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 Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:48 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
The ultimate God listed in the definition of God in the wiki article is the Ontological God, i.e. God is a entity [Being] than which no greater can exists, i.e. perfect and absolute.
Such a definition of God definition introduced by St. Anselm, Descartes and others.
Any other definition than the above is an inferior God which no typical theists would accept.


And so after thousands of years of theists an idea is introduced by some philosophers about a mathematically perfect God, and suddenly no theist would accept anything else, even though they had before and some still do. So, the above paragraph contains its own refutation since before these guys theists conceived of God as not absolutely perfect - which can be seen in the myths and descriptions of God in a wide variety of cultures, including the OT where a clearly not perfect God - who gets cranky, who makes bets with the Devil, who sends angels down to destroy things he has made...and so on...iow having a very human-like temperment and not seeming to have expected certain outcomes since they piss him off.

Of course people will say God is perfect, because they think of God as so beyond us God might as well be perfect. But humans have a long history of fallible very humanlike deities.

Even Jesus on the cross doubted his father, who is supposed to be himself. Either Jesus was not perfect, since he doubted God, or God is not perfect since he was Jesus doubting.

The argument is also an argument ad populum. Most people believe God is absolutely perfect (mathematicall), therefore if there is a God, that God would have to be perfect like that, but such a God cannot exist.

That is such an illogical argument, not just for the ad populum idea, but also because it is an argument based on poison fruit.

The majority of theists believe God is X. Therefore if there was a God, God would have to be X. These people are wrong, there is no God. If they are wrong, then they are not a good source of information.

Further most people who believe in Darwinian evolution have all sorts of misconceptions about it. They don't understand the epigenetic phenomena are not quite Lamarkian. They think it means survival of the fittest. And so on.

Just because the majority of believers in X believe something that does not mean we get to use their version of the belief to test the belief.

Prismatic needs there to be as the only possible deity a mathematically perfect deity.

So he says that is the only possible one and then uses that to refute

theism

in general

This is illogical on so many fronts it's like dealing with a teenager who thinks the constitution entails he doesn't have to listen to his parents about household rules.

And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong - also using faulty deduction even with his poor foundation.

I will bet he has not had the slightest feedback IRL from someone with a real foundation in philosophy or comparative religion

but here he is with his proofs.

Snore.

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Point is the above and many beliefs handed down from millenniums and centuries ago were initiated on a wrong footing and are false.
While many beliefs like the above were corrected to their true nature, the belief of a God continued to be defended by theists up the present. At every turn of defense, theists come up with excuses and the final excuse has to be the ontological absolute perfect God.
Note it is not a mathematical perfect God, but rather an absolute and perfect God based on crude reasoning.

No one to date has presented an convincing proofs God exists as a real thing while the evil and violence acts commanded by the 'real' God continue to be committed by a significant quantum of theists as a religious duty.

What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.

The above is a critical necessity to counter the extremely dangerous threat posed by theists who are inspired by their 'real' God to war against and kill non-believers where the extreme could be an extermination of the human species.
Such theists are not deterred by M.A.D, for them it is a win-win even if they exterminate the human species, since they are guaranteed the highest honor with eternal life in paradise regardless of what happened on Earth.

Like Fanman's, your above are merely noises and complains but without any argument of substance.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:46 pm

Prismatic567

Oh you have your god, be you ever so predisposed to deny it.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:54 pm

Prismatic,

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.


Don't forget to add the man who believed he had demonstrated that absolute perfection was an impossibility.
Fanman
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:55 pm

KT wrote:

And it has gone on for years, with P repeating the same ludicrous arguments where he will even tell theists what they are supposed to believe and then show how what they are supposed to believe is wrong


This is too funny.
Fanman
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:08 pm

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.


Don't forget to add the man who believed he had demonstrated that absolute perfection was an impossibility.


Was that the same guy who claimed he knew what absolute perfection was?

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Artimas » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:50 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.


Don't forget to add the man who believed he had demonstrated that absolute perfection was an impossibility.


Was that the same guy who claimed he knew what absolute perfection was?


Hahahaha. Takes a collective to know that and it's impossible because wisdom is an infinitely reoccurring pattern.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:20 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.


Don't forget to add the man who believed he had demonstrated that absolute perfection was an impossibility.
And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.

Notice the appeal to authority with Hume, as if Hume shifted the way humanity thought as a whole, or even shift the educated classes. He didn't. I love autodidacts, but autodidacts without a shred of humility, an inability to actually interact with criticism and a lack of even a basic philosophical grounding - in fallacies, for example - is really a sad thing.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:54 am

felix dakat wrote:
Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

For centuries, the majority (probably ALL] of human beings thought the Earth was Flat and the Sun somewhat moves from end of the Earth to another. Then the truth was uncovered and proven within the last 500 years.

For centuries, the majority believe 'causality' i.e. cause and effect was a law of nature independent of the human conditions. Then Hume 1750++ demonstrate the root of causality is grounded in psychology, i.e. experiences of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.


Don't forget to add the man who believed he had demonstrated that absolute perfection was an impossibility.


Was that the same guy who claimed he knew what absolute perfection was?


Ironically, yes :lol: .
Fanman
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Fanman » Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:21 am

KT,

And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.


I don't understand how P can dismiss causality so easily. It is perhaps the one area where science can give us an ought. I tried considering the view that, independent of human observation and pattern recognition, things just happen. Not necessarily in series, or with some kind of innate universal conductor instructing one instrument to play after another, but a cacophony of things randomly occurring. But I could not shake the idea that an event, even on a celestial scale necessarily leads to another. Even without the application of logic, there are what we could call antecedents. If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen. Its not just psychology.
Fanman
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:04 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.


I don't understand how P can dismiss causality so easily. It is perhaps the one area where science can give us an ought. I tried considering the view that, independent of human observation and pattern recognition, things just happen. Not necessarily in series, or with some kind of innate universal conductor instructing one instrument to play after another, but a cacophony of things randomly occurring. But I could not shake the idea that an event, even on a celestial scale necessarily leads to another. Even without the application of logic, there are what we could call antecedents. If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen. Its not just psychology.

If you can counter Hume on causality from psychology*, you'll likely win a Nobel Prize for Philosophy.

Hume did not use the term psychology, but Hume argued the fundamental grounding of 'causality' is human experience which implied is psychology, i.e. human behaviors.

Note even 'reason' which most think is something universal, but there are arguments that the fundamental grounding of 'reason' is from biology to psychology.

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen.

Problem is you do not look deep and wide enough.
To dig deep and wide require serious hard work, thinking and reflecting.
As they say, one has to be child-liked and keep asking "Why" endlessly without any finality.

Note in Physics, once physicists believed the fundamental of everything of reality is a particle, but was surprised the fundamental of reality could be either a particle or wave depending on context of observations.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:30 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.


I don't understand how P can dismiss causality so easily. It is perhaps the one area where science can give us an ought. I tried considering the view that, independent of human observation and pattern recognition, things just happen. Not necessarily in series, or with some kind of innate universal conductor instructing one instrument to play after another, but a cacophony of things randomly occurring. But I could not shake the idea that an event, even on a celestial scale necessarily leads to another. Even without the application of logic, there are what we could call antecedents. If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen. Its not just psychology.
I think Hume presents a good challenge to causality. My problem is not with P having that belief, but rather the way considers it a turning point in the history of ideas: that Hume changed the way people think. But he didn't, not in any wider sense, not in the scientific community. QM did more to raise issues around causality, though even with that the bulk of the scientific community and the educated classes still work with cause and effect as givens.

It is as if what he reads is the way the world thinks. His experience and conclusions get projected over the planet. So he can say 'this is theism, this is not theism' and Kant showed that X is the case and that's that. His authorities, those people who have convinced him or who confirmed for him his ideas are authorities he can simply cite to others. It's very solipsistic, apart from the fallacies involved.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Artimas » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:14 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fanman wrote:KT,

And that the vast majority of scientists still think that causality in general is independent of human thought.


I don't understand how P can dismiss causality so easily. It is perhaps the one area where science can give us an ought. I tried considering the view that, independent of human observation and pattern recognition, things just happen. Not necessarily in series, or with some kind of innate universal conductor instructing one instrument to play after another, but a cacophony of things randomly occurring. But I could not shake the idea that an event, even on a celestial scale necessarily leads to another. Even without the application of logic, there are what we could call antecedents. If we look at the life cycle of a star, or something else that occurs without any decision making, one event (or a multitude of events) still leads to another - something causes something else to happen. Its not just psychology.
I think Hume presents a good challenge to causality. My problem is not with P having that belief, but rather the way considers it a turning point in the history of ideas: that Hume changed the way people think. But he didn't, not in any wider sense, not in the scientific community. QM did more to raise issues around causality, though even with that the bulk of the scientific community and the educated classes still work with cause and effect as givens.

It is as if what he reads is the way the world thinks. His experience and conclusions get projected over the planet. So he can say 'this is theism, this is not theism' and Kant showed that X is the case and that's that. His authorities, those people who have convinced him or who confirmed for him his ideas are authorities he can simply cite to others. It's very solipsistic, apart from the fallacies involved.


Sounds like rhetoric to me, which isn't genuine philosophy.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:03 pm

felix dakat wrote:Prismatic567

Oh you have your god, be you ever so predisposed to deny it.


Of course my proposition was ignored. Prismatic 567 seems to be possessed by the myth of his autonomous thinking ego as the philosophical hero who vanquishes the monster god of Western monotheism. Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism. It's a way to go. And he has plenty of company and the support of some brilliant thinkers, does he not?

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Artimas » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:21 am

felix dakat wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Prismatic567

Oh you have your god, be you ever so predisposed to deny it.


Of course my proposition was ignored. Prismatic 567 seems to be possessed by the myth of his autonomous thinking ego as the philosophical hero who vanquishes the monster god of Western monotheism. Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism. It's a way to go. And he has plenty of company and the support of some brilliant thinkers, does he not?


Brilliant thinkers don’t spew rhetoric and merely defend against others out dated ideas. Rhetoric isn’t philosophy. The idea of god he argues against isn’t genuine, nor the arguments made against it. Can’t make an argument against something interpreted wrongly, then claim you’ve won when the view from the beginning is skewed and merely adopted.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:08 am

But this god idea, clung too? I'd guess a lot of religions are way off the mark and it can be attributed to some fairly nasty behavior. I don't think that's a god's fault. Also can be attributed to some fairly kind events and I don't think that's to a gods credit.

Nothing, 'poof' something. That's tough to wrap your mind around.

Our reasoning is relative, I think.

What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.


No, I don't think you've demonstrated anything. What you may have demonstrated is reason doesn't go there. A really big question remains.

How did 'here' get to be a here? I'm not sure we've got our hands wrapped around that. Was here always here as an absolute location?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:06 am

Mowk wrote:But this god idea, clung too? I'd guess a lot of religions are way off the mark and it can be attributed to some fairly nasty behavior. I don't think that's a god's fault. Also can be attributed to some fairly kind events and I don't think that's to a gods credit.

Nothing, 'poof' something. That's tough to wrap your mind around.

Our reasoning is relative, I think.

What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.


No, I don't think you've demonstrated anything. What you may have demonstrated is reason doesn't go there. A really big question remains.

How did 'here' get to be a here? I'm not sure we've got our hands wrapped around that. Was here always here as an absolute location?


What I have demonstrated is, God is a belief that is impossible to be real right from the start and impossible to be real at all.
The idea of God have led to terrible evil and violent consequences to humanity since the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness - must be since more 10,000 years ago or even > 50,000 years ago.

The God or Allah of Islam is responsible for >270 millions non-Muslims as commanded by Allah in the Quran and will continue to do so in the future with the possibility of exterminating the human race, since life on Earth according to Islam is a sham.
If any group of Muslims were to exterminate the human species they have nothing to lose but instead will be greatly rewarded in the Islamic paradise filled with virgins and eternal erections.
Note fact is nukes and various WMDs are getting cheap and easily accessible in the black market. Al-Qaeda the Islamic terrorist group has a specific department handling nuclear and WMD weapons.

You don't have any concern for the above?
Where is your moral compass?

While I have argued away God to deal with the above God-related evil and violent acts, I have provided alternative fool proof solutions to substitute religions in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis that originally drive the majority to theism.

In parallel with dealing away with God related evil, humanity will develop various moral strategies to deal with secular evil and violent acts.

What is your issue with the above?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:27 am

felix dakat wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Prismatic567

Oh you have your god, be you ever so predisposed to deny it.


Of course my proposition was ignored. Prismatic 567 seems to be possessed by the myth of his autonomous thinking ego as the philosophical hero who vanquishes the monster god of Western monotheism. Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism. It's a way to go. And he has plenty of company and the support of some brilliant thinkers, does he not?

What I have done is providing rational argument to support my view and they are very transparent and objective.
All you need to do is to prove my premises are false and my conclusion can be deservingly squashed.

Thus, does his ego become his god. This puts him in good stead with modernism, positivism and nominalism.

You are being rhetorical here and jumped to conclusion on the above.
I am not into the above modernism, positivism and nominalism.

What I relying upon are the philosophy of critical empirical-realism.
So far my arguments are always empirical and philosophical based criticisms and they are being realistic. Prove to me, I am none of these.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:03 pm

What is your issue with the above?


That a really big question remains... and as long as there is that question, some will find a god as the answer. It's a human fault. Don't blame a god.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby felix dakat » Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:03 pm

Prismatic567. Thank you for replying to my comments. You ask me to prove that your premises are false. They’re false in so far as Christian orthodoxy is concerned. You can find definitions of God in the creedal statements and catechisms of mainstream churches. You claim to know what absolute perfection is whereas the well documented traditional Christian understanding of God has always maintained that God (and therefore God’s perfection) is beyond human comprehension. Thus, your entire argument is a Straw Man as far as the Christian doctrine of God is concerned.

You're playing a game you cannot lose. You have chosen an idiosyncratic definition of God that no Christian subscribes to. And if anyone disagrees you disqualify them for not arguing in terms of your definition.

Besides, you have dismissed or ignored many of the strong arguments made by others above. So, in spite of your opinion of yourself, your thread shows that you are not an objective judge of how the debate is going. That being the case, only a fool would play with you on your terms.

Am I being rhetorical? I don’t know how knowledgeable you are of the history of philosophy, but if you like I can expand on how your brand empiricism is thoroughly modern, positivistic, nominalistic.

So, you want to go empirical. What then is your empirical evidence for the efficacy of your argument? Has it persuaded anyone who didn't come to your thread already an atheist?

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:57 am

felix dakat wrote:Prismatic567. Thank you for replying to my comments. You ask me to prove that your premises are false. They’re false in so far as Christian orthodoxy is concerned. You can find definitions of God in the creedal statements and catechisms of mainstream churches. You claim to know what absolute perfection is whereas the well documented traditional Christian understanding of God has always maintained that God (and therefore God’s perfection) is beyond human comprehension. Thus, your entire argument is a Straw Man as far as the Christian doctrine of God is concerned.

You're playing a game you cannot lose. You have chosen an idiosyncratic definition of God that no Christian subscribes to. And if anyone disagrees you disqualify them for not arguing in terms of your definition.

It is so easy for any one to claim what they believe existing as real is beyond human comprehension.
All theists make the same claim that their God is beyond human comprehension.

Muslims claim their Allah [God] exists as real which is beyond human comprehension. Allah exhorts all Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under vague conditions.
If we convinced there is no such real God which is beyond human comprehension, there will be no more Muslims believing in such a God that command them to kill non-Muslims.

What theists are are ignorant of is the inherent existential crisis that drive them to cling to a God. Other non-theistic religion [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] recognize this fact and deal direct with the existential crisis rather than depend on a God [with negative baggage].

Btw, Schizophrenics will claim the people [even gnomes] they had a conversation with, thus direct personal experiences is beyond the comprehension of other people.

I can claim XYZ thing [more powerful than your God] exists and that is beyond human comprehension, what can you do about that?

Besides, you have dismissed or ignored many of the strong arguments made by others above. So, in spite of your opinion of yourself, your thread shows that you are not an objective judge of how the debate is going. That being the case, only a fool would play with you on your terms.

Nope I have not ignored any arguments by others - which one?
I strive to maintain intellectual integrity and would never leave any challenge unchallenged.

Am I being rhetorical? I don’t know how knowledgeable you are of the history of philosophy, but if you like I can expand on how your brand empiricism is thoroughly modern, positivistic, nominalistic.

So, you want to go empirical. What then is your empirical evidence for the efficacy of your argument? Has it persuaded anyone who didn't come to your thread already an atheist?

I am reasonable knowledgeable of the full range of Western Philosophy including Eastern Philosophy.

You are being rhetorical into pigeon-holing me into philosophical pigeon-holes without knowing my actual position.
I am not into positivistic , i.e. positivism which is no more popular and not into pure nominalism.
As stated I am into empirical realism with critical thinking.

My argument is grounded on the empirical.
I don't take a leap out of the empirical to jump to the conclusion that something non-empirical exist as real.
I argue that leap is due to psychological reason within the human psyche.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:04 am

I argue that leap is due to psychological reason within the human psyche.


So it's humans that are to blame, like I said, why blame a god?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:23 am

Mowk wrote:
I argue that leap is due to psychological reason within the human psyche.


So it's humans that are to blame, like I said, why blame a god?

Yes it is all humans including the clinging to a God.
If you claim and insist God exists as real, where is your evidence and justification to prove your claim.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:45 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Mowk wrote:
I argue that leap is due to psychological reason within the human psyche.


So it's humans that are to blame, like I said, why blame a god?

Yes it is all humans including the clinging to a God.
If you claim and insist God exists as real, where is your evidence and justification to prove your claim.


I am an atheist. I claim no such thing. I simply argue your claim that a god does not exist as real. I don't personally have a god. I have questions about the "here" of here and don't have an answer for them. The god you argue against does not answer them for me. Whether there is a god that can, remains to be evidenced. I agree with Felix in the regard that you have a fairly limited definition of what a god might be. A particle or a wave, Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity?

Don't get me wrong. Looking at the question relatively is a sound pragmatic process, but to think you've crossed into absolutes, is a mistake of a lack of imagination. I would encourage you to practice the latter in equal proportion to the former.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:40 am

Mowk wrote:I am an atheist. I claim no such thing. I simply argue your claim that a god does not exist as real. I don't personally have a god. I have questions about the "here" of here and don't have an answer for them. The god you argue against does not answer them for me. Whether there is a god that can, remains to be evidenced. I agree with Felix in the regard that you have a fairly limited definition of what a god might be. A particle or a wave, Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity?

Don't get me wrong. Looking at the question relatively is a sound pragmatic process, but to think you've crossed into absolutes, is a mistake of a lack of imagination. I would encourage you to practice the latter in equal proportion to the former.

I have covered all variations in the definition of God.

One of the ultimate attribute of God is as 'absolute' normally with capital 'A' to differentiate from what is generally absolute;

The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense. It can include or overlap with meanings implied by other concepts such as infinite, totality, and perfection.
In Christian theology, the Absolute is conceived as being synonymous with or an essential attribute of God, and it characterizes other natures of God such as His love, truth, wisdom, existence (omnipresence), knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), and others.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... philosophy)


If you are still doubtful, just google 'Absolute' & 'God'.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Postby Mowk » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:02 pm

Belief, I think is a key to your argument. It lacks proof in the same way any other belief can be held.

If you claim and insist God exists as real, where is your evidence and justification to prove your claim.


We spoke earlier of an absolute certainty which can not be reached.

As stated, I do not claim to 'know' what is absolutely real.
Whatever is real is always relative to a Framework, e.g. the Scientific Framework and Method, which is most objective but yet relative and uncertain.
As stated, we need the higher tools of Philosophy, i.e. logic, rationality, wisdom, critical thinking, etc. to exhaust as much uncertainties as possible.


Yet these uncertainties remain. There seems a required reflexivity in the statement as well. You can not claim to 'know' what is absolutely unreal either. Therefore what you hold is a belief that god is an impossibility.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users