Prismatic,
No comment.
And now he is calling it public knowledge, which I also said. Fine. And I obviously have no patent on it. The problem is obviously that he rejected it first. Then later incorporates it. And it is not a threat to his hypothesis, according to him, because his hypothesis is ‘deeper’. IOW that is the extent he is capable of wrestling with a hypothesis presented as an alternative to his. He asserts something.
So, basically he is making a strawman response.
You are not accusing him of copywrite infringement, but rather of arguing in a disingenous manner.
But I am starting to think that some people truly are not capable of introspecting enough to notice their own process.
You and I would have noticed this. Wondered about why we are now talking about pattern recognition. Wondering if in fact the idea had enough merit to go into more carefully to show it is not a better hypothesis than his for religion in general. Wondered if we really had presented enough evidence to dismiss it. But all he does is incorporate it and dismiss it as a minor point.
We think that he will naturally have similar warning bells, and that most people will. And I think this can make it seem willful and intentionally dishonorable on his part.
But I don’t think it is.
We are dealing with honest cluelessness.
He’s right. He knows it. Everything he does makes sense. The cognitive dissonance protection mechanism are perfectly effective.
I am sure you are familiar with this kind of pattern, ironically, with the people you grew up around who were strictly religious.
Nope!
I rejected pattern recognition and agencity as the primary cause of all religions. I have repeated this many times.
I have insisted the subconscious fear of death precedes all other instincts [include agencity] that relate to religions.
I have tried my best to respond to whatever points raised.
I will have a look at it again.
On second look, I thought I responded directly, i.e.
You stated,
This statement is idealistic,
I responded with;
Nope that is very practical. i.e. not idealistic.
then proceeded to explain why the Philosophical overview is critical to polish as much rough edges of empirical knowledge.
If you think I have missed your expectation, then you have to explain where?
What? I stated;
Your response had nothing to do with this. You are responding to strawmen bruh.
Why must god be perfect, relatively or absolutely? Some religions claim that man was created in gods image, if man is imperfect then the image man was created from could be imperfect as well. Here is were your notions of god start to mix with the limitations of man. Why must god have any miraculous powers at all? Tradition isn’t a good enough answer. Perhaps man got god wrong from the get go, never quite got his fingers around the prize so to speak. Perhaps you are just arguing for or against an imperfect description.
Oh, good luck with this one. I’ve gone down that line.
I’ve pointed out that any religious language that implies or states perfection could well simply mean vastly more perfect than us.
I’ve pointed out that there is no reason a creater of a universe might not be unbelievably smart but also flawed in some way.
Who knows, we might become one of those some day.
But since Prismatic has to have a perfect (and mathematically perfect God in all the omni senses ((which is not how all deities are described))) deity to make his supposed proofs that God does not exist work, well, perfectly, he
will
never
admit this.
Of course many theists - especially in Christianity and Islam - play into his hands by defending these kinds of silly logic does not hold perfection type deities and for coming up with that kind of deity (those that did).
Perhaps to compensate or over-compensate for our own imperfections and flaws.
If we broke our leg, would we not want perfect crutches? lol
Hello Karp, it is good to talk to you again. What if god were both relative and absolute, perfect and imperfect, logical and illogical, infinitely intelligent and without intelligence at all; but not the or? That doesn’t make much sense to our human minds, does it? Since when does god have to make sense, because god is also the lack of sense. Outside of time and in every moment of time, outside of space and in every parcel of space. I am certain it is OK with god, that prismatic argues gods nonexistence, it is an imperfect/perfection reflexively to do so. But he hasn’t proven anything as I can not prove that god exists. Ya gotta sort of get yourself past that idea. Ultimately I am not trying to prove god exists, because it doesn’t matter in anyway beyond me. It is a matter between me and ME? One of those things you just have to sort out for yourself. No one can do that work for you. If you were to let that work (the being of it) be done by someone else then you have missed the picture for what is not a picture.
Arc, yes something like that. My hometown is in the same state as yours.
The argument god is not perfect has proven only that, relatively or absolutely, but hasn’t proven god does not exist. If you can only imagine a perfect god… then prismatic has done some work you should have done for yourself. It is an interesting reflection, that a god can be and not be in the same moment of time and space. A god can be even what a god isn’t. Thanks Prismatic you have just helped unravel another inconsistency. I thought god could not be nonexistent, god can be both at the same time and in the same space, both all of it and none of it in the same breath. But I believe I am talking about a something beyond a god. I’m an atheist after all. You don’t have to prove anything to me. Hell for all I know, god itself is an atheist. We are, after all talking about beliefs.
If you researched on the theists’ definition of God since the beginning, from animism to St. Anselm, it has evolved ultimately to the idea of a perfect and absolute God, i.e. the ontological God.
The ultimate of inventing the idea of God [an illusion] is to deal with the existential pains churned from the subconscious-fear-of-death responses.
Evidently 70-75% [best guess] of all theists, i.e. the Abrahamic believers hinge on the promise of God [e.g. John 3:16] of eternal life in heaven to relief those terrible existential pains.
Since the promise and reality of eternal life in heaven is such a seemingly tremendous task to any humans, thus there is a need for a being that is omni-whatever, perfect and absolute who is capable of granting eternal life in a God created heaven.
The Abrahamic believers [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, etc.] in principle are terribly desperate [subliminally] they have to have 100% certainty they will have eternal life in heaven as promised.
This 100% certainty can only come from an omni-whatever, perfect and absolute God.
Any chink in their God will generate uncertainty, doubts and unease.
The holy texts of Christianity and Islam claimed their God is absolutely perfect.
The above is the same with other non-Abrahamic theistic religions who by faith believe in a God who has to be perfect and absolute.
To accept a less than perfect God for any theist at present would be very stupid, because it is so easy, i.e. merely relying on a thought and faith to change from a less-perfect god to a perfect God.
It is so easy, just add the adjective ‘perfect’ to one’s God and viola one can have the hope of a 100% certainty to eternal life.
Therefore it is NOT rational for a theist to accept a less than perfect God.
Yes, there are theists who accept a less that perfect God because they have not faced the issue and weakness of a less than perfect God. These are the ignorant in tribes, rural and faraway places who had relied on their past traditions.
There are the polytheists who accept lesser than perfect gods but even in such cases, there is an overriding perfect God that dominates over all other lower gods. E.g. in Hinduism it is said there are 1000s of gods but the ultimate God is always Brahman.
In principle, the inherent one-up drive within all humans will ultimately drive all theists toward the perfect God, so no theist can have a one-up God over their God.
Yeah pretty lame imaginations. Perhaps man got god wrong from the get go, never quite got his fingers around the prize so to speak. Perhaps you are just arguing against an imperfect description.
Yeah I guess that works for some but are you claiming its a universal thing? Why isn’t it working on you?
And likely just as many faerie tales end with… and everyone lived happily ever after.
I don’t think a god is responsible for that at all, that’s just good ole human self delusion.
But it might be rational for an atheist to accept the notion of a god that is imperfect.
Yeah that is a problem with theism, but I question your statement of fact that it is inherent within all humans. Incidentally you still haven’t proven god is an impossibility, while you likely have come close to proving no indoctrinated human has gotten god right yet. Humans make human mistakes.
My mission in the thread is not to prove ‘God does not exist’.
What I attempting to do is the question of ‘God’ as a term for consideration of existence and reality is moot and a non-starter.
Analogically, in terms ‘square-circle’ married-bachelors and other contradictory terms are moot and a non-starter in consideration whether they exists are real or not.
The above are very obvious contradictions but the word ‘God’ is the same shoes when we dig deeper into it philosophically as I had done.
This makes no sense at all. It is just a contradictory statement, i.e. p can be not-p.
Note your use of ‘be,’ there is no way God can be real.
God can be a reified-thought in the brain of theists represented by the respective neural activities, but it cannot be real like an apple-that-can-eaten and justified to exist empirically and philosophically.
My OP is not merely for debating.
My mission and vision is ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’.
The word ‘God’ is reified by theists as ‘real’ to the extent that such a God [illusory] has sent His commands and exhort theists to war against and kill non-believers [e.g. Allah of Islam].
Islam and Christianity also has other elements that counter the advancements of humanity.
This are great hindrances to ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity.’
Therefore humanity must wean of the idealization of God as ‘real’ and then there will be ZERO killings and violence related to any God.
Humanity will find fool proof alternatives for ex-theists to deal with the unavoidable inherent existential crisis and contribute to ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’.
As indicated above, that God must uncomprisingly and ultimately be perfect, absolute with omni-whatever, which make God an impossibility to exists as real.
Note is it not impossible for the word ‘God’ to be thought, but that word cannot be represented as anything real empirically and philosophically.
I have defined ‘real’ as grounded on the empirical and encompassed by the philosophical.
I understand your notion of “real” and it’s empirical grounds. I also acknowledge we don’t know the half of it. There are some fairly wild theories out there that allow for some wiggle room regarding notions of real. You think any human being is capable of reasoning what is absolutely real? How many times in our history has that been proven a contradiction?
I don’t agree that god must be anything we are capable of understanding, perfect, absolute or what ever. You seem stuck in the same paradigm humans have stuck god in. I don’t believe a god has to make sense to us. Because we insist on our current capacity to understand anything as absolute, is exactly why I think it could be a possibility. Empirically we have a good track record of succeeding in proving ourselves wrong regarding a theory. A law isn’t a law because we have proven it true, a law is a law because we haven’t been capable of proving it wrong. Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality. Those aren’t my words alone. The two don’t make sense in relation to each other. We require further understanding.
So I back up a bit.
Or so we think or don’t, given what we believe we know. Of course, I can’t believe what I think you are saying, that you ‘know’ what is absolutely real, then rationalize the quantum and relative theories. That would impress me.
Yes, you have stated that before, and it still strikes me as irony. Let me guess, you think a belief in a god is the problem… Maybe a god would not require our belief. We could be a planet of atheists and we would still not find peace. That isn’t a gods fault. It remains a very human fault. Atheists and theists alike. I’d guess you’re barking up the wrong tree.
While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined. God is an impossibility is an assertion.
I think that perfection is something that human-beings attribute to things when we don’t perceive any flaws in something(s) or when something(s) excels in such a way that it seems, well, perfect. What we perceive as perfect may seem that way, but it cannot be known as a certainty that there is not something better or greater than what we currently perceive as being perfect, because absolute is only a measure of what we can currently comprehend, if that makes sense?
Comparative to human beings, the Abrahamic God is perfect because “he” purportedly possesses qualities that make it perfect, like having all the Omni’s. I don’t see a contradiction in believing that a being possessing all of the omni’s exists, but I think someone must have faith to do so.
The Abrahimic God is posited as being perfect, but if we take the Bible as an example, not everyone will interpret God’s character and actions as being perfect. Which I think would demonstrate that perfection can be something that is perceived on an individualistic basis, and is not necessarily universally accepted. So whilst God may seem perfect some ways to some people, he is not perceived as perfect by others or all - an example of this could be how Christians and Muslims would perceive each others “God”.
I think that from the perspective of an atheist or agnostic, because of what we currently know about reality, that something sentient can be perfect is difficult to accept as a possibility, and the fact that such an entity is directly related to “spirituality”, a purported aspect of life that cannot be proven to exist, makes it unlikely that anyone without faith will believe that such a being can exist. But without substantive proof on either side of the God argument, I think that our perceptions and ideas of what is absolutely likely, unlikely, possible and impossible, should be considered from the perspective of what they actually are.
I did not claim humans are capable of what is absolutely real.
According the Popper, the most reliable knowledge of what is deemed to be real, i.e. Scientific knowledge is at best polished conjectures. This is why we need philosophy-proper to give it a finer polish but never achieving absolute certainty.
Whatever the wildest theory of what is real, it cannot be absolutely real.
BUT theists claim their God is absolutely real.
That the problem we need to address, not the scientific and my concept of what is real.
I am arguing against the theists’ idea of what is real but you seem to disagree to side with the theists’ theories.
I am not arguing against “your” views that God need not be perfect nor absolute.
As you can see, I am arguing against the theists’ claim, God exists as real. As stated above 70-75% of all theists [Abrahamic] make this claim. 85-90% of all people are theists including the pantheists.
You’ll need to argue the holy texts of the 70-75% of theists [the Abrahamic believers] do not claim God is perfect, absolute and omni-whatever. This claim is extended to another 10% of theists who make similar claims of perfection albeit in different form.
Yes, the empirical basis cannot never be perfect, in fact it is merely at best it is polished conjectures, thus the need for Philosophy-proper to polish it further.
But that the empirical and philosophical cannot be absolute and perfect do not warrant theists to claim their God is real and perfect.
For theists to ensure their claims of God is credible, they have to produce justified true beliefs [JTB] but instead they are relying on faith [beliefs without proof not justified reasons].
As stated, I do not claim to ‘know’ what is absolutely real.
Whatever is real is always relative to a Framework, e.g. the Scientific Framework and Method, which is most objective but yet relative and uncertain.
As stated, we need the higher tools of Philosophy, i.e. logic, rationality, wisdom, critical thinking, etc. to exhaust as much uncertainties as possible.
Obviously there has to be a Systematic Framework and Model that is feasible to yield progress towards ‘Perpetual Peace for Humanity’ which may materialize a reasonable level of peace within say 75, 100 or 150 years if we embark on a program now.
I have argued, genetically all human beings are “programmed” with a ‘seed’ of morality. This seed has already sprouted and taken hold albeit very growing slowly.
There are evidences of a positive incremental trend in the moral compass of the average human being since 200,000 years ago, 10,000, 500, 100 up the present. Albeit not up to reasonable expectations, note the improvements in chattel slavery, racism, concern for climate change, etc. by the average human.
God is an impossibility to exists as real.
So there is no real God to be faulted in the first place.
I have provided the alternative explanation.
Why theists believe in God is due to internal psychology driven by the subconscious fear of death.
Note as Hume explained, there is no absolute knowledge of causality, but rather what is causality is fundamentally grounded on psychological from experiences of customs, habits and constant conjunctions.
The reference is only to theists who claim their God is perfect, not to ‘we’ and ‘all’ other non-theists.
The Abrahamic God, especially Christianity and Islam which is 70-75% of all theists is claimed to be perfect, absolute, greatest of all in the respective holy texts.
This quality of perfection and omni-whatever is imperative to ensure it is beyond any doubt, such that the believer can be assured of an eternal life in heaven as promised by their perfect and all-powerful God.
Note Islam as per Quran claims the Christian God as in the current Bible is a false God [bullshit god], i.e. Trinity = polytheism, God cannot have a biological son as Jesus, etc.
Surely Christians will not accept the above and will not provide any room for the Allah - the Islamic God - to be any greater that their God, who could then destroy their Christian God, which is a threat to their assurance of eternal life by their Christian God.
Muslims will hold the same views as above and provide no room for the Christians and other Gods to be greater than Allah. Again this is highly and emphasized in the Quran.
The above claims by both religions will logically and rationally culminate to a claim of a Perfect and Absolute God for their respective religion. In this grounding of perfection, no God from Christianity or Islam will yield to the other.
The above is the logical argument, why God must ultimately have to be perfect, absolute with omni-whatever.
Yes, faith.
This implies as supported with justified argument, it is impossible for God to exists as real, other than merely as a thought and believed based on faith.
Nope.
It is God’s law and command that God is perfect in both Christianity and Islam.
This is what matters in our discussion and the argument.
The fallible minion believer’s subjective opinion don’t count as far as the laws of the religion is concerned.
As I had stated I am not proving God do not exists as real.
This approach is wrong because this give the possibility God may or may not be real.
My approach is to squash any possibility of whether God exists or not by arguing the word ‘God’ is merely a word and a thought [an idea not concept] that cannot be represented by anything real.
Thus the question of whether ‘God exists or not’ is moot, a non-starter.
Prismatic,
In my statement, God can be included in “things” and theists can be included in “we”.
I understand that God is perceived as perfect by Christians and Islamists.
I’m not entirely sure about this, but I don’t think that all theists believe that perfection is a necessity for granting eternal life. They may believe that God is perfect and granting eternal life is something that he is capable of, but I wouldn’t argue as a matter of belief, that perfection is a necessity for granting eternal life. It may be something that an imperfect God (whatever that means) is capable of.
I think it is reasonable to claim that theists believe that God is perfect, because their holy texts claim that he is, and that conclusions theists reach, are primarily influenced by their scriptures and how their experiences relate to scriptures, that is their “home base”. If their scriptures told them that God is an imperfect being, that is capable of granting eternal life, they would believe that. But God is described in them as being perfect, so they believe he is perfect.
That’s the point. Perfection is perceived.
Isn’t it rather that each religion believes that the other’s God is not real?
Where is the contradiction in believing that a being possessing all the Omni’s exists by reason of faith? What is that belief contradicting?
Which doesn’t mean that every Christian or Muslim believes that God is perfect. Put the text books down for a second and consider the reality of human nature. Believers and preachers will extol God’s perfection, but we cannot know if every one of them, on an individual basis, actually believes that. Even the most devout believers can have doubts about God in any sense. There are contradictions in the Bible, do you think that believers don’t consider them, and that they have no effect upon their beliefs? Your perceptions of how theists relate to their religions seems idealised, have you never heard of people having a crisis of faith?
Mild mannered censorship? There are other people reading this topic except you. I don’t think I’ve even strayed from the topic.
I think they do, you just can’t comprehend any reasons why.
So, it seems as if you are stating, you are not absolutely certain, that god is an impossibility? Admitting a finer polish is a good, for the sake of argument, never achieving absolute certainty is evident regardless.
“According the Popper” I remember a Karl Popper, the manner of your reference is usual. Could you be more clear. For a theory to be valid it must be falsifiable, testable. That, I am told is why string theory was such a short thread, it was thought of as untenable. I have a certain degree of that thinking going on myself. It is tied up within this notion of subjective experience. A mere experience of a contradiction is not enough of to substantiate a theory as contradicted. If science theorized all swans are white and someone went about looking for black swans, an experience of one would not be sufficient to anyone else. I wonder why the person wasn’t out looking for any other colored swan, why as the story goes it was a black swan that would disprove the theory all swans are white?
Was the black swan merely a hallucination, or worse an imagination running wild? In the case of the black swan, the conclusion is a contradiction of the hypothetical theory. But something had to take place beyond the single experience of it. It had to rise above a singular experience to become a valid contradiction. Not seeing the black swan yourself doesn’t work. Not seeing any other colored swan doesn’t work.
I see, it is God with whom you argue. You talk about God as if it is a who? An identity? Some individual with a set a qualities. I gotta agree, that does not make sense. I find your capitalization of the word god interesting as if it’s a proper name or something?
Wow, genetically “programmed” with a “seed” of morality. Why not put morality in quotes as well? Could you refresh me with a summary of the argument? Where did this morality come from? And what was the cause of the “programming”?