Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

[Prismatic567]

What natural phenomenon exists that is absolutely perfect [ God is not an acceptable answer ]

I agree, there are no natural phenomenon that is empirically based which can be asbsolutely perfect.
Absolute = totally unconditional.
Natural phenomena can only be realized within a conditional empirical-rational framework, e.g. Science.

The idea of God is a resultant of psychological impulses and primal reason [very crude logic] and God is not a natural thing. God is only a thought.

[Meno_]

The difference between an idea and a thought befuddled.

[Prismatic567]

In what sense are any of them absolutely perfect and how you are defining absolute perfection

In the same sense and definition as the OP!

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

In what sense are any of them absolutely perfect and how you are defining absolute perfection

In the same sense and definition as the OP!

Nope your definition of 'absolute' and 'perfect' is not the same as mine.

What natural phenomenon exists that is absolutely perfect [ God is not an acceptable answer ]

1) The speed of light.
2) Gravitation.
3) Momentum.

Need I go on?

The speed of light, gravitation, momentum are all scientific terms with their associated theories.
These theories cannot be absolutely perfect because they are conditional upon the Scientific Framework which generate at best, polished conjectures [Popper]. Because they are conditional, they cannot be absolutely perfect [as defined].

[Prismatic567]

The difference between an idea and a thought befuddled.

Don't get your point. Need more details.
If you are referring to my use of 'idea' it is with reference to 'idea' in the philosophical sense, i.e. Kantian.
Thought is a basic mental element.
A philosophical 'idea' is a thought that lacks empirical basis.
A philosophical 'concept' is a thought that has an empirical basis with intellectual consideration.

[Meno_]

In what sense are any of them absolutely perfect and how you are defining absolute perfection

In the same sense and definition as the OP!

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

In what sense are any of them absolutely perfect and how you are defining absolute perfection

In the same sense and definition as the OP!

Nope your definition of 'absolute' and 'perfect' is not the same as mine.

What natural phenomenon exists that is absolutely perfect [ God is not an acceptable answer ]

1) The speed of light.
2) Gravitation.
3) Momentum.

Need I go on?

The speed of light, gravitation, momentum are all scientific terms with their associated theories.
These theories cannot be absolutely perfect because they are conditional upon the Scientific Framework which generate at best, polished conjectures [Popper]. Because they are conditional, they cannot be absolutely perfect [as defined].

The glaring pathos comes out of his words, when his inferential logic tries to escape the frequently schematic populism of of show me proof, which escapes the deeper(est) recesses of the mind.

Which is only a conjecture on my part.

[Prismatic567]

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.

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?

This is the point of consideration.
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.

I have explained elsewhere why God ultimately must be absolutely perfect. In general is it re OP, no theist will naturally accept a God that is inferior to another God. 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.

Therefore any theists who want to ensure their God will not in any inferior to kiss the ass of another God, will ultimately end up with an ontological God.

[Prismatic567]

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.

If something does in fact exist in a wholly determined universe, then anything that does in fact exist could not have existed in any other way. And that would include any exchanges we have here about perfection.

Or take living organisms that interact entirely in sync [instinctively] with the biological imperatives built into the evolution of life on earth. The lion may well not bring down the wildebeest but in what sense can we say it behaved imperfectly?

But once we shift gears from mindless matter to matter able to acquire some level of autonomy, perfection would seem to revolve around what we think that means in any particular context.

If I go bowling and, in a single game, roll 12 strikes in a row that is clearly perfection. If I am Don Larsen pitching in the World Series and no one on the opposing team gets on base in the nine inning game, I have pitched a "perfect game".

Here you simply can't perform better than perfection.

But, most crucially, it is able to be calculated objectively because it revolves around that which we all agree is perfection.

But how on earth would we even begin to establish that which constitutes perfection in God?

What are we all required to accept as the "rules" here? How do we calculate it other than by clumping together a collection of more or less academic premises and insisting perfection necessarily revolves around everyone accepting them?

My thinking -- "proof" -- about God and perfection...compared to yours?

Agree in general with the points you raised.
I have highlighted the difference between 'absolute perfection' and 'conditional perfection.'
The examples you gave are conditional perfection, e.g. a perfect score in an objective test, a perfect score 7/7 or 10/10 in a diving or gymnastic competition. Such conditional perfection are conditioned upon some agreed criteria within a group people.

Re the highlighted above.
The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason and cannot be a natural thing. Theists will claim God is a natural thing. If natural, then prove it naturally and this is not possible, i.e. impossible.

Those theists with higher intellectual capacity [more than the average, e.g. theologian philosophers] know God cannot meet natural expectation, that is why they concede it is by 'faith.'
Without the natural means to prove God, these more intelligent theists push their limits of reason to establish an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God, e.g. St Anselm, Descartes and others.

I agree an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God seem reasonable and possible but only within thought and definitely not within an empirical-rational reality.
On closer scrutiny the argument for an absolutely perfect being is fallacious as it make a leap from infinite regression.

[phyllo]

I wonder about the psychology behind repeatedly using the phrase "kiss the ass".

[Prismatic567]

It would be better to say that the speed of light in vacuum is absolutely consistent rather than absolutely perfect because consistency can quite easily be measured whereas perfection can not be measured at all

As stated above, whatever is claimed to be 'perfect'/'absolute' and it is scientifically based, such absoluteness and perfection can only be conditional perfection or conditional absolutes. Note absolute temperature - kelvin. Note absolute monarch, absolute-whatever-is-conditioned.

Re my response to Phyllo above, God being driven by psychological desperation has to be unique, ideal and beyond comparison, thus absolutely perfect as established by primal crude reason. Note this is not my claim but such an idea of absolute perfection is claimed by theists and potentially by any other normal theists.

[Prismatic567]

I wonder about the psychology behind repeatedly using the phrase "kiss the ass".

Represent subservient and being totally dominated. I wanted to use the phrase, 'eat the shit' of the more superior God but avoided that.
This is to emphasize strongly the desperation why the idea of a God MUST be an ontological, i.e. absolutely perfect Being so as to avoid the above vile repulsive act.

[Prismatic567]

Why use the word "perfect" for anything at all?

What purpose does the word have?

Even when talking about God, it seems useless.

Note my response to you earlier.
The need to attribute to God the term 'absolutely perfect' by theists is to ensure their god is not dominated by another superior and ended up possibly being commanded to kiss the arse of the more superior God.

This one-up impulse is inherent in humans and one can hear and infer a lot of such impulses in school yards which continue into adulthood in more subtle ways [some are crude] and manifesting in an absolutely perfect God than which no greater perfection is possible.

[James S Saint]

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".

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.

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.

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.

The speed of light, gravitation, momentum are all scientific terms with their associated theories.

So what?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

The only way to prove and realized the empirical-rational reality is via some conditional Framework and Systems, thus such cannot be absolutely perfect, i.e. unconditional.

Actual:
1. existing in act or fact; real:
an actual case of heroism; actual expenses.
2. existing now; present; current:
The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.

Note I qualified my P1, i.e. Absolute Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Since the only way to prove anything within the empirical-rational reality is via conditional Framework and System,
Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

I agree there is possibility for a God is exists within thoughts and primal crude reason, but as Kant asserted this is pseudo-rational and an illusion.

God which is an Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

The real possibility of why and how the idea of God arose and claimed as real within an empirical-rational reality is due to desperate existential psychological impulses. I have provided links and references to show in cases where the idea of God arose in the mind of some people driven by psychological impulses.

[Prismatic567]

No one has yet to answer the OP.

Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

[James S Saint]

The only way to prove and realized the empirical-rational reality is via some conditional Framework and Systems, thus such cannot be absolutely perfect, i.e. unconditional.

Thus you cannot prove your premise. And I disagree with your premise (as have others).
Thus your syllogism is invalid.

Actual:
1. existing in act or fact; real:
an actual case of heroism; actual expenses.
2. existing now; present; current:
The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.

Note I qualified my P1, i.e. Absolute Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

No. That is your CLAIM. It cannot also be your premise.

[Prismatic567]

The only way to prove and realized the empirical-rational reality is via some conditional Framework and Systems, thus such cannot be absolutely perfect, i.e. unconditional.

Thus you cannot prove your premise. And I disagree with your premise (as have others).
Thus your syllogism is invalid.

The above is irrelevant, you got confused is conflating here.
Point is the theists' claim is based on primal crude reason [pseudo-rational] [not emprical-rational] and what I did is to use more refined reason and rational approach to show the theists thoughts is false.

Note at one time the majority of people disagreed with the loner Copernicus' claim of the Earth revolving round the Sun.

Note I qualified my P1, i.e. Absolute Perfection is an Impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

No. That is your CLAIM. It cannot also be your premise.[/quote]

Note Premise;
Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/premise

I have supported my P1 with explanation and rational proofs in the details and other posts.
Note my argument;

1. Without a conditioned Framework, realization of reality is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
2. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is without a conditioned framework.
3. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. (P1)

[James S Saint]

Note Premise;
Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/premise

The statement does not support your conclusion if the statement itself is a dubious or rejected claim. You wish is that absolute perfection is impossible, so you keep professing it. But you are wrong. And you cannot prove otherwise. And that's not even counting the fact that it is a nonsense statement.

Note my argument;

1. Without a conditioned Framework, realization of reality is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. <<== Your bullshit claim
2. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is without a conditioned framework.
3. Absolute [unconditional] Perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. (P1)

[phyllo]

Absolute [unconditional] Perfection

You know that there is something wrong when it's necessary to pile on more words so that plain "perfection" goes for a ride ... perfection -> absolute perfection -> absolute [unconditional] perfection -> absolute {totally unconditional] perfection.

Is this just the equivalent of yelling louder when people don't accept your argument? Or is it hiding behind the complexity of more words?

[phyllo]

Note at one time the majority of people disagreed with the loner Copernicus' claim of the Earth revolving round the Sun.

Sometimes the "loner" is just wrong.

If a lot of people disagree with you, then you need to very carefully look at their arguments and also your own and you need very good reasons to explain why yours is better.

You're not doing that. You have essentially dug in your heels and you keep repeating that your understanding of perfection, theists and God is the correct one and everyone else is wrong. That's a lot of ego on display.

[phyllo]

If the meaning of the word "perfection" is so open to dispute and interpretation, then maybe it's not a good basis for a syllogism.

[iambiguous]

Biguous? Do you have any evidence that the speed of light is not absolutely perfect, flawed in some way?

More to the point, why is an "absolutely perfect" speed of light 299,792,458 meters per second? Why not 299,792,459? Or, for that matter, why not 345,871,835 meters per second? Or, perhaps, 1,000,000,000 meters right on the nose?

Either a God, the God chose that particular speed for reasons mere mortals are "here and now" unable to fathom, or because even a God, the God is subsumed in [beholden to] the "immutable laws of matters".

Or was God morally obligated to choose that particular speed?

In any event, how is all of this subsumed in RM/AO and the Real God?

And then, finally, given the gap that would seem to exist between what you think the relationship is between the speed of light and perfection and all that would need to be known about that relationship metaphysically -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics -- in order to know for sure, why on earth should anyone here suppose that your own arguments encompass the optimal or the only rational explanation?

[iambiguous]

Agree in general with the points you raised.
I have highlighted the difference between 'absolute perfection' and 'conditional perfection.'
The examples you gave are conditional perfection, e.g. a perfect score in an objective test, a perfect score 7/7 or 10/10 in a diving or gymnastic competition. Such conditional perfection are conditioned upon some agreed criteria within a group people.

We define a perfect game in Bowling as 12 strikes in a row in a 10 frame game. Meet that condition and you are perfect. But suppose the game of bowling consisted of 50 frames...or 100 frames? How much perfection then?

And Larsen pitched a perfect game because his performance fell within the defined parameters of what everyone agrees this means.

But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.

"Perfection" in human interactions will often revolve around a particular set of assumptions.

On the other hand, a diving competition precludes the sort of perfection that can be measured in a swim meet. You are either the fastest [measured by the clock] or you are not. But in diving there are too many opportunities for subjective interpretations of the dive. Conscious or unconscious.

Re the highlighted above: But how on earth would we even begin to establish that which constitutes perfection in God?
The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason and cannot be a natural thing. Theists will claim God is a natural thing. If natural, then prove it naturally and this is not possible, i.e. impossible.

Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.

Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that "I" too am no less the embodiment of this gap.

How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?

I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?

And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?

I agree an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God seem reasonable and possible but only within thought and definitely not within an empirical-rational reality.

Agreeing or not agreeing with what you think isn't the point from my frame of mind. Instead, the point revolves around your capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to agree. Here and now in other words, and not in some distant future where folks like you and I surmise that we will not even be around anyway!

To either confirm your prognostications or to experience a world in which they prevail.

[James S Saint]

In any event, how is all of this subsumed in RM/AO and the Real God?

RM requires precise definitions of the critical words. That's how.

[iambiguous]

In any event, how is all of this subsumed in RM/AO and the Real God?

RM requires precise definitions of the critical words. That's how.

This doesn't surprise me.

How about others?

Let me ask you this, James...

Over the course of, say, your entire life, has anyone ever come to define the words you use to encompass RM/AO more precisely than you have?

Can you provide us with some examples?

I suspect not. Why? Because once the objectivists acknowledge that they were wrong about one definition, they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about other definitions.

And then the whole psychological contraption might come tumbling down.

Again, it's not what you know about the relationship between any particular inferior/superior God, perfection and RM/AO/the Real God, but that you know precisely what that relationship is.

By definition in other words.

Really, my friend, do you have any idea just how common that frame of mind is?

[James S Saint]

Over the course of, say, your entire life, has anyone ever come to define the words you use to encompass RM/AO more precisely than you have?

Can you provide us with some examples?

Not that this is at all relevant to the topic (but when are your questions ever), I learn from others, sure. Why don't you?

Even the word "affectance" (as just explained in another thread) was used by psychologists before I coined it into its essential meaning from their particular meaning (somewhat a Moses and the Pharaoh trick).

And I have changed the words that I use on rare occasion. I realized that "RM" was not the ontology as much as the method for designing the ontology, thus it became "RM/AO" instead of just "RM". FC helped me with the wording of "self-harmony" as being more to the point than just "harmony". I don't use "SAM corporation" now merely because people associate it with those evil money hogging imperialists, but rather "SAM Co-op".

All words that I use came from someone else. I just make a greater effort to get their intended meanings right than most people. And yes, I do try to correct when I find that I haven't been using one properly enough. No big deal.

But of course what you and many don't get is that once you have done that for quite a while, doubting yourself in constructive ways, you eventually find that there is hardly anything left to doubt. And that is what bothers you so very much. You want everyone to be as frightened with self-doubt as yourself.