Prismatic567 wrote: each Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in general will claim the non-Abrahamic Gods are inferior to their respective Abrahamic God.
They each claim that the non-Abramic gods are not "true gods" because there is only but one true God, "Creator of Heaven and Earth".
Prismatic567 wrote:With all the differences and claims, each religion will try to ensure their God's utmost integrity and ultimately reason will lead them to an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect Being.
They each claim that the others are corrupted with misunderstandings. And being perfect has nothing to do with being an "ontological god". Being perfect is not a part of any definition of God either. Being perfect is one of the characteristics attributed to God.
You have too much of your Indian/Arab unbringing showing.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have not define absolutely perfect in this OP.
I have defined 'absolute' 'perfect' with explanations in this OP; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
Which was exactly my point.
Prismatic567 wrote:Nope your definition of 'absolute' and 'perfect' is not the same as mine.
How would you know? I didn't define mine except to say that it is the same as yours. So you're wrong.
Prismatic567 wrote:The speed of light, gravitation, momentum are all scientific terms with their associated theories.
So what?
Prismatic567 wrote:These theories cannot be absolutely perfect
A mistake that I expected for you to make.
I said nothing of the theories. Theories are man-made concepts, expected to be flawed. I specifically said "the
ACTUAL speed of light", not anyone's theory concerning it.
Prismatic567 wrote:phyllo wrote:
Perfection requires a comparison between something and a standard.
If something is unique, then it's possible to say that there is nothing with which it can be compared. Therefore every unique thing can be considered perfect.
Of course, it's possible to set up an ideal which the unique thing should be. But where does that "should" come from? Ought the thing really be some other way than it actually is?
Everything in the universe can be considered unique and perfect.
If something is not unique, then it satisfies some definition. Any cat which meets the dictionary definition of "cat" can be considered perfect. The world is full of perfect cats and trees and flies ...
The something may also be suitable for fulfilling a function or requirement. For example, a glass may be considered perfect for taking a drink of water - it's flawless in doing so.
So again, this is a discussion about what a word means. It means slightly different stuff to different people and in different contexts.
It depends on how the comparison is done.
I agree with the above.
Yet you didn't agree to it when I first said it long ago, nor do you use what phyllo just said. Did you read it right? Probably not.
Prismatic567 wrote:Because there is a psychological desperation of an existential dilemma, the more affected [like theists] idealized a God which ultimately must be ideal and unique which nothing can be compared to it. This is the ontological God, i.e. 'a god than which no greater can exists'. This what the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others theists will claim for their God.
Again, you preach out of complete ignorance.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have explained elsewhere why God ultimately must be absolutely perfect.
No you haven't. You merely preach that what you want people to believe is true. There has been no actual reasoning (philosophy) behind any of it.
Prismatic567 wrote:Some nasty theists who believe their God is absolutely perfect and all powerful will be able to command the lesser God to kiss the ass of the superior God.
Again, you express your ignorance. There are no "other Gods" in any Abramic religion. Each sect or denomination believes that the others are merely confused (much like you).
Prismatic567 wrote:I have highlighted the difference between 'absolute perfection' and 'conditional perfection.'
Which was nonsense from the get-go and which many people have explained to you.
Prismatic567 wrote:The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason
Just more of your hate-religious BS, void of any actual intellectual support. Your references to Hume have been laughable and certainly not proof of anything.
phyllo wrote:I wonder about the psychology behind repeatedly using the phrase "kiss the ass".
It is sometimes difficult to tell the distinction between certain Middle and Eastern adults from European children.
Bottom line:
The ACTUAL speed of light is an empirical example of YOUR defined "absolute perfection".And even if it wasn't, you have no proof of your P1 premise that absolute perfection is impossible,
thus your syllogism is invalid.