfect" in an objective sense is a completely meaningless one. I still say that your argument only addresses the version of God you have chosen to challenge. It's entirely possible and legitimate to arrive at a conception of God without involving the concept of perfection.

Spectrum -

I think you fail to take into account that the idea of an "absolute" circle is the very basis from which scientific ideas have been propelled. Some basic principles of electronics functions on the assumption of some supposed infinite wire or infinite plate. The math holds up to reflect reality to an unerring degree. So your position falls apart when the evidence suggests that the mathematical reality holds steadfast to physical reality by way of geometric absolutes taken to exist as if physically real.

The whole grounding of empirical experimentation is placed very firmly in pure geometry. I don't think it is reasonable to say what you're saying given the impossibility of completely separating the mathematical sciences from the natural sciences. It is a disingenuous to pretend the idea of geometry and its structure is somehow utterly disassociated from the physical sciences.

Albert Tatlock wrote:

Spectrum wrote: My argument applies to God per-se, i.e. ultimately an ontological God [perfect in any sense]

The term "perfect" in an objective sense is a completely meaningless one. I still say that your argument only addresses the version of God you have chosen to challenge. It's entirely possible and legitimate to arrive at a conception of God without involving the concept of perfection.

Without the quality of perfection for God, explicitly or implicitly, such a God is an inferior God.

If any one wants to accept their God as being inferior to another God, that would be their choice. Nonetheless there is no way such a theist can prove this inferior 'God' exists and it would be easier for any one to counter the existence of such a God.

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -

I think you fail to take into account that the idea of an "absolute" circle is the very basis from which scientific ideas have been propelled.

Yes, I am failing to take the idea of an absolute circle into account, mainly because I thought the principle of a "perfect circle" was the issue at hand.

-- Updated October 18th, 2017, 10:03 am to add the following --

Spectrum wrote:
If any one wants to accept their God as being inferior to another God, that would be their choice.

I would imagine that one would normally consider one's God to be the only God, therefore the problem of him being inferior to another God doesn't arise.

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -

I think you fail to take into account that the idea of an "absolute" circle is the very basis from which scientific ideas have been propelled. Some basic principles of electronics functions on the assumption of some supposed infinite wire or infinite plate. The math holds up to reflect reality to an unerring degree. So your position falls apart when the evidence suggests that the mathematical reality holds steadfast to physical reality by way of geometric absolutes taken to exist as if physically real.

The whole grounding of empirical experimentation is placed very firmly in pure geometry. I don't think it is reasonable to say what you're saying given the impossibility of completely separating the mathematical sciences from the natural sciences. It is a disingenuous to pretend the idea of geometry and its structure is somehow utterly disassociated from the physical sciences.

You seem to have missed my points.

As I had stated, in Pure Geometry, there is a perfect circle, triangle, & other shapes with its recognized qualities.

Science, architectures, and various technologies has used such conceptions of perfection -but only as a guide - to produce useful things. In the practical world they are not interested in 100% precision which any way is impossible in reality.

Architects used the principles of a perfect triangle/square to built useful building but one will never find an absolutely perfect triangle or square within any buildings. If there is a square concept in a building, e.g. a window, one will never ever observed a perfect square. If one were to measure the square window in reality, the actual measurements cannot represent a perfect square.
This is because a perfect square can exists in theory but can never be reproduced in empirical reality.

So your position falls apart when the evidence suggests that the mathematical reality holds steadfast to physical reality by way of geometric absolutes taken to exist as if physically real.

Show me proofs of this in any empirical reality?
Even at nano-scale the most one can reach is a near-perfect circle [99.999...9%] or square but never an absolutely perfect [100%] circle or square.

There is no way mathematical absolutes [capable of perfection via reason] can be the same [100%] as empirical physical reality.

Spectrum wrote:A personal god is a taboo in our modern philosophical age.

What else can God be but personal? Consider those who claimed to have had communication with God. They were not exactly receiving a broadcast announcements. Rather each had their own intense personal experience that they believed to be be God. It's an assumption. Maybe, maybe not.

I think what you've proved, Spectrum, is that a Perfect God is an impossibility. Good work.

However, an imperfect God or Gods is quite a different story...