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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:14 am

Prismatic567 wrote:However if any one insist 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is an ideal perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality, that is an impossibility, e.g. if the apples are of different species, the more accurate answer would be = 1 red apple + 1 green apple.

You have very serious semantics issues.
se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/

noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics

  • the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
  • the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.


Modifiers to category items are irrelevant to the categorical logic involved (ie it doesn't matter what kind of apple).

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.

The "ideal" is merely whatever you declare. It could be merely a "perfect" match to your blue shirt, yellow underwear, girlfriend's personality, ....

Now an "absolutely perfect" (a redundant term) God is perfect in WHAT SENSE?? Perfect in WHAT WAY? Perfect at doing WHAT???
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:08 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:However if any one insist 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is an ideal perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality, that is an impossibility, e.g. if the apples are of different species, the more accurate answer would be = 1 red apple + 1 green apple.

You have very serious semantics issues.
se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/

noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics

  • the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
  • the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.


Modifiers to category items are irrelevant to the categorical logic involved (ie it doesn't matter what kind of apple).
As I had stated your philosophical thinking it very shallow and narrow. To bring in any semantic justifications in this case is philosophically childish.

When you see two apples the following are true [facts] but qualified to the perspective and conditions;

    1. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.

    2. Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color

    3. Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety

    4. Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. - by Science

    5. Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.

    6. Other valid perspectives ..

The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.

Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives.


Prismatic567 wrote:I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.

The "ideal" is merely whatever you declare. It could be merely a "perfect" match to your blue shirt, yellow underwear, girlfriend's personality, ....

"ideal" = "what is declared" you got to be joking!!!

Note these meanings from a dictionary;

1. a conception of something in its perfection.
2. a standard of perfection or excellence.
3. a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model for imitation:
Thomas Jefferson was his ideal.
4. an ultimate object or aim of endeavor, especially one of high or noble character:
He refuses to compromise any of his ideals.
5. something that exists only in the imagination:
To achieve the ideal is almost hopeless.
6. Mathematics. a subring of a ring, any element of which when multiplied by any element of the ring results in an element of the subring.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ideal


In philosophy, the ideal is related to Plato's Form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Now an "absolutely perfect" (a redundant term) God is perfect in WHAT SENSE?? Perfect in WHAT WAY? Perfect at doing WHAT???
The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus ending up with that inferior God having to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term 'absolutely' is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. "a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists." This is the super Ace Card all theists must hold.

God is perfect in WHAT SENSE?? Perfect in WHAT WAY? Perfect at doing WHAT???
With the generic ontological principle attributed to God, this state and quality is attributable to any claim for God by any theist.

Thus a theist may claim his God is "the absolutely perfect creator than which no greater nor more perfect creator can exists".
Note such a claim is made by theists, not me.
What I am claiming is such a God is an impossibility within empirical rational reality.
As I had presented, perfection if any within empirical rationality is always relative thus an absolutely perfect God which MUST exists for a theist [as claimed by thought only] cannot be possible within an empirical-rational reality.

You are imagine your stance and understanding of 'perfect' is an Ace Card, but it is actual a dud.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:23 am

.Dup
Last edited by James S Saint on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:30 am

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated your philosophical thinking it very shallow and narrow. To bring in any semantic justifications is philosophically childish.

Oh give it a break. You are one of the most shallow new-age drones I have run across at this site. And now, as is often attempted, you claim any concern for the meaning of your words is "just semantics", because of course we all know that the meanings of your words are arbitrary anyway.

Prismatic567 wrote:When you see two apples the following are true but qualified to the perspective and conditions;

    1. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.

YOU JUST STATED, "When you see two apples". Thus your (1) isn't "common sense", nor arithmetic. It was your hypothetical PREMISE.

Prismatic567 wrote:2. Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color

3. Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety

4. Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.

5. Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.

6. Other valid perspectives ..
The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.

Totally, 100% irrelevant to the logic that you saw TWO apples; "When you see two apples..." And whatever details there are concerning the apples are NOT "Perspectives". They are category item details and irrelevant to the premise.

Prismatic567 wrote:Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives

"Under all perspectives"??? What kind of excuse making bullshit is that?
"Oh if I choose to be a complete jackass idiot and ignore logic, then there might be more or less than two apples. I'm FREE!!! I'm FREE!!".

Prismatic567 wrote:The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus that inferior have to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term 'absolutely' is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. "a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists."

The term "absolutely" is redundant. And you STILL haven't related the word "perfect" to whichever standard or ideal you have in mind. And now you add, "greater". GREATER THAN WHAT??? GREATER in WHAT WAY?? Greater at DOING WHAT???

Saying "whatever the theist is claiming" (sloughing blame onto the theist) does NOT answer the necessary question. But even worse, you can't argue against that theist because he never answered it either.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:You tell me, what other reality than empirical-rational reality can any one justify a thing is really real? - dream world? moral world? a psychiatric world?

Again, there's what any particular individual thinks is real "in her head", and her capacity to demonstrate that it is in fact real for all other rational human beings.
Really, when you think about it, what else do we have?

This is the critical point!
What else [basis of reality] beside the empirical-rational reality.
The basis of what is real within empirical-rational reality is not based on what is “in her head” but rather based on experiences shared intersubjectively as objectively justified.

So I will ask again in general.
What other reality than empirical-rational reality can any one justify God is really real? - dream world? moral world? a psychiatric world?


That's not my point though. There is also the gap between all that you experience from the cradle to the grave [in relationship to the existence of God] and all that you would need to experience in order to demonstrate definitively the impossibility of a God, the God existing.

You are basically in the same boat as the theist. What "I" thinks it knows here and now vs. whatever explanation there is for the existence of Existence itself.

It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.

But: "for all practical purposes" neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished --- it just hasn't gotten around to either you or me.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.

iambiguous wrote:Still, in the broadest sense, any ontological assessment must eventually come around to the part where any actual God and any actual human interactions are probed and understood.
And then judged?
The part that you speak of here, while important technically of course, is of less interest to me.
My "thing" here is more to explore the extent which the technical arguments make contact with conflicting human behaviors that [on threads like this one] are intertwined in turn in conjectures about God and religion.


Prismatic567 wrote: The points I have raised traced the root causes of why humans believe in a God as real ontologically when in fact such a belief is illusory and God is an impossibility.
What is critical is we get to the truth, i.e. God is an impossibility and not falsehoold like the ontological God is real within empirical-rational reality.


From my frame of mind, your own rendition of the "root" here is just one more existential contraption. A subjective leap of faith predicated on a particular set of scholastic assumptions that you make about the nature of human psychology vis a vis all that would need to be known in order to wholly synchronize it with an ontological understanding of Existence itself.

Not unlike the leap that Kant himself made:

It still seems to me that Kant "analyzed" a transcending font into existence, because without one there would be no actual foundation for his deontological morality. Which particular behaviors could be demonstrated categorically and imperatively to be the right ones without an omniscient and omnipotent frame of mind able to resolve any conflicting assessments among mere mortals?


Prismatic567 wrote: I would remind you again, Kant’s system/model of Morality is not a deontological one.


And I would remind you that however it might be argued that Kant must be understood here, you either tell the murderer where the woman is hiding or you don't. And you give us a reason why. Then others can argue the extent to which it is or it is not in sync with whatever reason they imagine that Kant would give, given whatever answer they imagine he would or would not provide to the murderer.

It's what you do then that counts. And whether you can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to do the same.

From my frame of mind, any answer a mere mortal gives in a world sans God is a particular rationalization embedded/embodied in "I" as an existential contraption; and at any particular time and in any particular place out in any particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is a long story, Kant presented a very detailed argument on how categorically and imperatively – absolute moral laws – can be established. But in contrast to ‘theological absolutes’ such absolutes are only to be used as guides and not to be enforceable on people.
Kant’s morality is based on the System approach where the Categorical Imperatives are inputs and there is feedback and continual improvements process to achieve outputs as close as possible to the unachievable ideals. Herein is where all the conflicts [Moral Gaps] are resolved optimally.


From my vantage point, however, this is just an intellectual contraption describing another intellectual contraption.

It is only when one makes an actual attempt to demonstrate how for all practical purposes this would work out in the world of conflicting value judgments [precipitating conflicting behaviors that precipitate actually consequences perceived as either good or bad by any particular individuals] that it really becomes relevant in exploring the existential parameters of the "human condition".

Thus...

To me this "System Approach" basically revolves around either agreeing or not agreeing with the definition and the meaning that Kant gave to the words in his argument. What's crucial is that there is nothing "out in the world" that he was able to attach this analysis to. What actual evidence can be tested? What actual experiments can be performed and then replicated by others? What actual predictions can be made regarding human interactions?


Prismatic567 wrote:First Kant isolated the idea of God as based on thoughts and reason only based on a detailed analysis of human activities and knowledge.
Since the idea of God is based on thoughts and reason, Kant relied to thoughts and reason to expose the illusory nature of the idea of God.


Okay, but: discard Kant's transcending font, and how are human behaviors not then judged by one or another rendition of humanism? Some from the left, some from the right. But all eventually taking an existential leap of faith to one or another set of political prejudices.

And, for the sociopaths and the nihilists, once the transcending font is dispensed with, everything revolves around one or another self-serving rationalization, or one or another rendition of "show me the money".

Prismatic567 wrote: There is no need for empirical proofs to prove God do not exists. Like everything that is empirical, the onus is on the theists to prove God exists within empirical-rational reality.


Still, that does not bring you any closer to closing the gap between what you think you know about God/No God here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that this is in sync with the optimal or the only rational understanding of Existence itself.

At best you can argue that you are in fact able to explain Existence qua Existence [Being qua Being] but that I am not able to grasp this.

The difficulty I have with this is that I find it hard to understand what it means as it is applicable to an actual existing existential crisis. From my frame of mind, the "angst" that permeates a crisis embedded in an issue like abortion revolves around conflicting goods. Reasonable arguments can be made for bringing the baby to term. Reasonable arguments can be made for granting women the right to terminate the life of the baby.

Then what:

Then you concoct a frame of mind to make this angst go away: objectivism.

You convince yourself that there are no conflicting goods. Instead, if you embrace the right philosophy or the right God or the right political ideology or the right description of nature, then you can truly know what you are obligated to do.


Prismatic567 wrote: This existential angst has nothing to do [directly] with ‘abortion’ or similar social, political, cultural, etc. issues.
This existential crisis is related to the cognitive dissonance that arise from one’s existential dilemma of inevitable mortality.

This cognitive dissonance is very subtle and subliminal that manifest deep in the brain are effect the human psyche in general.
It is such an ache of the psyche that is very difficult to point to, but nevertheless belief in a God will immediately resolve such a psychological angst/ache. Note many non-theist turned to drugs and opioids to drown those subtle aches. Others turn to various secular beliefs.


Here I can only imagine you outside an abortion clinic noting the above to those on both sides of this at times ferocious debate/conflict. These folks are in the grip of any number of fierce emotional and psychological reactions. Which, technically, may or may not be described as "existential angst". And, sure, for some, God settles it. For others one or another secular dogma. But, still, the bottom line remains: What would Kant tell them?

Imagine him broaching the idea of a "net-evil" to them. As though mere mortals in a world sans God can actually calculate that here with any precision. So he takes his own existential leap of faith in concocting his own intellectual contraption God.

Prismatic567 wrote: Why is killing another person is a greater evil than lying?
This rule will have to be deliberated in detail. It is a long story, I will not go into the details but the point is such a rule is not raised blindly from nowhere.


Okay, so there is then a gap between rules not raised blindly and out of nowhere and rules that reflect the political prejudices of those in power at any particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture.

Yet Kant is really no better equipped than the rest of us in drawing the lines here. Not without his transcending font.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.
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: 22651
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:22 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote: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".

What on earth does this mean, James?
How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others?
.
.
In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?

It means that God is the cause of change. Your Situation is your highest possible God. And your Situation is always changing (although perhaps much slower than you would like, thus "pray to" or rather "seek of" your Situation for help in making it change faster, if that is your desire).

Whatever you prefer or desire to be, humbly seek of (aka "pray to") the actual, real Truth of your Situation.

In other words, carefully look around and actually pay attention to the details of what is going on around you and adjust what you can toward what you prefer. Often that involves others, sometimes not.

Now doesn't that relate to your day to day dasein concerns and a relevant "real factor" in any conflicts going on?


But then according to Prism, your Situation is impossible and doesn't exist. :shock:
:-$
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:14 am

It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.

But: "for all practical purposes" neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished --- it just hasn't gotten around to either you or me.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.
Look around you ... the universe ... life. Amazing and incredible.

It's not hidden. It's not an abstract idea in your head. It's real (and empirical).

Yet for the atheist, it's not a demonstration of God or evidence of God.

Explain that. :lol:
"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 Ecmandu » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:39 am

phyllo wrote:
It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.

But: "for all practical purposes" neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished --- it just hasn't gotten around to either you or me.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.
Look around you ... the universe ... life. Amazing and incredible.

It's not hidden. It's not an abstract idea in your head. It's real (and empirical).

Yet for the atheist, it's not a demonstration of God or evidence of God.

Explain that. :lol:


Laugh all you want. Sexual stratification dictates that if it were addressed to equalize the distribution in a global intentional community, that we'd have more peace and not have been born in this context, if we have souls, but every being in a more peaceful context. That fact raises questions.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6823
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:50 am

Laugh all you want.
Okay :lol: :lol: :lol:

Peace is a decision.
"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 Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:39 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:When you see two apples the following are true but qualified to the perspective and conditions;

    1. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.

YOU JUST STATED, "When you see two apples". Thus your (1) isn't "common sense", nor arithmetic. It was your hypothetical PREMISE.

Prismatic567 wrote:2. Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color

3. Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety

4. Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.

5. Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.

6. Other valid perspectives ..
The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.

Totally, 100% irrelevant to the logic that you saw TWO apples; "When you see two apples..." And whatever details there are concerning the apples are NOT "Perspectives". They are category item details and irrelevant to the premise.
You are lost here.
It is obvious there are at least the different common sense and scientific perspectives and sub-perspectives.

Note the meaning of 'perspective'

Perspective:
1. the art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other.
"the theory and practice of perspective"

2. a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something; a point of view.
"most guidebook history is written from the editor's perspective"
synonyms: outlook, view, viewpoint, point of view, standpoint, position, stand, stance, angle, slant, attitude, frame of mind, frame of reference, approach, way of looking/thinking, vantage point, interpretation
"her perspective on everything had been changing"




Prismatic567 wrote:Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives

"Under all perspectives"??? What kind of excuse making bullshit is that?
"Oh if I choose to be a complete jackass idiot and ignore logic, then there might be more or less than two apples. I'm FREE!!! I'm FREE!!".
There is no question of ignoring logic at all. What is that you are yelping in this issue?

Prismatic567 wrote:The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus that inferior have to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term 'absolutely' is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. "a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists."

The term "absolutely" is redundant. And you STILL haven't related the word "perfect" to whichever standard or ideal you have in mind. And now you add, "greater". GREATER THAN WHAT??? GREATER in WHAT WAY?? Greater at DOING WHAT???[

I have given an example in the post regarding God as the Creator, i.e. who is the greater creator and thus the theist God has to be a creator than which no greater creator can exist. Read my post again!

Saying "whatever the theist is claiming" (sloughing blame onto the theist) does NOT answer the necessary question. But even worse, you can't argue against that theist because he never answered it either.
Note theists are claiming all sorts of attributes for their God, there is no way I can list all of them other the tri-Omni and a few common claims.
But the general point is, whatever the claim, say X, they made for their God, the presupposition is there is no greater God who can perform a greater X than their so-believed God.
I gave the example of the claim of God as a greatest creator, which presuppose that there is no other God which can be greater creator than the theist's God.
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 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:58 am

iambiguous wrote:That's not my point though.
There is also the gap between
    1. all that you experience from the cradle to the grave [in relationship to the existence of God] and
    2.. all that you would need to experience in order to demonstrate definitively the impossibility of a God, the God existing.
I see the problem with your views is you are assuming there is a gap between
    1. X - which is empirical and rationality and
    2. a presupposed Y [all there is & God] that exist - which is only in thought and by pure reason.

One point of logic is you cannot conflate P1 and P2 because they are stated in different senses and thus this would be a fallacy of equivocation.

To make a valid sylllogism both premises must be in the same senses, i.e. in this case 'empirical'.
The problem here is how can you be sure Premise 2, i.e. y [God and all there is] is even empirically possible.

Therefore in this case, your idea of a Gap is a non-starter because your P1 and P2 are in different 'senses' [not re sensual btw].

You are basically in the same boat as the theist. What
    1. "I" thinks it knows here and now vs.
    2. whatever explanation there is for the existence of Existence itself.

From the above I am not in the same boat as the theist.
The theist conflate and equivocate two different senses [in this case re 'existence'] within his/her syllogism.
I am only sticking to what is empirical and the empirically possible.

It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.
But: "for all practical purposes" neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.
The above point is not relevant to the non-theist.
The theist makes a presupposition God exists without being able to prove it within empirical-rational reality.
The non-theists stance is indifferent to the idea of God or existence of God. As far as the non-theists is concern the question of existence do not arise at all. IF there is no question of 'existence' at all, why should the non-theist bother.

Why the non-theists bothered with theism are the real consequences of evils from theists arising from the belief in an illusory God. Note innocent non-theists are being killed for merely not agreeing with the theists' belief in an illusory God.
This is why for me, the question of God is redirected to the related psychological factors driving theist to believe in an illusory God.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished --- it just hasn't gotten around to either you or me.
Anyone can speculate on anything, what matters is the evidence and proofs.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.
Not in terms of logic and rationality.
As I had shown above the hypothesis 'God exists' is a non-starter due to the fallacy of equivocation in conflating premises of difference 'senses' thus cannot deductive.
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 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:37 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: The points I have raised traced the root causes of why humans believe in a God as real ontologically when in fact such a belief is illusory and God is an impossibility.
What is critical is we get to the truth, i.e. God is an impossibility and not falsehood like claiming the ontological God is real within empirical-rational reality.


From my frame of mind, your own rendition of the "root" here is just one more existential contraption. A subjective leap of faith predicated on a particular set of scholastic assumptions that you make about the nature of human psychology vis a vis all that would need to be known in order to wholly synchronize it with an ontological understanding of Existence itself.
My OP is not an existential contraption.
It is a syllogistic argument with sound deductive conclusion, i.e. God is an Impossibility, and thus a non-starter to deliberate within an empirical-rational reality.

This is like a battle between 'reason' versus 'reason', albeit pure primal reasoning versus refined higher cortical reasoning.

Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [God, Soul, Whole-Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397


Per Kant, the idea of God arose from the very Nature of Reason and they are sophistications of Pure Reason. The idea of a God is due to very subtle sophisticated 'deception' of the mind [for a desperate psychological reason] to lead the theists to believe God is real when it is actually an illusion.

Kant has used the higher refined higher cortical reasoning to outwit the above primal pure reason to prove God is an illusion.
There is a saying in Buddhism, ultimately reason [higher cortical] must kill reason [lower primal] itself so that one can actualize the truth.

So mine is not a whatever-contraption but rather a sound deductive argument to overcome the pseudo-deductive argument of the theist re God exists.


And I would remind you that however it might be argued that Kant must be understood here, you either tell the murderer where the woman is hiding or you don't. And you give us a reason why. Then others can argue the extent to which it is or it is not in sync with whatever reason they imagine that Kant would give, given whatever answer they imagine he would or would not provide to the murderer.

It's what you do then that counts. And whether you can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to do the same.

From my frame of mind, any answer a mere mortal gives in a world sans God is a particular rationalization embedded/embodied in "I" as an existential contraption; and at any particular time and in any particular place out in any particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
Note Kant's System of Morality & Ethics is not expected to achieve results immediately.
Kant's Kant's System of Morality & Ethics will produce results when certain conditions are met.
One main condition is the average Moral Intelligence [MQ] of humanity must be at least say 100 times the current Moral Intelligence where the average person will rational adopts Kant's system.
For example if the average IQ of humanity at present is say 90, imagine what humanity will be able to achieve if the average IQ of humanity is say 300! [> Einstein's].

The question is, it is possible to increase the average Moral Intelligence of humanity 100 times the current MQ. Based on another thesis on this question, I am optimistic this is possible within the next >100 >150 >200 years but we have to lay the foundation at the present and thus such discussion.

One point about Kant is he is very thorough and he laid down many other conditions to ensure his Moral and Ethics System will be effective.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is a long story, Kant presented a very detailed argument on how categorically and imperatively – absolute moral laws – can be established. But in contrast to ‘theological absolutes’ such absolutes are only to be used as guides and not to be enforceable on people.
Kant’s morality is based on the System approach where the Categorical Imperatives are inputs and there is feedback and continual improvements process to achieve outputs as close as possible to the unachievable ideals. Herein is where all the conflicts [Moral Gaps] are resolved optimally.


From my vantage point, however, this is just an intellectual contraption describing another intellectual contraption.

It is only when one makes an actual attempt to demonstrate how for all practical purposes this would work out in the world of conflicting value judgments [precipitating conflicting behaviors that precipitate actually consequences perceived as either good or bad by any particular individuals] that it really becomes relevant in exploring the existential parameters of the "human condition".
I do not agree it is an intellectual contraption.
It is nevertheless a hypothesis that is very feasible based on rational arguments and empirical clues.
I have given example of the moral practice of the banning of slavery by ALL Nations. There are many other examples of a smaller scale along the principles of Kant's model that is being practiced and progressing.

The question is how to get to the apply Kant's Morality and Ethics Model to all aspect of humanity's morality and ethics.
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 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:49 am

Prismatic567 wrote:First Kant isolated the idea of God as based on thoughts and reason only based on a detailed analysis of human activities and knowledge.
Since the idea of God is based on thoughts and reason, Kant relied to thoughts and reason to expose the illusory nature of the idea of God.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but: discard Kant's transcending font, and how are human behaviors not then judged by one or another rendition of humanism? Some from the left, some from the right. But all eventually taking an existential leap of faith to one or another set of political prejudices.

And, for the sociopaths and the nihilists, once the transcending font is dispensed with, everything revolves around one or another self-serving rationalization, or one or another rendition of "show me the money".
As I had stated Kant's Morality and Ethics System targets to increase simultaneously the MQ [Moral Intelligence] of the average human 100 time greater than the current average.

As such there should be a project of humanity that addresses ALL evils from the whole spectrum of humanity including religious-based evil I had been discussing here. This will include addressing the problematic sociopaths, and others who are evil prone.

All humans will in the future co-operate based on good shared values naturally and spontaneously without being forced or coerced into it.

Prismatic567 wrote: There is no need for empirical proofs to prove God do not exists. Like everything that is empirical, the onus is on the theists to prove God exists within empirical-rational reality.


Still, that does not bring you any closer to closing the gap between what you think you know about God/No God here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that this is in sync with the optimal or the only rational understanding of Existence itself.

At best you can argue that you are in fact able to explain Existence qua Existence [Being qua Being] but that I am not able to grasp this.
Note my earlier argument in the first of this series re you cannot presuppose there is a God, until you have proven God exists. But as I had proven God is an impossibility and a non-starter.
In addition, note Meno's Paradox where you cannot take for granted there is something unknown to be known, it is more problematic for an unknown without empirical possibility.

Note the thread I raised on 'What is Dasein?' I am interested what is your conception of 'Dasein'. I have read a lot on Heidegger but do not have a good grasp of his philosophies.
If I am not mistaken Heidegger's view is humans are 'thrown into' existence. Such a view can lead to problems because the implied metaphors [Lakoff and Johnson] like the 'container' metaphor where things are thrown "into" some container. This naturally to lead to linking 'existence' with some thing, but the reality is there is no thing in the first place. It is only this default metaphor [thus psychology] that compel one to relate to some thing ending as a reified thing from no thing.

Thus philosophically one should not be overly insistence with 'God exists' or 'God do not exists' but rather faced "reality" as an emergence that unfold interdependently with the subject-as-no-thing.

Here I can only imagine you outside an abortion clinic noting the above to those on both sides of this at times ferocious debate/conflict. These folks are in the grip of any number of fierce emotional and psychological reactions. Which, technically, may or may not be described as "existential angst". And, sure, for some, God settles it. For others one or another secular dogma. But, still, the bottom line remains: What would Kant tell them?

Imagine him broaching the idea of a "net-evil" to them. As though mere mortals in a world sans God can actually calculate that here with any precision. So he takes his own existential leap of faith in concocting his own intellectual contraption God.
Kant will not tell them anything other than declaring there is a potential to avoid such a mess in the future when his Morality and Ethics System in put into practice progressively.

From Kant's POV of view, what we can do at present is to do the best and prevent the worst evils wherever possible. If we cannot then we have to accept whatever the outcome.

What Kant will be asking is, how can we prevent such existing evils in the future and his solution would be to start establishing the foundation now with the expectation of effective progressive results to come in 50, 100, and to plateau within 200 years.
This is done without having to believe God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality.

Prismatic567 wrote: Why is killing another person is a greater evil than lying?
This rule will have to be deliberated in detail. It is a long story, I will not go into the details but the point is such a rule is not raised blindly from nowhere.


Okay, so there is then a gap between rules not raised blindly and out of nowhere and rules that reflect the political prejudices of those in power at any particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture.

Yet Kant is really no better equipped than the rest of us in drawing the lines here. Not without his transcending font.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.
Yes, it only seems to you.
There is no Universal standards at present, but it not very difficult to establish universal standards and progressively improve on it.

First we need to produce a full list of all known and possible evils acts of humans.
Re degrees of evilness, if we rate genocides at the highest at 99/100, murder at 80/100 and petty crimes at 5/100, it is not too difficult to rate those acts of evil in between the highest and the lowest to arrive at a first draft for further deliberation to arrive at sufficient consensus. Note this is within the midst of a continual progressive trend in the increase of average Moral Intelligence and other intelligences within humanity.
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 Snark » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:12 pm

What was Kant’s conclusion regarding his own morals?
Snark
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:53 pm

“In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former can ever be taken from me.” — Immanuel Kant

This seems to blow a hole in Spectrum’s — I mean Prismatic567’s — reasons for idealizing Kant.
Snark
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:08 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:First we need to produce a full list of all known and possible evils acts of humans.

Wow. I would really like to see that list.
You should start a thread on it.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:58 am

Snark wrote:“In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former can ever be taken from me.” — Immanuel Kant

This seems to blow a hole in Spectrum’s — I mean Prismatic567’s — reasons for idealizing Kant.
Re the above, there is no reference to Kant's book.
I have mentioned many times Kant believed God is a possibility on moral grounds [not the common moral argument for God btw] and this is one point I do not agree with Kant.

The major point of Kant's CPR is it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational reality. In this sense, God is illusory.

Note this which I had quoted very often [mine].

Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [God, Soul, The Whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
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 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:03 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:First we need to produce a full list of all known and possible evils acts of humans.

Wow. I would really like to see that list.
You should start a thread on it.
I have already done that but have not organized it efficiently yet.

Note my main project is 'Islam is Inherently Evil' and my thesis would be very empty if I do not do a thorough research on what I meant by 'evil' for that thesis.
In addition I have to dig into more details [related neuropsychology, neurosciences, etc.] for each of the critical evils, e.g. genocides and the likes.
For literature review purpose I have to exhaust all research and views that are accessible to me.
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 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:57 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Note my main project is 'Islam is Inherently Evil' and my thesis would be very empty if I do not do a thorough research on what I meant by 'evil' for that thesis.
In addition I have to dig into more details [related neuropsychology, neurosciences, etc.] for each of the critical evils, e.g. genocides and the likes.
For literature review purpose I have to exhaust all research and views that are accessible to me.

And of course ignore the ones that don't agree with you.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:58 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Note my main project is 'Islam is Inherently Evil' and my thesis would be very empty if I do not do a thorough research on what I meant by 'evil' for that thesis.
In addition I have to dig into more details [related neuropsychology, neurosciences, etc.] for each of the critical evils, e.g. genocides and the likes.
For literature review purpose I have to exhaust all research and views that are accessible to me.

And of course ignore or discredit the ones that don't agree with you.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Snark » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:27 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:“In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former can ever be taken from me.” — Immanuel Kant

This seems to blow a hole in Spectrum’s — I mean Prismatic567’s — reasons for idealizing Kant.
Re the above, there is no reference to Kant's book.
I have mentioned many times Kant believed God is a possibility on moral grounds [not the common moral argument for God btw] and this is one point I do not agree with Kant.

The major point of Kant's CPR is it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational reality. In this sense, God is illusory.

Note this which I had quoted very often [mine].

Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions [God, Soul, The Whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

The point is, he undermines his own philosophy and therefore yours. The quote I cited is from Critique of Pure Reason , quite fittingly near the end of the book. Is it not odd that critics of religion, like you, argue like Kant is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but ignore his conclusion?
Snark
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:53 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Note before we get things down to Earth.
You will note that most of the scientific, knowledge and technological realities realized at present were once speculated and encased in a hypothesis in thoughts only and played around in the minds of people.
This why Einstein stated "Imagination is more important than knowledge."


The religious folks, however, can argue much the same thing about God. He is imagined in the minds of mere mortals here and now and one day His existence will become manifest. It's just that for most of the faithful this manifestation occurs in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Prismatic567 wrote:Whatever benefits from Buddhism at the higher levels are supported by empirical evidences, it is just that these are confined to a small number of people. So the task is to deliver these benefits to a majority of people.


All I can do here [yet again] is to note this as a "general description". What particular contexts in which Buddhists make claims of benefits. And you can bet there will be any number of folks lining up to argue that, on the contrary, we will benefit all the more if we think like they do, feel like they do, behave like they do.

If Buddhism "works" for someone, fine. But [from my frame of mind] it doesn't make dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away. And mere mortals of either the Eastern or the Western persuasion are still confronted with connecting the dots between the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side of it.

That doesn't go away either. And we know for a fact there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of contexts in which those behaviors come into conflict.

And all the self-development and meditation in the world doesn't seem to putting much of a dent into that.
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: 22651
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:28 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote: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".

What on earth does this mean, James?
How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others?
.
.
In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?

It means that God is the cause of change.


If God is the cause of change how then does this allow for human autonomy?

And how have you in fact demonstrated that this is true beyond merely asserting it is in sync with RM/AO?

Again: How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others?

James S Saint wrote: Your Situation is your highest possible God. And your Situation is always changing (although perhaps much slower than you would like, thus "pray to" or rather "seek of" your Situation for help in making it change faster, if that is your desire).

Whatever you prefer or desire to be, humbly seek of (aka "pray to") the actual, real Truth of your Situation.


Is it even possible to express this more abstractly? Note a particular context in your own life that would allow us to grasp this more clearly.

Note to others:

Again, what am I missing here? What is he telling us about the Real God that we might all be able to grasp in turn? What are you able to grasp and then convey to us more substantively?

James S Saint wrote: In other words, carefully look around and actually pay attention to the details of what is going on around you and adjust what you can toward what you prefer. Often that involves others, sometimes not.


This is like something that we might get from a horoscope: so numbingly vague that almost anything can be said to be in sync with it.

James S Saint wrote: Now doesn't that relate to your day to day dasein concerns and a relevant "real factor" in any conflicts going on?


You actually do believe that it does, don't you James?
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: 22651
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.

But: "for all practical purposes" neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.

Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished --- it just hasn't gotten around to either you or me.

Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.
Look around you ... the universe ... life. Amazing and incredible.

It's not hidden. It's not an abstract idea in your head. It's real (and empirical).

Yet for the atheist, it's not a demonstration of God or evidence of God.

Explain that. :lol:


Sure, that may well be a demonstration of God's existence.

And if that is all that is necessary in order for you to believe in the existence of God, fine.

But why does that have to be all that it is necessary for others to believe, in turn?

And, if God, why your God? Why not James's Real God? Why not uccisore's ultra-conservative God? Why not Ierrellus's all forgiving God?

And you know me: if your God, how then do you connect the dots between the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave and your imagined fate on the other side of it?

And with so much at stake here wouldn't any actual extant God make it abundantly clear what that crucial righteous path is? Instead, we have hundreds and hundreds of conflicting narratives all laying claim to the one true God.

Explain that. :lol:
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: 22651
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:And how have you in fact demonstrated that this is true beyond merely asserting it is in sync with RM/AO?

Again: How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others?

You ask of me how it relates. I explained how it relates. You did not ask to prove it to you. I am not interested in proving anything to you in particular because that would be even more futile than trying to prove anything to Prism. Truth and logic don't count at all. You merely incessantly preach whatever you want others to believe.
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: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users