Thanks for responding.
Note firstly the ideas of 'absolute perfection' or 'absolutely absolute' are not my personal claims and beliefs.
I'm not sure if I understand fully? You've claimed that “absolute perfection” (as claimed by theists about God) cannot exist. You've then defined a distinction between “absolute perfection” and “relative perfection”. Whilst the claim that God is absolutely perfect is not yours (that is clear) the definitions of absolute and relative perfection are yours, and since you've used those definitions as a premise for your argument(s) it seems that they are your personal claims and beliefs.
I agree that there are theists who've claimed that God is “absolutely perfect”, but that doesn't mean that all theists do.These terms 'absolute perfection' or 'absolutely absolute' are claimed or implied by theists or rather the more advanced theologians, e.g. St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
I have given evidences/references where advanced theologians has introduced these terms and the likes.
The point is the initial drive of theism is a psychological issue and with crude reason drive theists to invent the idea of a God to soothes those psychological angst. The initial concepts of God were mostly anthropomorphic, but throughout history such flimsy [silly] anthropomorphic concepts has been question by rational people and even other theists.
I can't agree with this, because we can only speculate what the “initial drive” of theism is. It is possible that God or all gods are an invention of the minds of the ancients and do not actually exist, but when we attempt to amalgamate all of the different factors contributing to religious belief into a single root cause, without proper justification or evidence of causation, we are doing the same thing you accuse theists of – creating an ideation based upon the limited information we have available. To say that theism is a psychological issue seems quite vague, because the cause of most, if not all human-behaviour can be reduced to being psychological, or a combination of psychological and biological factors. I don't think you can, from that conclusion, extrapolate a “root cause” – given the depth of psychology, to do so is a guess and an educated guess at best. I don't agree that the reasoning behind theism is “crude” I find that to be denigratory towards theists. There's no empirical evidence for the existence of God, but people have theistic beliefs for reasons that are anecdotal. I think that how someone views the degree to which theistic beliefs are rational is dependent on their world view.
I'm not sure if this is correct? I think that most theists perceive God as immutable. Meaning that the specific definition of the God they believe in does not change and cannot change. I think theists claim that through revelation (revealed knowledge) they discover a greater depth of knowledge about God or about the “will” of God, but such revelations are not, I think, to “cover for the underlying psychological issues”, but rather to have a greater/better understanding of the God they believe in. Yes, anthropomorphic concepts of God are challenged (as they should be), and I don't think they can be justified qua knowledge. If they were justified, belief in God would not be criticised as widely as it is, but because God's existence cannot be disproved despite the rationality of the counter-arguments and lack of evidence for the existence of God – belief in God maintains a degree of reasonableness.When questioned, each group will correct their errors and shortfalls and come up with new concepts to cover for the underlying psychological issues.
But as each new anthropomorphic or empirical concepts are raised to justify the existence of God, they are continually attacked/challenged by rational & critical thinkers and other theists as well.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? We can challenge theistic ideas with rationality and critical thinking – we can create arguments which make the existence of God seem logically contradictory and juxtapose theistic ideas with empirical reality such that there's no correlative or causative necessity for God, but we cannot prove as a fact that God doesn't exist.This continual attack pushes the concept of God to the idea [not concept] of an ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect God or the absolutely Absolute which no other theists can challenge but exposes its back to the philosophical rationality.
It is philosophical rational and critical thinking that prove the idea of God - by more advanced theist - as an absolutely perfect or absolutely-absolute is an impossibility.
As I've stated, I think that any claim of impossibility (unless it's a priori) requires a leap of faith, because we must assume, without certain knowledge that God cannot exist. There is a bridge between “doesn't exist” and “impossible to exist” that we don't have the knowledge to cross. At the moment we don't even have the knowledge to prove that God “doesn't exist” so postulating that it is “impossible” for God to exist is seemingly very problematic.
Interesting analogy. You're attempting to do so, and I think it is possible that you're right and God is purely psychological, but you haven't done so in my opinion. I think that concepts and ideas about God will persist as long as the human race does.When I have stripped all the clothing of the various concepts and ideas of God, what is left naked is the psychological basis why God was conjured in the first place.
Point is I am not speculating, there are scientific proofs of the various experiences of God and there are non-theistic religions that deal with the inherent psychological issue using the psychological approach.
I think that you are. I don't doubt that there are many explanations for why people have theistic beliefs and experiences. As far as I'm aware, there is no single accepted explanation which has the consensus. Whichever explanation you think is correct is not necessarily the truth. The reasons for why people believe in God are not something that can't be falsified, so we have to accept what theists claim are the reasons for their belief as a given. It is difficult to claim that a reason a theist says is the core reason for why they believe in God is not the core reason – as the methodology needed to refute their claim simply isn't there. You can't test what they claim empirically. There are many factors which make isolating a “root cause” for theistic belief problematic. This has been explained to you by others, but you to choose to reject what they're saying in favour of what you think is right, which is up to you I guess, but to claim that you're not speculating means that you think you know the truth, I don't agree with that. In order to accept your proposition, we must reject all other causes of theistic beliefs in favour of one unprovable conclusion which you posit “existential crisis”/"psychological angst" – which I think is unacceptable. The problems of claiming that existential crisis is the “root cause” of theistic beliefs has also been explained to you by others, but you choose to disregard the explanations. How can you know for certain, what is and isn't caused by existential crisis?
I never said or implied that you did. Again, you've specifically defined “absolute perfection” as being distinct from “relative perfection” as a means of supporting your argument for the impossibility of God. The term “absolute perfection” is used in theism, but you are using it in your argument as though it means actually means something that “perfection” (without the "absolute" emphasis) is not suitable to describe.Note my explanation above. I am not claiming those terms as a belief.
I gave reasons above how those terms are from the more advanced theologians.
I never claimed that it was your invention. I questioned your application of the term. There is no difference between theist's application of the term and your application. You've both claimed (although no one here has) that God must be absolutely perfect.So the term 'absolutely perfect' absolute perfection, Absolute [absolutely absolute] is not my invention but introduced by the more advanced theologians. I know this because I had read very widely on this subject and was very alert to these terms.
I wouldn't say that ideas about God are “meaningless” or “impossible” to be real. Unlikely yes, but impossible no, how do you cover that epistemological ground? No ideas about God may be specifically right, but they could elude to something or some part of reality that is real (yes I am speculating). To say that they are “raised primarily to soothe the inherent psychological angst.” Is not only arbitrary, but also unconvincing IMO.If you reflect on them philosophically, they are actually meaningless and are impossible to be real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality. The only real reason these ideas of God which are illusory and impossible is because they are raised primarily to soothe the inherent psychological angst.