God is an Impossibility

[Fanman]

KT,

I wouldn’t say he is saying his argument is an axiom, but he does seem to be saying that the premises in his argument are axioms and that the rules for deduction are as controlled as they are in systems WHERE WE MAKE UP THE AXIOMS and the rules. Which is silly. It is an abstract system without empirical content. The existence of God situation has to do with real or posited as real entities. That is an entirely different situation. Mainly me being fussy about the word axiom.

I think it is very odd he says it is moot. I don’t think he knows what that word means.

I thought about it a lot before using the word “axiom” to describe how Prismatic possibly perceives his argument. I considered whether there was, on his part, any admission of uncertainty or self-questioning about his claim(s), and the fact that he believes that the God debate, because of his argument, is now irrelevant - his arithmetic analogy was the clincher. Given these factors (and his arguments in general), I thought there were enough reasons to claim that he believed his argument was an axiom in every sense of the word.

So apart from on this point, I agree with what you say, as I’m hesitant to retract my claim just yet. I’m not going to say that you are wrong, because I don’t think you are and I could be mistaken, but Prismatic believes that his argument demonstrates that it is impossible for God to exist. So as you say, he must at least believe that the premises are axioms, even if he doesn’t understand that, or believe that the argument in totality is.

You have every right to be fussy about the use of the word “axiom”, it is not something to be said lightly, but I feel it is in the right direction of what he’s claiming here, even if it’s not exactly that. He will have to clarify what he means by moot.

[felix_dakat]

@Karpel Tunnel

I am not sure what that means.

I do see overlap with decisions and conclusions. But conclusions tend to be about weighing and reasoning one’s way to a belief. Decisions it seem to me are not about truth per se. Regardless of what one might way, I decide to have attitude X. It’s more a desire.

Of course when individual Abrahamists (since they are the ones who focus on faith and counterpose it to belief and knowledge) use faith and belief and knowledge, they are all over the place.

I meant that, while I don’t disagree with your phenomenological description, experiences of knowledge and faith rest upon processes that cognitive science tells us are estimated to be around 95% unconscious. Traditional stories had ways of representing this situation that can now be read metaphorically. Concerning knowledge there’s the story of Socrates drawing innate knowledge derived from a past life from a boy who doesn’t know that he knows. Concerning faith there are many stories in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament about prophets being called to faith by God against their will–an apt image for the fateful action of the unconscious psyche on the life of the individual.

Faith as a decision to assent to a creedal proposition is a superficial form of Christianity which became prevalent in the 4th century when it became a state religion. Originally Christian faith was about putting trust in a person, God’s messiah, Jesus.

In contrast to radical pragmatists like Rorty, I do have faith that some sort of ultimate reality exists (or is rather being itself), though it is unknowable as it is in itself. Ultimate reality can be construed theistically or atheistically with varying degrees of persuasiveness depending on the skill of the construer. It is the object of scientific and philosophical faith ever pursued and never achieved with finality. So, it seems to me, fully consistent with agnosticism, to suppose that God is at least possible.

The traditional definitions of God with so many omni-attributes, I take to be a metaphor for ultimate reality which is infinitely beyond our finite minds.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

Perfect=devoid of malice and predatory psychology?