God is an Impossibility

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:41 am

Prismatic567 wrote:The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.

That seems kind of silly. Are you under the illusion that no being can be greater than human???
Wow .. :-?


And btw, to the LDS Mormons, God IS "human like".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:55 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The only possible empirical agency of greater power than humans we can link to is human-liked.

That seems kind of silly. Are you under the illusion that no being can be greater than human???
Wow .. :-?
And btw, to the LDS Mormons, God IS "human like".
I never said the above.
You missed my point.

What I stated is;
It is possible for beings to be real and greater [in power, whatever] than human beings on Earth.
However to be possibly real, such being must have at least basic empirical anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. the bearded man in the sky.

If it does not have human physical qualities, it must at least have human like agency and consciousness. If such aliens are identified as non-empirical, then it has no emprical basis and cannot be proven [empirically and rationally] to be real at all.

Thus is it possible to have human-liked [the most basic] aliens [empirically based] who are highly intelligent existing somewhere billions of light years away. Perhaps what is going on in our known Universe is merely a reality-TV show for them! We can speculate on anything for them as long as they are empirically based. The ultimate is the production of empirical evidence to prove their objective existence.
It has to be empirically based so that its existence can be confirmed [empirically and rationaly] if empirical evidence are produced for verification of its existence.

And btw, to the LDS Mormons, God IS "human like".
It could be human like but being monotheistic, it is ultimately to be more likely an absolutely perfect God which is thus an impossibility.

There are those who believe their God is monkey-liked existing somewhere in the Universe.
If they do not insist such a god is absolutely perfect, then I can accept such a god is empirically possible [of negligible probability]. So the question of realness is for them to produce the empirically evidence for a real monkey-liked to appear for empirical testing and verification. Based on current knowledge, the possibility of such an empirically-based monkey-liked god is very unlikely.

Note theists who claimed their monkey-liked god exists will naturally concede their God is not absolutely perfect as such a monkey-god [hanuman] cannot be superior to a elephant-liked God [Ganesha]. In general, empirically an elephant is more powerful than a monkey in nature.

Normally those who believe in a monkey-liked God and other empirical based Gods will also believe in one absolute supreme perfect God that dominates all other god [e.g. Brahman of Hinduism]. Such a supreme God is generally idealized as an absolutely perfect God which cannot be empirical, thus an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:It's true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God's existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.
I agree this would be miraculous [apparently]. Even if this is done repeatedly I would not accept this is due to a God defined as an absolutely perfect God.
It is possible for such a person to hear from human-liked aliens of very high intelligence sending the message and perform the feat.
Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.


True. But I can dream, can't I? [-o<

Prismatic567 wrote: But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion.


Again, in my view, you assert this as though by the fact of asserting it that makes it true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate this empirically. Any more than Kant, in suggesting that in order to sustain the relevance of his categorical imperative [one rendition of a deontological morality] the existence of God [the transcending font] was imperative. As though this proves the existence of God.

Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated, I not merely asserting, but I have explained and justified the relevant P1 and P2 in my argument.
What Kant proposed is it is possible for 'God' to exists within his framework of morality. Such a god is not an absolutely perfect God but qualified to morality.
Kant stated categorically in his Critique of Pure Reason, it is impossible to prove the existence of God absolutely.


But then we are back to connecting the dots between any particular set of premises and any particular conclusion [like Kant's] to an actual extant God one is able to demonstrate does in fact exist. And then we are back to why anyone would be motivated to tell the "inquiring murderer" that a friend was in the house, unless they were able to convince themselves that a transcending font does see all.

Apparently, philosophically, these things can become quite convoluted: http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/InquiringMurderer.asp

Okay, "philosophically and wisely" note a particular existential crises that besets the human race [in the is/ought world] and expound on what you construe [here and now] to be the more [or even the most] effective resolution.
In other words, in a world sans God.


Prismatic567 wrote: The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.


Yes, that and the fact that the evolution of life on planet earth has resulted in mindful matter [the human brain] actually able to ponder why something happens one way and not another way. And that would seem inevitably to lead to this: pondering why anything happens at all.

And isn't "God" one possible explanation?

What always staggers my mind though [above all else] is the possibility that in a wholly determined universe even this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been!!

How does "I" even begin to wrap itself around that? If that is even within the reach of "I" autonomously.

The fact of Existence Itself seems to get more and more bewildering [staggering] the vaster the universe -- the multiverse? -- becomes.

Prismatic567 wrote: While there is the above main pro and other secondary benefits from theism, it is double-edged and has its terrible negatives of evils when SOME evil prone theists commit terrible evils when inspired by the evil laden words of God in some holy texts.


Again, from my frame of mind, "good" and "evil" are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. It's just that for the theists, they become Good and Evil, embedded in the essential will of a God, the God, their God. .

Prismatic567 wrote: At present humanity already has alternative non-malignant approaches [from Eastern spiritualities] without evil laden elements in its doctrine to deal with this terrible angst.
Therefore if we have foolproof non-theistic alternative why should we settle for theistic approaches that has negative side effects.


Still, until the practitioners of "Eastern spiritualities" are able to connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave, and that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and that which "in their head" they conceive to be God, how are they not in the same boat that the practitioners of "Western spiritualities" are in.

Here, I see very little difference at all.

In other words, the less God becomes an intellectual contraption discussed in places like this, the more He becomes a psychological contraption to comfort and console those in the face of all of the many staggering vicissitudes that follow them from the cradle to the grave.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22658
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm

Have you talked yourself into believing that God does not exist and therefore nothing can be the work of God?


Or: Have you talked yourself into believing that God does exist and therefore anything you are able to believe in can be seen as the work of God?

Then back to square one: What particular God demonstrated to in fact exist?

It's either how you connect the dots in your head to the material world that we live in, or you are willing to nestle blissfully in the comfort and the consolation of what you are able to believe is true in your head.

Wow, could it really be that simple?! :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22658
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:03 pm

Or: Have you talked yourself into believing that God does exist and therefore anything you are able to believe in can be seen as the work of God?
I don't know why you ask the question. I have always admitted the possibility of errors. I have admitted that my thoughts about God may be entirely wrong. It's possible that there is no god. I have written several times that if a person sees no evidence of God then he ought to be an atheist - that is the rational position.

In the spirit of Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ... advanced aliens would appear to us as gods and their actions would appear miraculous. Given your example, aliens are one possible explanation but not the only explanation. From observing the events, one would favor one explanation over another.

What I found interesting about Prismatic's response is how quickly he jumped on the 'alien explanation'. It seems that "God did it" was not even considered as a possibility. So for you it is evidence of God but for him it is not. I replied in order to get him to say what he would consider to be evidence of God or how he would distinguish an event caused by aliens from an event caused by God.

Alas, it looks like I'm not going to get an answer. :(
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:15 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:You missed my point.

What I stated is;
It is possible for beings to be real and greater [in power, whatever] than human beings on Earth.
However to be possibly real, such being must have at least basic empirical anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. the bearded man in the sky.

And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".

Prismatic567 wrote: no emprical basis and cannot be proven [empirically and rationally] to be real at all.

Also wrong. Empiricism is not the only way to prove something. Empiracism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses. It alone never proves anything. It is LOGIC that proves or disproves.

Your attempt at logic is empirical evidence that you believe that it is logic that proves or disproves. Yet you will probably argue anyway.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:46 pm

I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Thus a God which by default must be an absolutely perfect God is still an impossibility.

True. But I can dream, can't I? [-o<
What is dreamt is always conditioned to the dreamer, thus empirical.
If you dream of a God, ultimately it is still an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

But then we are back to connecting the dots between any particular set of premises and any particular conclusion [like Kant's] to an actual extant God one is able to demonstrate does in fact exist. And then we are back to why anyone would be motivated to tell the "inquiring murderer" that a friend was in the house, unless they were able to convince themselves that a transcending font does see all.
Kant only stated a God can exists within the Moral Framework [as qualified] which ultimately is absolute and thus an impossibility.

Apparently, philosophically, these things can become quite convoluted: http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/InquiringMurderer.asp

Re Kant's "inquiring murderer" this is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. It is too deep to explain and discuss here.

Prismatic567 wrote: The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.


Yes, that and the fact that the evolution of life on planet earth has resulted in mindful matter [the human brain] actually able to ponder why something happens one way and not another way. And that would seem inevitably to lead to this: pondering why anything happens at all.

And isn't "God" one possible explanation?

What always staggers my mind though [above all else] is the possibility that in a wholly determined universe even this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been!!

How does "I" even begin to wrap itself around that? If that is even within the reach of "I" autonomously.

The fact of Existence Itself seems to get more and more bewildering [staggering] the vaster the universe -- the multiverse? -- becomes.
As I had stated above.
"The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority."
If you dig into this thesis and understand your empirical "I" [know thyself] you are more likely to get the answer and have better control of yourself than chasing eternally expanding infinities out there.

Yes, 'god' is one answer but it is an impulsive one like how Hume demonstrated induction is from one's internal psychology of customs and habits from constant conjunctions.

Still, until the practitioners of "Eastern spiritualities" are able to connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave, and that which they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave, and that which "in their head" they conceive to be God, how are they not in the same boat that the practitioners of "Western spiritualities" are in.

Here, I see very little difference at all.

In other words, the less God becomes an intellectual contraption discussed in places like this, the more He becomes a psychological contraption to comfort and console those in the face of all of the many staggering vicissitudes that follow them from the cradle to the grave.
Note I was referring to non-theistic Eastern philosophies and the question of what lies on the other side of the grave [God & afterlife] do not arise.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:06 am

James S Saint wrote:And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".
Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to 'being'.
Note the popular argument from Kant, 'existence' is never a predicate.
'Being' or 'existence' implied existing as something, e.g. as a human being with its recognized qualities, an apple exists as a fruit, etc.

Prismatic567 wrote: no emprical basis and cannot be proven [empirically and rationally] to be real at all.

Also wrong. Empiricism is not the only way to prove something. Empiracism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses. It alone never proves anything. It is LOGIC that proves or disproves.
Again you are shallow.
How are Scientific Theories proven other than relying on empirical evidences?
How did a prosecutor proved a person is a murderer in court?

Yes, it alone never proves anything. Didn't you read my point where I stated "proven [empirically and rationally]" Obviously rationally implied the use of logic and other thinking tools.

Your attempt at logic is empirical evidence that you believe that it is logic that proves or disproves. Yet you will probably argue anyway.
Isn't this a mix of the empirical and the rational which I had stated above.
Example. Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

Suggest you think deeper and come up with better counters than the above which are frivolous.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:14 am

Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....
Blind following the ignorant! Think for yourself.

Note:
    Being:

    1. existence.
    "the railway brought many towns into being"
    synonyms: existence, living, life, animation, animateness, aliveness, reality, actuality, essential nature, lifeblood, vital force, entity; esse
    "she finds herself warmed by his very being"

    2. the nature or essence of a person.

'being' is thus related to living and non-living things, or things with or without agency [action or intervention producing a particular effect.]

Since this OP is about God which must be a 'living' thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:23 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".
Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to 'being'.

Wow. :lol:
#-o
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

I guess he proved you right.
[-(


Prismatic567 wrote:Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

And just to clue you in, Einstein's version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:19 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".
Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to 'being'.

Wow. :lol:
#-o
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

I guess he proved you right.
[-(

Prismatic567 wrote:Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

And just to clue you in, Einstein's version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why.
The more you counter the more it exposes the dumbness of your views.

You claimed the following which is wrong!

JSS wrote:Also wrong. Empiricism is not the only way to prove something. Empiricism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses. It alone never proves anything. It is LOGIC that proves or disproves.

Note the meaning of 'prove'.

Prove:
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"
synonyms: demonstrate, show, show beyond doubt, show to be true, manifest, produce/submit proof, produce/submit evidence, establish evidence, evince; More

2. demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.
"if they are proved guilty we won't trade with them"


Generally it is not Logic that directly proves nor disproves.
It is the argument where logic is part of.

I did not claim Einstein's theory is absolutely true as no Scientific Theories can be absolutely true.
Newton's Theories is true relative to a specific perspective but not necessary in terms of Einstein's perspective, and Einstein's theories may not work within the QM perspective.
What is scientifically true is always qualified to specific conditions.
Where Einstein's [or any Scientific] theory is accepted as true and applicable, the proof is based on empirical evidence and rationality.

8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life
https://www.livescience.com/58245-theor ... -life.html

Btw, don't bring in 'ontology' [like magic] into Science. Ontology is never science.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:50 am

Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

Apparently he will never understand what "ontology" means either.

Preachers never learn. I can't imagine why. :-?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:59 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".
Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to 'being'.

Wow. :lol:
#-o
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

I guess he proved you right.
[-(

Yes, of course. But he did not realize it. (Psst!) :-$ :lol:

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Einstein Theory of Gravity is abducted from empirical evidence and proven empirical based theories, then it is finally proven with the relevant empirical evidences.

And just to clue you in, Einstein's version of the theory of gravity was not only never proven correct, but has been proven incorrect. But that discussion is way, way too deep for you. It, like all Relativity, has merely been proven useful mathematics in specific cases only. One can get a correct answer to a calculation without having a correct understanding. Einstein himself said that something was wrong with his theories, his Relativity Ontology. Some people, like the QM with their different ontology, disagree with him and still other people know why.

Not only do they disagree with him. This two different theories are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both of the theories must be false.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:44 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

Apparently he will never understand what "ontology" means either.

Preachers never learn. I can't imagine why. :-?

There are (a) incapable preachers, (b) preachers who use their preaching as a defense mechanism against learning, (c) preachers who get money for their preaching, thus they get money in order to not learn.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:27 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

Apparently he will never understand what "ontology" means either.

Preachers never learn. I can't imagine why. :-?

There are (a) incapable preachers, (b) preachers who use their preaching as a defense mechanism against learning, (c) preachers who get money for their preaching, thus they get money in order to not learn.


There has to be a (d) in there somewhere ~~not all preachers are charlatans, puppeteers, greedy...ad continuum.
The word preacher does at times seem to add a flavor of distaste to one's buds but there are those who are wise and caring and whose only intention is to humbly guide and to let in some light, so to speak.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14945
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:27 pm

Arminius,


I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings


*Being* is kind of a tricky word isn't it, especially when worded that way with an *s*...at least to me it is.
Being implies something which is living and animated and has drive and purpose, so to speak.
Certain things do have existence and essence like rocks but do we really want to refer to them as *beings*?

Normally they are referred to as *things*. Now things do have their place within existence but is a rock a being?
Can anything be called a *being* simply because it is in a state of being? Are there to be no distinctions at all?
Distinctions are important.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14945
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
Or: Have you talked yourself into believing that God does exist and therefore anything you are able to believe in can be seen as the work of God?
I don't know why you ask the question. I have always admitted the possibility of errors. I have admitted that my thoughts about God may be entirely wrong. It's possible that there is no god. I have written several times that if a person sees no evidence of God then he ought to be an atheist - that is the rational position.


The same then being true regarding the existence of objective morality. For all practical purposes, it all basically comes down to "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine." Some merely defend their own values by arguing for a particular set of premises. Then those on the other side defend a conflicting set of premises.

While the sociopaths couldn't care less.

Which is why the existence of God is so crucial here. With God there is that critical transcending point of view able to establish [on Judgment Day] a clear distinction between the saint and the sinner.

There is no question of "being caught" for your transgressions. There is no question of "being punished".

And there it is [for most]: the looming abyss. The need to be "saved" from it.

phyllo wrote: In the spirit of Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ... advanced aliens would appear to us as gods and their actions would appear miraculous. Given your example, aliens are one possible explanation but not the only explanation. From observing the events, one would favor one explanation over another.


Maybe, but [eventually] that just brings us around to this: theodicy. Aliens or not, the consequence of their behaviors [whatever the technology] will be judged. As right or wrong. As good or evil.

You either have faith in one or another God/religion here or you don't.

Beyond faith though...?

phyllo wrote: What I found interesting about Prismatic's response is how quickly he jumped on the 'alien explanation'. It seems that "God did it" was not even considered as a possibility. So for you it is evidence of God but for him it is not. I replied in order to get him to say what he would consider to be evidence of God or how he would distinguish an event caused by aliens from an event caused by God.


Hell, when push comes to shove, even if we were able to convince ourselves that there is evidence for the existence of a God, the God, how would we really know for sure that all of this isn't just unfolding in one or another sim world...or in one or another Cartesian demonic dream...or in one or another entirely solipsistic contraption.

Or maybe it is all unfolding, given the immutable laws of matter, only as it ever could unfold.

Eventually bringing it all around to this: why does existence exist at all? And why this one?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 22658
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:42 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Normally they are referred to as *things*. Now things do have their place within existence but is a rock a being?
Can anything be called a *being* simply because it is in a state of being? Are there to be no distinctions at all?
Distinctions are important.

That is why they invented adjectives and adverbs; Living being, inanimate being, free being, spiritual being, artificial being...

The word obviously came from "to be", to exist. Imagine that notion of absolute nothingness. Then imagine a rock appears within that void. That rock would be and be the only being.
Prismatic567 wrote:'being' is thus related to living and non-living things, or things with or without agency [action or intervention producing a particular effect.]



If you insist that a being must be a living being, then define "living" in a unambiguous way. 8)

Just because something reveals to you, doesn't mean that it was a living being. Science says many things. Is Science a living being? With human features?
Prismatic567 wrote:this OP is about God which must be a 'living' thing
Prismatic567 wrote:If it does not have human physical qualities, it must at least have human like agency and consciousness.
Really? Who ever actually said that God is a "living thing"? "Supreme Being", yes. "Perfect Being", yes. "Infinite Being, yes. I don't remember "living thing" ever being a part of any definition of "God". But then define "living" in a scriptural way. Superficial, naive presumption leads to all kinds of myths and consequential rants born from such ignorant presumption (such as "God must be empirical and thus impossible" :-? ).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm

"Being" is the equivalent to the Ancient-Greek "ὄν" ("ón") whick led to "ontology", the "science of being".

Therefore I used the word "being(s)" instead of the word "thing(s)". The other reason was the succession or the chronology from beings (things) to living beings (things) and to human beings (things).

Now my question: Is it customary to say "human things"?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:46 am

Arminius wrote:Now my question: Is it customary to say "human things"?

Depends on the company that you keep. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....
Blind following the ignorant! Think for yourself.

Your logical fallacy again.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note:
    Being:

    1. existence.
    "the railway brought many towns into being"
    synonyms: existence, living, life, animation, animateness, aliveness, reality, actuality, essential nature, lifeblood, vital force, entity; esse
    "she finds herself warmed by his very being"

    2. the nature or essence of a person.

'being' is thus related to living and non-living things, or things with or without agency [action or intervention producing a particular effect.

I am pretty sure that most readers know what is meant by the word "being".

Prismatic567 wrote:Since this OP is about God which must be a 'living' thing with agency it would be ridiculous to defined God as a non-living without agency.

How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be "ridiculous" to define "God as a non-living without agency"?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:00 am

James S Saint wrote:And somewhere along the way, you missed the point that "being" merely means "an existence", not "anthropomorphic".


Prismatic567 wrote:Again you are so shallow.
There is no reason why we cannot add additional qualities to 'being'.

Arminius wrote:Wow. :lol:
#-o

Arminius wrote:I am afraid, he will never understand that not all beings are living beings, that not all living beings are human beings, and, especially, that empiricism is not the only way to prove something, that empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses, that empircism alone never proves anything, that logic proves or disproves ....

I guess he proved you right.
[-(

Yes, of course. But he did not realize it. (Psst!) :-$ :lol:
Do your mutual masterbation somewhere else and get to the points.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:03 am

Arminius wrote:How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be "ridiculous" to define "God as a non-living without agency"?
The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:09 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:How do you come to the false conclusion again that it would be "ridiculous" to define "God as a non-living without agency"?
The default is; God is the creator of the Whole Universe. It would be ridiculous if such a creator God is not living and has power of agency.

If you bother to stop and think, it is "ridiculous" to think that the God that created literally all physical existence, is a "living being".

But of course, you have trouble with defining "living" anyway.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25775
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users