On Agnosticism and Dogmatic Atheism.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

I am an agnostic atheist. I make no knowledge claims about a concept that is designed to defy evidence one way or the other, *and* I also don't believe in god(s) for lack of evidence, and the slippery concept involved.

Agnosticism is the skeptical heart of any scientific exploration - the leaving open of possibilities. Some would call that skepticism, but skepticism is the heart of both science and agnosticism. If you imagine there is not more room for exploration, exploration stops. What N. deGrasse Tyson called a perimeter of ignorance. Although he spoke specifically about God-belief, I suspect we can consider it also true of any claim or concept that puts further investigation out of bounds. I also include "knowledge" is that group of claims/concepts that halt inquiry.

Open and free inquiry is necessary, *NECESSARY*, to continued human development. Period. If you want to continue human development, then you *MUST* maintain a skeptical core that questions what you think you know. Fail in that and you fail yourself and everyone around you.

Dogmatic atheists are not useful in the continued exploration. For every dogmatic, exclusionary atheist, there are 20 or more dogmatic theists who are just as "certain" about their truth. The dogmatic atheist is a drain on our thought processes and a reversion into "belief = knowledge" garbage.

Agnosticism merely points at a particular concept and says,"We cannot know this." They are simply correct about "knowing" about the God-concept. Sometimes you have to point at the flaws of a concept to start accounting for it. More thoughtful agnostics seem to do this, as do I.

Those who are interested in science will recognize that need as well, understanding that hypotheses must have empirical referents or they become matters of wild inference.

I don't have a problem with someone not believing in god(s) - I don't believe in god(s) either - but asserting it as a knowledge claim is the same idiot mistake theists have made for ages. We do not advance the subject matter that way, and it plays right into the theists' hands, portraying atheism as just another belief system.

We must rise above that. Agnosticism/skepticism allows us the room we need to do so. Dogmatic atheism is just more of the same hunkering down, entrenched in irrational and enthusiastic quasi-certainty.

I am not defending a "fence sitting." I am defending the possibility of inquiry. Stop relying on jaundiced soundbites you hide behind and fucking think!

We need skepticism. We need the recognition of fallibility. Agnosticism is merely skepticism about one particular concept.

Polarization

Polarization is the theme of the moment in our culture. Calm, rational, critical thought is falling aside in the face of the screaming. Atheists are not immune to its twisted allure, it seems.

One of the sad things is it's almost an inevitable outcome. Religious people proclaim their "certainty" at the top of their lungs and with absolute confidence, and many atheists feel the need to do the same just to be heard. That's part of how theists "win." To fight them we risk becoming them, unless we are very, very careful. What was that quote about battling not with monsters again...?

Spirituality, The Dark Pact

Retreat from Reality

I don't like the word "spirituality." It has far too much mystical nonsense and fluffistry attached to it. Spirituality is an excuse to avoid rigour and represents an agreement between people to leave their respective vague nonsense unchallenged and held immune to examination.

I have been known to rail on about "external referents" and entirely "private, internal realms." Well, I'm not just talking about claims to factual knowledge. Ever notice how, in natural language, spiritual feelings are analogous to mysticism? That's no coincidence, folks.

It seems both the religious and spiritualists claim to have spiritual components, which are feelings (often of "oneness") they have carefully constructed around their "understandings." To classify feelings as spiritual is an attempt to place feelings beyond public scrutiny, in the same way that defining beliefs as faith attempts to put beliefs beyond refutation. The spiritualist wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the benefits of an entirely private emotional (intuitive) realm of "truth" without the discomforts of reference to external reality, be that in the form of empirical verification or in the form of social negotiation.

In this way being spiritual places feelings in an "entirely private realm" that has no "external referents." This functions precisely the same as faith places statements of belief in an "entirely private realm" with no "external referents." In the case of spiritualism, external referents really means negotiating the legitimacy of feelings with others. Morality, from the religious/spiritualist standpoint, is a peculiar mix of belief and feelings.

The Dark Pact

The relief the spiritual person expresses when you claim to be spiritual is the understanding that you "recognize" the legitimacy of their private emotional realm as being somehow sacred and therefore not subject to examination, refutation, or critique. Spirituality is an excuse to avoid rigour and represents an agreement between people to leave their respective vague nonsense unchallenged and held immune to examination. It another way of saying, "I won't challenge your woo if you won't challenge mine."

I don't make this deal with anyone. I don't want my private internal realm to be immune to critique. I am fallible and prone to error (think about how humble a realization that is!) Making one's ideas immune to critique is the short path to insanity.

The dark pact, however, underscores a deeper problem - the idea that our understanding of reality is reality itself, the "true for me" mentality - that there are different realities for different people, rather than that we experience the same reality differently. If we do not recognize the commonality of reality, then we lose our ability to explore it in a way that is useful to, not just ourselves, but others as well. But, aside from that, spirituality is the very antithesis of self-discovery, since spirituality allows self-critique to simply stop.

"But feelings are harmless!" wails the spiritualist.

Ever notice how spiritualists seem to be in a world of their own? They are. This, contrary to popular opinion, is not a good thing.

Let's be blunt and to the point. History shows that we advance when we move beyond mysticism. Things go from being un-understandable to understandable. We go from being helpless pawns blown along helplessly on the winds of capricious fate to being efficacious beings capable of understanding and affecting reality when we get rid of mystical elements. Mysticism is perhaps the single most debilitating and disabling idea in human history.

Lately, as a species, we have been moving away from mysticism and faith, with tremendous effect and benefit, through a methodology of empirical verification (science). Every time we ignore the mystical, we gain human efficacy - the ability to influence. We have done this in terms our understanding about the natural world (beliefs). For simple, practical reasons, we need to do the same thing with respect to concepts of self and emotional realms (feelings).

Social Beings, We

We are social critters. Our social state of being is, to some degree, negotiated. We need to make our private, internal worlds public and open to critique. Spiritualism is a denial of that basic, human, social function, even when it is screaming loudly about being "connected." Ever notice how that connection is only peripherally concerned with other people? They want to "rise above it," when we, as people interacting with other real, living, breathing people, must be "down in it," engaged and involved with other human beings - not making excuses to not be engaged and involved. The claim to "connection" is shallow, self-absorbed and lost in egotism and often references vague, undefined (and undefinable) realms and entities. This is the same as having no external referents at all. It is anti-human, despite its fluffy emotive bent. It is dogmatic. It is the cult of "I."

Negotiating our concepts of self is a vital human function. It is also intensely difficult and fraught with peril. There's always the possibility we might be that unthinkable thing - wrong. Spiritualists deny that negotiation function. They trump human negotiation of our understandings in favour of their little private realms. They mystify their feelings and pretend they are somehow sacred. Things get a little muddled when those feelings also *seem* to include others, most notably when spiritualists attempt to spread their sickness, making it appear as if they are engaged in the human negotiating process. But their part in the process is entirely one-sided. They are attempting to influence others, without permitting themselves to be influenced by others. This is not merely dishonest; it is sociopathic.

The worst kinds of spiritualism, just as is the case with the worst kinds of religion, make no reference to external reality in any way whatsoever, and therefore are never subject to empirical critique. It is emotional intuitionism in its most fundamental, irrational form, but it appeals to those who want to claim expertise without the burden of evidence or, in terms of being social beings, never being subject to the social negotiation process of definition/redefinition of concept of self.

Just like religious belief, spiritualism is self-centered and egomaniacal, placing the self above reality and other people. Denying critique or negotiation through force of will. Spiritual "growth" is a distancing from humanity.

It seems to me that the most appropriate way to view religious belief and spiritualism is as rotting diseases of the social capability of the mind. They do not "inform" (as the euphemism goes); they define and restrict - hobble development and growth, distract into meaninglessness. The claimed "depth" of it is merely mental/emotional drowning in egotism.

Beyond Spirituality

So, what is my point in writing this? Reason and rationality require analysis and critique - not just of what other people think and say, but also of what we think and say.  Being rational requires a profound distancing from our egotism, to the point of allowing an external referent be the arbiter of our understanding. Being critical is more than pointing out how a view doesn't match one's own (different views talking past each other), as if one's own view were the final arbiter of truth. It is about holding one's own ideas up for critical analysis as well. It is also about framing our understandings such that reality is relevant to them. If one's internal realm consists of gods, vague apparitions, and undefinable ideas, held as truths, then there is nothing for anyone, including oneself, to get a grip on. We can all build elaborate mental/emotional constructs that make no reference to empirical reality at all, but that is hardly profound. Your average small child does that when imagining an unverifiable/unrefutable monster in the closet or under the bed.

We need to do better than your average young child.

Fluffistry Unchallenged

So, I say in my introduction blurb, "I am a skeptic, a real one - both scientific and philosophical with unlimited scope of inquiry." What does that mean? Let's start with the not quite hidden evil twin of agnostic atheism:

The Evil Twin

Nowadays, and I push for this as well, atheists are in the process of defining themselves. The rising star is atheism as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief in lack." This avoids certain epistemological issues and heals the rift between agnosticism and atheism. Oh, buy, does that ever piss the theists off. They no longer get to control the discourse. I often sense their panic setting in. Thta said...

It is possible for someone to be a dogmatic atheist - not relying on skeptical reasoning for their belief and/or claiming that their atheism is a knowledge claim. At that point skeptical doubt is not being universally or rigorously applied.

Beware the new age definition of skepticism. That definition limits the scope of inquiry and decimates the primary function of skepticism - protection from dogma.

Scientific "Skepticism"

Modern "scientific skepticism" defines things entirely in terms of empirical evidence (this admittedly aligns itself with science), effectively claiming that non-empirical matters are beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry. Hence a whole non-empirical realm of "woo" is deemed off-limits to skeptical inquiry. This is the underlying effect of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Thus you see skeptical organizations attacking "woo" that has empirical references, but holding "woo" without empirical reference immune to skeptical inquiry. This, of course, is loved by the apologists and accommodationists who wish to selectively decide what does and what does not get called into question. The primary example of course, is that the greatest, most dangerous and pervasive "woo" of them all is left unchallenged by scientific skepticism - God. And that, ultimately, is why the Pope has never received a Pigasus.

So, how did we get to this miserable state. Well, this may come as a shock to some, but religion was not always tempered by considerations like reason and honesty. Basically think of religion as being temporarily papertrained. Stop watching it, and will start pissing all over everything again (current American/Canadian politics display this only too vividly). In order for a fledgling movement to avoid getting squished like a bug under religion's heel, certain compromises were made. NOMA was developed and made part of the agenda. Now, "skeptical" organizations are effectively under the heel of apologists and accommodationists. The justification now is theists "being welcome," but whatever the justification, the result is the same - a hobbled scope of skeptical inquiry.

The JREF's Shame

That is one of the reasons I have such a profound disrespect for the JREF. The last MDC (Million Dollar Challenge) I saw was an hour or more long live videofeed of Jeff Wagg's crotch as some poor, deluded backwater woman tried to prove she could make him urinate with the power of her brain. I kid you not. Meanwhile, God remains unchallenged and the Pope still does not have a Pigasus.

The other reason has to do with free and open inquiry, but that's a story for another time.

Worse, with the new age definition of skepticism, ideologies are also outside the scope of "skeptical" inquiry. Hence we get people like Shermer and Watson seeking to annex skepticism as a niche market for their personal ideologies and demagoguery (and sometimes mere cliquish popularity contests). Ideologies are non-empirical, as are values. Hence we see Shermer's clam that "pure skepticism" is sterile and unproductive. This is, of course, utter nonsense - we can work from posited starting points just as easily as we can from dogmatically believed ones. Uncertainty does not necessarily equate to indecision or helplessness.

Shunning Your Allies in Favour of Your Enemies

What this hobbled definition really amounts to is a disdaining of anyone who has the temerity to think in any but empirical terms. Which is all well and good, until again, you encounter an ideology, or a claim that is presented in such a fashion that it does not admit of empirical verification/refutation (such as God). Whether ideologies are empirical or not, they do have real influence and real empirical effects. I hold that we cannot afford to leave the other magisteria unchallenged, to the dogmatic nutjobs.

And that is when you need pure or philosophical skepticism, because it also provides a defence against these "other magisteria" claims. That "other magisteria" is within the scope of philosophical inquiry.

The purpose of skepticism is not (merely) to indicate when a claim is false, but to indicate when a claim is not necessarily true. If we limit the scope of doubt to a very specific realm, then skepticism loses its ability to provide us with a doubt methodology for non-empirical matters (more properly said, we ignore that tool) - to provide us with a defense against mystical/metaphysical/non-empirical fluffistry. The ideologues and dogmatists are left a whole realm where they are left unchallenged. And, you see, this is where I, as a philosophical skeptic, differ from the mere scientific skeptics. I recognize no artificial limits on the scope of skeptical inquiry. I can meet the dogmatists, the mystics, the ideologues, and the demagogues on their own turf and soundly thrash them there, rather than just pretending they can be ignored - because they can't. They have influence, like it of not, and I think the evidence bears that out.

So, I am a scientific skeptic, but I am also a philosophical skeptic, with an unlimited scope of skeptical inquiry. The apologists and accommodationist influences who seek to hobble and contain inquiry within their very specific parameters can go to hell, straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Dishonest Skepticism

Fortunately, many people extend their skepticism beyond the scope of scientific skepticism and that stopped Shermer in his tracks not that long ago (and has also resulted in a strong correlation between skeptics and atheists) when he tried to equate skepticism with his radical political and economic ideology (libertarianism), Whether it will be enough to halt Watson before she turns the whole enterprise into a polarized shouting match and skepticism is lost in the demagoguery is an open question. Getting polarized is easy - remaining unpolarized, not so much.

Unfortunately, many people extend their skepticism selectively so that their private gris-gris remains "beyond the scope." The principle of eschewing certainty gets shuffled off to a limited scope, defined, in part, by individual whim (which really equates to intuitionism). And that is the purpose behind Shermer's definition of skepticism. Hence we get silly claims like "no one can be skeptical of everything." Of course anyone can. Doubt is not denial. All it requires is the recognition of the possibility of error regardless of the subject matter, the eschewing of certainty with respect to all subject matters, including one's own cherished beliefs and preferences. I, for example, am a humanist by choice, but I do claim that humanism is The Truth!(TM).

Skepticism can be harsh, it'll tell you things you don't really want to hear, but it is absolutely loyal and will never tell you lies.

No True Skeptical Scotsman

Now, the intelligent design (cdesignproponentist) people tried to redefine science such that faith-based evidence was considered scientific. Most people with any grasp of science will realize that this utterly subverts science as a methodology of error-correction based on empirical evidence. After all, if adopted, the ID mentality will now base error-correction on the whims of faith. In this way intelligent design completely decimates the primary function of scientific inquiry.

So it is with artificially limited scope and skepticism. Skepticism is, first and foremost, a protection/defence against dogmatically held ideas - any ideas - including non-empirical ones. When we say that a subject mater is "beyond the scope" of skeptical inquiry, we are rendering ourselves defenseless against that other magisteria. Thus utterly decimates the primary function of skepticism.

This is what I mean when I say I am a true skeptic. It's not a fallacy; it's a recognition that skepticism has a function. Scientific skepticism is all well and good within its sphere, but the moment it tries to limit all skeptical critique to within that sphere (as Shermer and others have done), a terrible, terrible error is being made - usually by those who don't want their dogmas critiqued. Perhaps you would prefer I say, "a thoroughgoing skeptic?"

The Not-Truthiness

The Takedown

Following is a fun video "takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is interesting and worth the see, IMHO.

The "Takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

However, I wish to approach the subject matter from a different angle...

While Craig asserts that infinity is only a concept that doesn't exist in reality, why does he not afford the same courtesy to nothing? We build logical systems to help us understand and explain the world, but quite often because these logical systems involve boolean values, yea or nay, we assume that these absolute values are entailed by the logical system themselves and, therefore, that they translate into reality or "map onto" reality - but this need not be the case. Concepts like infinity arise from an unending progression and concepts like nothing arise from as idea of a perfect absence. There is nothing to suggest that these "perfect" states exist in reality.

While the video is all well and good, and interesting, I suspect the real "takedown" is in understanding the difference between synthetic and analytic arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an entirely analytic argument, as is the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument relies on existence being a necessary condition for perfection, but from whence cometh perfection? Perfection seems to me an extension of idealistic thinking, completely divorced from reality, and a mere logical contrast to imperfection. To say that perfection necessarily entails existence is to make a baseless assumption - that perfection is existent or even possible. Claiming that that there is perfection refers not to any feature of reality - please do point to it if you can - but rather to a definition derived entirely from a logical structure - an implication of the terms involved. Nothing more. So when the Ontological Argument goes from "existence is a property of perfection" to "therefore God exists" what we have is an equivocation of the word "exist." Analytic existence is not equivalent to synthetic existence.

More Than One Truth-(Value)

And it is no surprise this happens, since logical "truth" is often equivocated with "empirical" (or "synthetic") truth. We have been engaged in propping up this error for millennia and I suspect this equivocation of truth is responsible for much, especially, theological error. It is, of course, trivia to create a valid argument that is not sound. This proves that logical truth values are not empirical truth. To find out empirical or synthetic truth you actually have to check with reality, something neither the Ontological nor Cosmological arguments do, although they end up making a claim that we are supposed to take as empirical/synthetic.

The nifty thing about entirely analytic arguments is that reality is not a function within them - no empirical reference is made prior to the assertion about reality. In this way terms in the premises represent equivocations of similar terms in the conclusion.

As given in the video, the Kalam Cosmological Argument goes:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
And that cause is God.

Leaving aside the non-sequitur of the universe having a cause leading to that cause being God... ;)

The real problem here is the word "begins/began." Defenders of the KCA assume that beginning involves arising from nothing, hence their constant mockery that anyone who argues against the KCA is assuming the something arises from nothing. Now a careful examination reveals this to be a mere matter of definition - and analytical function, with no clear reference to reality. The matter seems persuasive because science makes a similar working assumption with regards to causality in order to do its work. However, at no time, does science necessarily invoke the logical concept of nothing in the same way apologists like Craig do (except as an effort to make a dramatic title intended to sell books perhaps). Indeed a recent understanding of the "origins of the universe" seem to posit the idea that there is never really any state of absolute nothing. Hence the "dilemma" presented by the KCA apologists is simply bypassed. And there is no particular reason why this cannot be done, since our understanding of "nothing" is merely the placing of a negation in front of "something." The logical nothing is not necessarily empirical nothing. To confuse them is, in my opinion, to equivocate the word "nothing."

Referencing Reality

The trick now is to make sure the new physics cosmology refers to empirical reality, and that's where things get interesting. Then it is an exercise in developing experiments from the theory that confirm or refute. We'll know whether the theory is interesting or not when we are provided the falsifiability in the theory.

I am not confident that replacing one entirely analytic argument with another does much for us except display the cleverness of everyone involved. Of course, science provides us the benefit of actually referring to reality - at least most of the time.

Which brings to mind string theory, but that's a topic for another time... ;)

Garbage In = Garbage Out

Math & Logic

When it comes down to it, logic (AKA: propositional calculus) is an attempt to turn language into mathematics. We were so impressed, and properly so, with mathematics that we try to systematize most, if not all, human understanding in terms of mathematics, and language is no different. Ever hear that inevitable kid in math class moan, "Why should we learn math anyway?" Well, this is the answer. If you understand mathematics, you understand how we have tried to understand and depict just about every field of human study - which gives you a huge head start in learning any more specialized field.

Mathematics is also a logical/deductive system and works by means of well-established operators, inferences, and well-formed formulas. It's axiomatic structure has been detailed with meticulous rigour, so whether mathematics is in the domain of logic, or logic attempts to emulate mathematics is a kind of chicken/egg issue, but my purpose in linking the two together here is to discuss something aout logic that most, it seems, do not realize.

The Dumbing Down of Logic

When I was going to university an interesting transition was underway. Logic wasn't terribly popular, because it was difficult, but logic was still the big money-maker for what was otherwise a department in chaos. Many were saying it was important to make logic more accessible, in the form of what was called "critical thinking." Critical thinking focused less on the math and more on fallacies. I was one of the lucky ones; I managed to steal my logic education before the shift was enacted. I assume this kind of shift in orientation was not uncommon among philosophy departments because nowadays we see plenty of people who can recite fallacy names, but do not understand a very important thing...

What Logic Is ... and Isn't

Logic is not what most think it is; it is not a path to truth. Logic is a test of "internal consistency." Does the argument agree with itself? Despite that logic works with what are called "truth values," truth values do not necessarily map onto reality-truth. This is the difference between validity and soundness. Validity is a assessment of the argument form - the equation, as it were - whereas soundness refers to whether the content of the argument maps onto reality. A valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is one in which the argument is both valid and the premises are true. It is quite possible for an argument to be valid without being sound. Let me express this in a simple math example.

2+2=4. Now we know that this is true, courtesy of the definitions of 2, +, = and 4. We also know that if there are two groups of two oranges on the table in front of us, that we have 4 oranges total. Yes, this skeptic just said "know." What we do not know is whether we have 2 groups of two oranges on the table before us or not. The equation doesn't tell us that. To determine that, we actually have to look at the table and check. Thinking of a logical argument as an if-then conditional might be one of the best ways of understanding what logic is. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. 2+2 may equal 4, but that is not particularly helpful if we are not referring to two actual groups of two. If there are two groups of three, then the 2 in 2+2 is garbage in, and the 4 is garbage out.

Now let me express this in the form of a categorical syllogism:

All humans are fish. (If A then B)
I am a human. (C is A)
Therefore, I am a fish (C is B)

This argument is valid, but unsound, for obvious reasons (all humans are not fish, indeed no humans are). Therefore the conclusion that I am a fish cannot be relied upon. "All humans are fish" is garbage in, and "I am a fish" is garbage out.

And this points at the issue with logic. The propositions actually have content. It may be mistaken content, but it is content nonetheless. We can plug any content into a valid argument form and crank the equation to get a conclusion, but if the conten t is mistaken, then there is a very good probability the conclusion will be as well. Of course, matters are a little more complicated than that, but it serves well enough for our purposes here.

Truth: Analytic vs Synthetic

Moving via wff (well-formed formula) through steps of an argument provide what is called analytic truth - the truth of which is entirely dependent upon the definitions of the terms and inferences involved, with no reference to reality whatsoever. When we reference reality, then we can move from analytic truth to what is called synthetic truth. Unfortunately these are easily confused, and have been confused quite a lot in the history of logic (the language of logic actually makes such confusion more likely). Perhaps it all started with the idiot who first called truth values "truth values." One for equivocation...

That reflects the hopes and dreams we had for logic throughout history. We dreamed of a systematic way of deriving "novel" (previously unknown) knowledge from already "known" premises. Sadly, the results are not living up to the hopes. We get knowledge, sure, but it is what was already contained in the premises - it is "trivial."

In computer programming a Boolean relationship can be expressed in two ways really. It can use the terms true and false or it could use something else, some other terms, say 0 and 1. To the computer, whether we use "true" and "false" or "0"and "1" is irrelevant. However, to we poor humans, the use of "true" and "false" has content beyond the calculation itself and this leads to error.

The Sordid Habits of Snufflegrorfts

So, let's look at another example of a categorical syllogism that is valid.

All snufflgrorfts flooft.
Rufus is a snufflegrorft.
Therefore Rufus floofts.

Now what do we know from this argument itself? Pretty much nothing, actually. We do not know if there is such a thing as a snufflegrorft much less that there is one named Rufus who/that floofts. Generally we do not speak of floofting in polite company, but we are dealing with an important point so we'll check our petty sensitivities at the door just this once. However, because the argument is valid (a wff), we do have an analytic truth: if there are snufflegrorfts, and if all snufflegrorfts flooft and if Rufus is a snufflegrorft, then Rufus floofts. See all those "ifs?" The wise person doesn't confuse the validity of the argument with it's claims about snufflegrorts, Rufus, or floofting - it's claims about reality.

The Ontological Argument

So why is this talk about analytic truth, synthetic truths, and snufflgrorfts personal habits interesting? Why have I gone to such pains to write all this? It has impact on some arguments involving the existence of God, especially the ontological argument. The ontological argument suggests that God is a perfect being, and that perfection entails existence as a matter of definition.

Perfection entails existence.
God is perfect.
Therefore, God exists.

The astute will have noticed that these are all matters of definition, and deductive rules of inference, with no reference whatsoever to reality except for the claim at the end. At no time do we reference reality with the claim that perfection entails existence. At no time do we have a synthetic reference for God being perfect, even if it is worded like there is one. Incidentally, we have no synthetic verification of God existing. The argument represents an attempt to shift from analytic truth to synthetic truth, but at no time is reality actually consulted. Garbage in = garbage out.

Unless it touches reality, the argument is merely an elaborate web of fabrications. The definitions involved may seem convincing, but they are still definitions only.

The Cosmological arguments suffer from the same fatal flaw. They seem plausible only because it seems reasonable to assume every effect has a cause, and the argument uses that "seeming" to (entertainingly enough) claim an uncaused cause (a cause that is not an effect), in order to avoid a infinite regress. Then assumptions are made about the nature of that uncaused cause - namely that it is God. No matter how you look at it, however, these arguments rely on unsubstantiated (read: analytical) claims to attempt to prove a synthetic claim. Again, without reference to reality, the move from analytic to synthetic is unwarranted and indefensible.

Garbage in = garbage out.